Benefits State time to Change

[Jamblow]

As it says on the tin. Has the benefit state been taken too far with. A class of non-workers has been created. It could also be argued that we reward failure (one example - you don't have to pay council tax if you are a criminal however if you are a pregnant woman you do).

 

I think there is a case that state benefits are causing long term harm.

 

Is this a fair assessment?

 

Probably not - millions depend on state benefits in the UK just to get by and they get by on not a lot.

 

Who knows- personally I'm a socialist who believes in the distribution of wealth but maybe I don't. Maybe I just like to say that to feel good. Who knows how far I would go to protect the needs of my family. And maybe therein lies the problem.

 

Who knows, I'm confused.

[bigwull22]

aye lets go back to the 1920's/30s and let them starve, the problem we have now was largely created by Thatcher and her co-horts

[Boris]

A class of non-workers has been created.

 

Not the fault of the welfare state but the natural way of things as capitalism "develops".

 

Any civilised society needs, imho, a state run safety net for those unable to look after themselves.

 

I agree that there are far too many claiming and receiving whilst they are not entitled, but this is no reason to scrap the ethos or practice of society pooling its resources to look after each other.

 

The theory is right in my book, just the practicalities of it need sorted out.

[Debtor]

Revision is required.

But politics and money interfere with that!

Huge numbers need help, those who don't are well known by those who pay them.

[Jamblow]

Not the fault of the welfare state but the natural way of things as capitalism "develops".

 

Any civilised society needs, imho, a state run safety net for those unable to look after themselves.

 

I agree that there are far too many claiming and receiving whilst they are not entitled, but this is no reason to scrap the ethos or practice of society pooling its resources to look after each other.

 

The theory is right in my book, just the practicalities of it need sorted out.

 

Mmmmm,I see your thinking. We need a safety net but the result of that will be some associated social problems.

 

However the Victorian's did do some pretty impressive things by pursuing a differing policy.

 

I suppose the questions are

A) Do we have the balance right

Are the social problems now outweighing the benefits of the safety net.

[Boris]

Mmmmm,I see your thinking. We need a safety net but the result of that will be some associated social problems.

 

However the Victorian's did do some pretty impressive things by pursuing a differing policy.

 

I suppose the questions are

A) Do we have the balance right

Are the social problems now outweighing the benefits of the safety net.

 

You miss my very first point that it isn't the welfare state's problem that we have this underclass.

 

The emergence of the lumpen proletariat is indicative of capitalism in its maturer phase of development.

 

It is capitalism that is the problem!

 

You mention Victorian philanthropy as doing "good things". Sure, it helped some folks, as long as they signed up to Jesus and eschewed alcohol (or some such other thing that they had to do to show "appreciation".)

 

Anyway, to answer your other questions;

 

A) No

 

No

[Jamblow]

You miss my very first point that it isn't the welfare state's problem that we have this underclass.

 

The emergence of the lumpen proletariat is indicative of capitalism in its maturer phase of development.

 

It is capitalism that is the problem!

 

You mention Victorian philanthropy as doing "good things". Sure, it helped some folks, as long as they signed up to Jesus and eschewed alcohol (or some such other thing that they had to do to show "appreciation".)

 

Anyway, to answer your other questions;

 

A) No

 

No

 

No qualms from me there Capitalism does seem a pretty corrupt system. However what on earth could be the answer. Marxism?

[frankblack]

The problem is that you have generations of non-working families that start breeding as soon as they reach puberty and obtain their own council house.

 

They then raise more kids with different fathers and keep claiming benefits to pay for the housing and kids, meanwhile never having worked a day in their lives.

 

Benefits should be for the genuinely disabled e.g. people incapable of doing a desk job.

 

Nowadays the Working and Middle class term is very blurred with essentially Working and Non-working classes.

 

Where I think the benefit system goes wrong is that there is no consideration for supporting people with mortgages. If you miss enough payments while out of work you lose your home.

 

I know there are protection policies you can take out (and I have done myself), but these have conditions e.g. if you pick up a critical illness that is not listed on the illnesses recognised by your policy, you are stuffed.

 

My general point is that I believe the Benefits System is for the non-working class and there is nothing for the hard-working mortgage payers. I guess that suits Labour and their core vote.

[Boris]

No qualms from me there Capitalism does seem a pretty corrupt system. However what on earth could be the answer. Marxism?

 

Perhaps.

 

Socialism, proper socialism, would be a start.

 

Unfortuately under the current economic system we are all played but some are bought off because they can watch X-Factor/Big Brother/A N Other Bollocks on a nice state of the art (for the next 15 minutes anyway!) TV.

