Portillo - Idle Young Should Be Entitled To Nothing

[ccc]

The rich aren't doing anything at all for the portion of their income which is this welfare (which is why i call it welfare) and importantly this welfare comes at the expense of higher costs for the poor. Also there are large numbers of rich who do nothing but milk this welfare. You could point to a poor person receiving some form of supplementary benefit and say he is working therefore he is deserving; he may be deserving of something, but he is not deserving of all he is receiving.

I think both the rich and the poor on benefits are taking the mick. In different ways though as you point out. I have contempt for both. I am no snob.

As for the effort theory ? Why would you want a World where things came with zero effort. That sounds horrific. Effort is good. Very little else can make you feel better in my opinion.

[Stars]

Exactly, this is a rentier economy, controlling a resource then collecting rents and levies on something that would exist anyway, traditionally such unearned income was looked down upon because you haven't actually added any value, you have simply taxed somebody elses productive output. This is what the inclosure acts were all about, stealing a common resource then leasing it back to the peasants.

Absolutely agreed

The trick was getting people who work for living; as apposed to charging rent for a living; to agree to be taxed.

[Stars]

Err, exactly my point, that hardly counts as 'zero effort'.

But my point was there is no downside to getting what we want with little or no effort

We already collect our energy from the 'world' to sustain our unsustainable civilisation, that goes without saying, beyond fossil fuels our options are nuclear power (which also uses finite resources) or renewable energy or biofuels that have very low or negative EROEI. We can maintain our present or increased standard of living but probably at 20% of current population levels.

I guess we can pray for nuclear fusion or your cosmic rays to see us through.

But none of these pragmatic issues are downsides to getting what we want without effort, they are practical restrictions upon how much we may probably get for x amount of effort.

I think our convo has a major case of crossed wires

[Guest sillybear2]

Absolutely agreed

The trick was getting people who work for living; as apposed to charging rent for a living; to agree to be taxed.

Consent comes in the form of ignorance through lack of education, and those peasants that display a degree of consciousness about their predicament are just beaten into line. For example those involved in the Rebecca Riots against tolls and turnpikes were convicted and transported to Australia.

Legalised theft is a wonderful thing.

Edited August 31, 2009 by sillybear2

[Guest sillybear2]

But my point was there is no downside to getting what we want with little or no effort

In the real world things do take effort, even if it doesn't personally take you any effort that's only because you've stolen the productive output of some other worker or taken it from some (most probably finite) energy resource that has been stored up over thousands of years. It's a zero-sum game.

You might as well argue that there is no downside to immortality.

[Stars]

In the real world things do take effort, even if it doesn't personally take you any effort that's only because you've stolen the productive output of some other worker

Hold your horses - the broader conversation in this thread, which i was replying to, involves the issue of technology making less work and how this might itself be damaging to people. So..if i invent a machine that makes some drudgery easier, you are arguing that the task is only easier because i am stealing productive effort from other people?

or taken it from some (most probably finite) energy resource that has been stored up over thousands of years. It's a zero-sum game.

Or taking some finite resource and using it, might help someone else find more resources

[Stars]

As for the effort theory ? Why would you want a World where things came with zero effort. That sounds horrific. Effort is good. Very little else can make you feel better in my opinion.

If everything could be had at zero effort, you would still have the choice to do things the hard way.

Edited August 31, 2009 by Stars

[ccc]

If everything could be had at zero effort, you would still have the choice to do things the hard way.

And for many things I would. Some things need effort to be enjoyable.

[Guest sillybear2]

Hold your horses - the broader conversation in this thread, which i was replying to, involves the issue of technology making less work and how this might itself be damaging to people. So..if i invent a machine that makes some drudgery easier, you are arguing that the task is only easier because i am stealing productive effort from other people?

No, in the modern era we steal from oil.

[Big Norm]

What about the people that made them idle in the first place by putting them on the dole and drafting in cheaper import labour??

what about their responsibility and part in the equation?

hire+fire/hypercompetitive for jobs and resources does not make for good social cohesion.

of course if they hadn't debased the education system,we might still have reasonably bright and well disciplined kids worth employing.