 

Not that I am decrying nice consumer goods, I like nice TV's too! Just that the pressure to consume and have the "top of the range" or the "highest spec" misses the point. All this is about is making as much profit as possible and damn the consequences. People may say "I need a new X". They probably mean to say "I want a new X". Need and want, in our language, are totally different.

 

A new system may happen sooner rather than later, as when the true impact of environmental problems, fuel crises, constant war (1984 anyone?), higher food prices etc really kicks in, what then? Will the people who have been able to access all these luxury items see the error of that previous system?

[Jamblow]

The problem is that you have generations of non-working families that start breeding as soon as they reach puberty and obtain their own council house.

 

They then raise more kids with different fathers and keep claiming benefits to pay for the housing and kids, meanwhile never having worked a day in their lives.

 

Benefits should be for the genuinely disabled e.g. people incapable of doing a desk job.

 

Nowadays the Working and Middle class term is very blurred with essentially Working and Non-working classes.

 

Where I think the benefit system goes wrong is that there is no consideration for supporting people with mortgages. If you miss enough payments while out of work you lose your home.

 

I know there are protection policies you can take out (and I have done myself), but these have conditions e.g. if you pick up a critical illness that is not listed on the illnesses recognised by your policy, you are stuffed.

 

My general point is that I believe the Benefits System is for the non-working class and there is nothing for the hard-working mortgage payers. I guess that suits Labour and their core vote.

 

Do the non-working class actually vote. I would argue the core Labour vote should be unionized workers. However this seems to be where Labour have gone wrong.

[Boris]

 

My general point is that I believe the Benefits System is for the non-working class and there is nothing for the hard-working mortgage payers. I guess that suits Labour and their core vote.

 

There was me thinking New Labour's core vote was the nouveau riche Tory vote in the South of England.

[frankblack]

There was me thinking New Labour's core vote was the nouveau riche Tory vote in the South of England.

 

You are correct about New Labour voters, but those "South of England" former Tory voters don't like a dour "jock" running the country.

 

This will leave them to fall back on their "old Labour" vote that I was describing above.

[Boris]

You are correct about New Labour voters, but those "South of England" former Tory voters don't like a dour "jock" running the country.

 

This will leave them to fall back on their "old Labour" vote that I was describing above.

 

I think your description of old labour voters is way off the mark.

 

These old labour voters were proud to do a days work, not like the spongers you refer to.

[coppercrutch]

You miss my very first point that it isn't the welfare state's problem that we have this underclass.

 

The emergence of the lumpen proletariat is indicative of capitalism in its maturer phase of development.

 

It is capitalism that is the problem!

 

You mention Victorian philanthropy as doing "good things". Sure, it helped some folks, as long as they signed up to Jesus and eschewed alcohol (or some such other thing that they had to do to show "appreciation".)

 

Anyway, to answer your other questions;

 

A) No

 

No

 

You think Britain or the US are Capitalist ? I think on the surface they may look like it. Underneath however they are far from Capitalist states.

 

See NR and Freddie/Fannie for proof.

[Boris]

You think Britain or the US are Capitalist ? I think on the surface they may look like it. Underneath however they are far from Capitalist states.

 

See NR and Freddie/Fannie for proof.

 

Of course they are! Are you suggesting there is some form of socialist agenda happening?

 

The problem for the politicos is that they have to be seen to be doing something if not for the folk that have been left in the lurch, (correctly if they have made an erse of their investment. See the Lloyds name fiasco after the storms down south in the 80's) but for their mates who are running the show - it's all based on confidence. If it sweetens investors and the bourgeois then so much the better. the system perpetuates itself.

[coppercrutch]

Of course they are! Are you suggesting there is some form of socialist agenda happening?

 

The problem for the politicos is that they have to be seen to be doing something if not for the folk that have been left in the lurch, (correctly if they have made an erse of their investment. See the Lloyds name fiasco after the storms down south in the 80's) but for their mates who are running the show - it's all based on confidence. If it sweetens investors and the bourgeois then so much the better. the system perpetuates itself.

 

Nope, just that it is certainly no capitalist agenda. I am no expert on the matter but I am fairly sure in a truly capitalist country when a business fails......well a business fails. End of story.

 

I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong.

[Miller Jambo 60]

As it says on the tin. Has the benefit state been taken too far with. A class of non-workers has been created. It could also be argued that we reward failure (one example - you don't have to pay council tax if you are a criminal however if you are a pregnant woman you do).

 

I think there is a case that state benefits are causing long term harm.

 

Is this a fair assessment?

 

Probably not - millions depend on state benefits in the UK just to get by and they get by on not a lot.

 

Who knows- personally I'm a socialist who believes in the distribution of wealth but maybe I don't. Maybe I just like to say that to feel good. Who knows how far I would go to protect the needs of my family. And maybe therein lies the problem.

 

Who knows, I'm confused.

 

Right mate ive pumped loads of money in to the system for 32 years.

Now i get 50 odd pound back because i was paid off on ill health.

Another we cameron pal or thatcher or maybe i mis-read you

[frankblack]

I think your description of old labour voters is way off the mark.

 

These old labour voters were proud to do a days work, not like the spongers you refer to.

 

There are two kinds of "old" labour voter - those that consider themselves the old fashioned "working class", and spongers that want to keep the benefits coming. Turkeys wouldn't vote for Christmas, and letting the Tories back in to cut back on the welfare state isn't in their interest.

[Miller Jambo 60]

Do the non-working class actually vote. I would argue the core Labour vote should be unionized workers. However this seems to be where Labour have gone wrong.

 

Never missed a vote in my life was labour and a shop steward for 10 years.

 

But SNP now my friend cause you and your tory bumboys can pass off and leave SCOTLAND.

ear the same suits ma ha rather die

FREEDOM

[jambos are go!]

We need to target those who wont work rather than those who cant work. I've paid high levels of tax and NI for decades and expect decent benefit levels if I (or others)fall on hard times.

[Rick Grimes]

Nope, just that it is certainly no capitalist agenda. I am no expert on the matter but I am fairly sure in a truly capitalist country when a business fails......well a business fails. End of story.

 

I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong.

 

nonsense. the US & UK have arch capitalist systems that understand the knock-on effects of letting major financial businesses go to the wall with no intervention.

[Riccarton 3]

The benefit system is very difficult to work in the way it was intended and I would take my hat of to anyone who could pull it off.

[kimura]

When did the state first make education compulsory?

 

a) 1870

1930

c) 1944

d) 1948

 

After many decades of state education what is now the rate of "functional literacy" among adults?

 

a) 1%

3%

c) 10%

d) 25%

 

When did the British government first pass a law compelling the rich to hand over money for the benefit of the poor?

 

a) 1563

1870

c) 1911

d) 1948

 

Some problems caused by social security for which there is empirical data;

 

mass long term unemployment

as a result of the above the poor have become poorer

as a result of the above people have become depressed and alienated

alienation leads to crime

fraud

savings are discouraged due to means tested benefits

self-reliance and self-respect have been damaged

social security increases the tax burden

 

The idea that social problems and the difficulties posed to our society by the welfare state are, somehow, the creation of the Conservative government of the 1980's and 1990's is, incredibly, stupid and shows a lack of understanding of what has happened to this country since the birth of the welfare state.

 

What was meant to be a "safety net" to provide in times of genuine need has, instead, become a lifestyle choice for many tens of thousands of people in this country.

 

A liberal-left agenda to provide us with a "one size fits all" education system has drastically reduced standards across the board and has, in the process, robbed the most academically gifted the chance to fulfill their potential. At the same time pupils who are crying out for "practical" education are forced to participate in lessons that have little or no relevance to them.

 

The NHS has become a behemoth...providing a standard of care well below what can be found in other socialised medical systems (France being just one example) and while we can take great pride in it we could just as easily take great shame from it.

 

The welfare state doesn't work.

 

That's not open for debate or discussion.

 

It has become a tool to control the population...that's not up for debate either. An entire underclass who are totally dependent on the state for their every neccessity and luxury has been created...at the same time the state approved/created education system has made them ignorant and so very unlikely to vote. They are, almost literally, a lumpen proletariat.

 

The left like to paint a picture of poor people dying in the streets prior to the creation of the welfare state and of mass ignorance amongst the working classes while only the wealthy were educated...the truth is very far removed from that.

 

There is evidence, facts and figures readily available that will paint an entirely different picture...the welfare state is a badly managed, poorly conceived and destructive thing.

 

Smash the system...scrap the welfare state.

[Rick Grimes]

Smash the system...scrap the welfare state.

 

 

smashing things is easy. what would you recommend we build to take its place?

[Sydney from Sydney]

Long term welfare causes and prolongs poverty. No doubt about that.

Second and third generation famillies that have grown up on benefits tend to know no different. The culture that long term dependance creates, really doesn't do the recipients much good at all.

The entire sum of PAYE taxes only serve to keep the NHS going. Roads etc have to come from different taxes. I read somewhere that the NHS is the second biggest employer in the world after the Chinese government. If I was sick and infirm tomorrow I'd be heading for the UK, as most of Europe apparently is.