So it's not really the fault of the young is it??.......it's very much more the fault of previous generations.

Quite. In the spirit of this site, some numbers are in order.

(workless households: 1979, ~8%, 1996: ~19%, 2009: 16.9%)

And so is a fact check.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/f...+labour/3322997

[HPC001]

Amusing isn't it, they rose during the bust years of Tory governments as well...yet we hear time and time again that it isn't linked to the number of jobs in the economy, and that only lazy people claim welfare

[ccc]

Amusing isn't it, they rose during the bust years of Tory governments as well...yet we hear time and time again that it isn't linked to the number of jobs in the economy, and that only lazy people claim welfare

I haven't heard anyone say that. The lazy people that take benefits limit the amount available to those that really need it. Hence why those who have paid into it for years, and find themselves out of work, only manage to get £60 per week. They should get more, but cannot due to the mass of idle lazy gits in this country who are on benefits from birth to death. They are the problem.

[babesagainstmachines]

And for many things I would. Some things need effort to be enjoyable.

There seem to be plenty of people who like working judging by this board. Why do they begrudge the idle their personal pleasures?

We should all get a citizens income, and those that want to work should pay for the pleasure that working gives them

[ccc]

There seem to be plenty of people who like working judging by this board. Why do they begrudge the idle their personal pleasures?

We should all get a citizens income, and those that want to work should pay for the pleasure that working gives them

I can enjoy being idle because I know I have put some effort into getting that reward. Laziness is addictive. Once it starts it is difficult to stop. That is why those who are inherently lazy need to be given no choice in the matter. IMO.

[Big Norm]

Amusing isn't it, they rose during the bust years of Tory governments as well...yet we hear time and time again that it isn't linked to the number of jobs in the economy, and that only lazy people claim welfare

If you look at the numbers in detail, I think it can be stated more strongly. They rose by 250% under the last Tory government and have fallen slightly under Labour - although there's a strong chance they haven't finished rising this cycle.

Demographics are a huge part of any argument like this, but never mentioned by our excuse for a press.

There is an underlying trend in the UK towards more, smaller households - and there has been for some time (a 1-adult household is more likely to be workless, as it only requires a single person to be out of work for whatever reason). Similarly more people go to university now (and are included in the portillo / daily mail numbers).

The improvement since 1996 needs to be set against this background (i.e. it is an improvement despite adverse demographic effects).

As there are still some people on these boards interested in doing their own research rather than repeating the opinions fed to them by the press (ironic, given the ethos of the website), I recommend 2 websites...

The Poverty Site, and Channel 4 Factcheck. The Poverty Site tells you everything you might possibly want to know (although the really interesting numbers are those from 1979 onwards, which you will have to research a little harder). Channel 4's excellent factcheck site explains why Portillo's artcile has no factual base.

[Dorkins]

Idle young?

They dont exist in Hong Kong.

The parents wouldnt allow it, and the young wouldnt want to lose face.

If you say so, though I have personally met lost generation Japanese and wouldn't be surprised to find the same in other countries in the Far East. They may be in their parents' houses and not on the dole, but they are there and they're not working.

[HPC001]

I haven't heard anyone say that. The lazy people that take benefits limit the amount available to those that really need it. Hence why those who have paid into it for years, and find themselves out of work, only manage to get £60 per week. They should get more, but cannot due to the mass of idle lazy gits in this country who are on benefits from birth to death. They are the problem.

If they have children they will get more support. The government thinks 18-24 year olds magically can do on less than older people as well. There are many problems with the existing system. I've been denied any real assistance simply because of my age and the fact I'm unmarried.

[Mr Prudence]

There is so much controvesy of what the unemployed can or can not claim that I decided to work out what I would get were I unemployed.

I have a partner and two children under 20, a boy and a girl. I did the figures based on the scenario of having no house, no savings etc.

The amount of money I could claim that is JSA, tax credits, council tax credits and housing benefit amounts to £22,170.78 per annum.

JSA 5022

TC 5022

CTC 2200

HB 9685

This figure does not include other benefits such as free prescriptions and dental care.