 

Over to you Gordon !!

[Generic Username]

It's a ridiculous state of affairs that a family of total **** lazy gits can sit on their backsides all day every day because they WANT to and earn more money per year than a couple with no kids who bust a gut 40 hours a week.

 

The whole thing needs sorted out big time.

[coppercrutch]

nonsense. the US & UK have arch capitalist systems that understand the knock-on effects of letting major financial businesses go to the wall with no intervention.

 

Show me anything that states in an 'arch capitalist system' a failing business gets bailed out by the Government at the taxpayers expense............

 

If what I have said is nonsense this should be very simple for you to do....

[belly]

It's a ridiculous state of affairs that a family of total **** lazy gits can sit on their backsides all day every day because they WANT to and earn more money per year than a couple with no kids who bust a gut 40 hours a week.

 

The whole thing needs sorted out big time.

 

That is the big influence that they earn money for doing frick all, I wouldn't pay them hard cash so that they can go down the pub, to the bookies, or squander my hard earned taxes on cigarettes. Instead I would give them a credit card style card on which they would be given an allowance, and that allowance would only entitle them to buy food and clothing, not items such as alcohol and cigarettes. If they wished to purchase these type of items the they would have to find a job to start providing for themselves. I would have their allowance stopped if after a certain time they didn't find employment, as there are plenty of jobs out there but they are to bone idol to find one.

As for teenage mums!!

[Generic Username]

That is the big influence that they earn money for doing frick all, I wouldn't pay them hard cash so that they can go down the pub, to the bookies, or squander my hard earned taxes on cigarettes. Instead I would give them a credit card style card on which they would be given an allowance, and that allowance would only entitle them to buy food and clothing, not items such as alcohol and cigarettes. If they wished to purchase these type of items the they would have to find a job to start providing for themselves. I would have their allowance stopped if after a certain time they didn't find employment, as there are plenty of jobs out there but they are to bone idol to find one.

As for teenage mums!!

 

Don't get me started on that one.

 

It's all fine and well a girl getting pregnant at a young age, we all know there are going to be situations and circumstances that are sometimes outwith your control.

 

HOWEVER - these wee scrubbers who intentionally get up the spout because they know they'll get a flat and some money out of it are the bain of my frikkin existance. Why am I having to fork the bill for some wee slags low standards? Gets right up my nose.

 

Same with paying for prisoners to get 3 meals a day, sky tv, access to libraries, pool tables etc - I'm of the opinion that jails were built, originally, as a place for criminals to feel uncomfortable and think "I don't want to end up here again." Now the places are like holiday camps and guys can't get back into them quick enough.

 

It's ridiculous.

[Deek]

aye lets go back to the 1920's/30s and let them starve, the problem we have now was largely created by Thatcher and her co-horts

 

Labour have been in power for 11 years and if what you are saying is correct, must agree with Thatchers ideology or would have changed it.

[Therapist]

aye lets go back to the 1920's/30s and let them starve, the problem we have now was largely created by Thatcher and her co-horts

 

Hilarious. A perfect example of old skool lefty nonsense.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Right mate ive pumped loads of money in to the system for 32 years.

Now i get 50 odd pound back because i was paid off on ill health.

Another we cameron pal or thatcher or maybe i mis-read you

 

And within this post is the fundamental flaw.

 

Namely, that there is no "system". NI is quite simply an extra tax used to pay today's pensioners and those unable to work. It is not a "system" despite what the smoke and mirrors show.

 

With the population of the UK getting older, the strain on the system is showing. The dependency ratio is hammering those in work into the ground and so taxes have gone up and up to help fund it. I'm glad I'm out of it.

 

Meanwhile, the genuine people in heed find that they suffer because the feckless (created by the swindle of moving the unemployed onto incapacity to massage the unemployment figures) have already creamed off the tax take.

 

Unfortunately, Blair had the chance to reform the system under Frank Field in his first term of government. He completely bottled it and the UK is where it is.

[doctor jambo]

There are too many problems with the current system to address without a full wipe out and restart

Social (benefits) spending greatly outstrips income tax take

If I lost my job due to illness I would lose my home, my cars, everything despite contributing greatly over the years- there is no safety net for those of us who work

Merely a safety net for those who dont

This is one of the problems

If we thought there was a reserve plan for ourselves that meant our kids would not be plunged into poverty should we take ill then perhaps we would grudge things a bit less

BUt there is not

ANd the NHS is being destroyed by micro management in an effort to gain "value", which, ironically, is costing a fortune and producing less value

[husref musemic]

Can I add my particular bain.

 

The smack heeds who inhabit the scheme's on the dole, no rent, no council tax and free serving in the chemists in the morning. How insane is it that we pay for there 'lifestyle choice' ? Generations of these fecers to come. Plus the bairns looked after by the social that the junkies drop every other year and we pick up the tab for the lot.

[Jamblow]

Can I add my particular bain.

 

The smack heeds who inhabit the scheme's on the dole, no rent, no council tax and free serving in the chemists in the morning. How insane is it that we pay for there 'lifestyle choice' ? Generations of these fecers to come. Plus the bairns looked after by the social that the junkies drop every other year and we pick up the tab for the lot.

 

This is true and what is shocking is that the service give to **** (junkies/paedos/ criminals) is far better then anyhting afforded to the elderly.

[doctor jambo]

This is true and what is shocking is that the service give to **** (junkies/paedos/ criminals) is far better then anyhting afforded to the elderly.

 

I disagree - most addicts are treated with total disgust by those serving them.

The elderly generally are treated very well despite their constant moaning about everything

God help us all when the addicts reach pensionable age

" I didnt have to wait this long for my meth when I was young" etc etc

"the addicts these days- terrible, no respect, I only robbed people under 80"

The problems will all be solved when society finally manages to extricate all the decent people from the sink hole estates and the addicts are left to their own devices

UNfortuantely their kids are a total right off in this scenario

[Coco]

There are too many problems with the current system to address without a full wipe out and restart

Social (benefits) spending greatly outstrips income tax take

If I lost my job due to illness I would lose my home, my cars, everything despite contributing greatly over the years- there is no safety net for those of us who work

Merely a safety net for those who dont

This is one of the problems

If we thought there was a reserve plan for ourselves that meant our kids would not be plunged into poverty should we take ill then perhaps we would grudge things a bit less

BUt there is not

ANd the NHS is being destroyed by micro management in an effort to gain "value", which, ironically, is costing a fortune and producing less value

 

Outside of opinions on the benefits safety net/reorganisation of the NHS - both things which could benefit from change in my opinion - with regard to your point about what could happen if you lose your job. I guess that your safety net in the past would have been savings built up while you were working.

 

In the UK last year for the first time ever the household savings rate turned negative (if you exclude company pension scheme contributions). Frightening.

[Miller Jambo 60]

I disagree - most addicts are treated with total disgust by those serving them.

The elderly generally are treated very well despite their constant moaning about everything

God help us all when the addicts reach pensionable age

" I didnt have to wait this long for my meth when I was young" etc etc

"the addicts these days- terrible, no respect, I only robbed people under 80"

The problems will all be solved when society finally manages to extricate all the decent people from the sink hole estates and the addicts are left to their own devices

UNfortuantely their kids are a total right off in this scenario

 

The NHS is loaded by hands off managers that dont earn their 25000 and more a year.

I know worked with that shat for 16 years.

[deesidejambo]

I support the current system. Me and the missus and the four weans have been blagging it for years. Youse workers can skedaddle - I will be watching The Open this week.

[Boris]

I support the current system. Me and the missus and the four weans have been blagging it for years. Youse workers can skedaddle - I will be watching The Open this week.

 

:dribble:

 

Hehehe

 

Genius.

[deesidejambo]

:dribble:

 

Hehehe

 

Genius.

And I just got my Sky HD installed. C'mon the workers!!!!!

[Boris]

I'd find it more believable if your username was Teessidejambo...

[arfurdaley]

It's a ridiculous state of affairs that a family of total **** lazy gits can sit on their backsides all day every day because they WANT to and earn more money per year than a couple with no kids who bust a gut 40 hours a week.

 

The whole thing needs sorted out big time.

 

Thats no way to talk about the Windsors.

[coppercrutch]

Thats no way to talk about the Windsors.

 

TO be fair to the Queens she must work a 50+ hours a week easy. And she is in her 80's and done it all her life. Now I am not saying people have to like the woman but I think we should respect her work ethic at least.

 

Before anyone says she has it easy - I can't think of a much worse job than having to be driven around every day to meet random punters and have constant polite chit chat. Horrific.

[Boris]

I can't think of a much worse job than having to be driven around every day to meet random punters and have constant polite chit chat. Horrific.

 

I'll give you the driving around, but your post count would seem to match the bold part...

 

Because you are usually polite.

[coppercrutch]

I'll give you the driving around, but your post count would seem to match the bold part...

 

Because you are usually polite.

 

You calling me a Queen...

[Boris]

You calling me a Queen...

 

Occasionally in a dramatic sense...