You can do this for yourself at the appropriately named www.entitledto.co.uk.

In addition I have another child at university who could claim £2835 plus a tuition fee grant of £1250 were I unemployed. This brings the total benefits that I could claim to £26,255 pa.

Now for me to take home this amount I would have to earn a gross salary of £35,400 - roughly 150% of the average wage.

Which assumes a zero cost of working i.e. commuting costs. At this salary I would effectively be working for nothing.

A couple of points, firstly I don't really blame the claimants of the system, I blame the system.

Secondly is anyone can see a flaw in these figures please let me know. I have tried to obtain accurate figures in good faith but if I have made an error please put me straight.

Edited September 1, 2009 by Mr Prudence

[HPC001]

There is so much controvesy of what the unemployed can or can not claim that I decided to work out what I would get were I unemployed.

I have a partner and two children under 20, a boy and a girl. I did the figures based on the scenario of having no house, no savings etc.

The amount of money I could claim that is JSA, tax credits, council tax credits and housing benefit amounts to £22,170.78 per annum.

JSA 5022

TC 5022

CTC 2200

HB 9685

This figure does not include other benefits such as free prescriptions and dental care.

You can do this for yourself at the appropriately named www.entitledto.co.uk.

In addition I have another child at university who could claim £2835 plus a tuition fee grant of £1250 were I unemployed. This brings the total benefits that I could claim to £26,255 pa.

Now for me to take home this amount I would have to earn a gross salary of £35,400 - roughly 150% of the average wage.

Which assumes a zero cost of working i.e. commuting costs. At this salary I would effectively be working for nothing.

A couple of points, firstly I don't really blame the claimants of the system, I blame the system.

Secondly is anyone can see a flaw in these figures please let me know. I have tried to obtain accurate figures in good faith but if I have made an error please put me straight.

One caveat: you wouldn't be claiming the HB if you aren't renting, or if your landlord didn't approve.

But as you have two children, you can see full well that the system is far more generous than towards a younger single person.

[Mr Prudence]

One caveat: you wouldn't be claiming the HB if you aren't renting, or if your landlord didn't approve.

But as you have two children, you can see full well that the system is far more generous than towards a younger single person.

Yes I have assumed in the scenario that I am renting a 3 bedroom house which I would be entitled to claim about 800 per month which is the actual figure for my area. (Three beds deemed appropriate because of the age and gender of my children).

Yes more kids more dough, best career move for some would be to get pregnant.

[HPC001]

Yes I have assumed in the scenario that I am renting a 3 bedroom house which I would be entitled to claim about 800 per month which is the actual figure for my area. (Three beds deemed appropriate because of the age and gender of my children).

Yes more kids more dough, best career move for some would be to get pregnant.

For a young single person, minus the CTC out of that equation, reduce JSA to about 2200, and the HB is about £4000 here. So about £6k total, which isn't much in London...can't remember what the council tax is, but it wouldn't be much in a shared house anyway.

Since the government\banks helped **** up the productive economy, maybe myself and the OH *should* take back some more of our taxes of the past several years. If nothing else, at least we'd be able to raise children properly and give them a reasonable standard of living. Not like I can see the job:applicant ratio reducing any time soon...part of my motivation to gain yet another qualification.

*awaits flaming*

Edited September 1, 2009 by HPC001

[bogbrush]

If they have children they will get more support. The government thinks 18-24 year olds magically can do on less than older people as well. There are many problems with the existing system. I've been denied any real assistance simply because of my age and the fact I'm unmarried.

Do you believe you are entitled to my assistance? Why?

[Guest Parry aka GOD]

If you say so, though I have personally met lost generation Japanese and wouldn't be surprised to find the same in other countries in the Far East. They may be in their parents' houses and not on the dole, but they are there and they're not working.

This is my experience too. The East is not just The East. There are huge cultural differences between nations. Thailand is jammed full of lazy (keekeeat), idle, work shy youth. No welfare state here either.

[HPC001]

Do you believe you are entitled to my assistance? Why?

Well, it would be a collective pot wouldn't it? Which the two of us paid into.

By the way, I should point out students can't claim welfare so this is completely hypothetical.