Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
vinny

"welfare State"

Recommended Posts

I had a rant yesterday, so why should today be any different? This stuff is being discussed on another thread but, being a presumptuous so and so, I’d like to start another with a slight, but perhaps significant slant.

What is this stuff? – It’s the “welfare system”

The way I see it is that the welfare system is the cause of most of our social and economic problems. That is to say, rich or poor, it disadvantages nearly EVERYBODY including net recipients of benefits. The only exceptions (perhaps) are the genuinely vulnerable, i.e. the genuinely ill or infirm etc.

We now have a system where the benefit of working v.s “playing the system” is only seen if you can earn significantly more than the average national wage. The system is skewed in favour of certain sets of individuals. This may not be a popular view but……Women are favoured more than men, mainly via the sort of “best interest of the children” nonsense as I had the misfortune to come across during my divorce. Indeed how much cash do we need to throw at “families”? Child poverty DOES NOT EXIST (as I would understand poverty) IN BRITAIN UNLESS NEGLECT IS ALSO PRESENT. Also have you seen recently the latest storm around the CSA? Mentioned the amount the agency has failed to collect, but not the incompetence that has driven many men to their ruin (and/or suicide). It positively encourages recklessness, single parent families and idleness and discourages fatherhood. Problems for children ensue, can anyone see where I’m going with this?

Some think they are clever sitting on their backsides and claiming all they can. Are they happy? Probably. But they are being held back by the situation. Yep, they will have more leisure time than I ever will. But that’s about all. They will, barring a lottery win, never have any more than the government will let them have. Sad really.

Their burden on the taxpayer (plus also employers) will make their “it’s not worth working” mantra become a truism – more tax and NI for those working.

Sadly too much government time is taken up by tax and redistribution. Sadly elections are won and lost with too much emphasis on the welfare state, rather than who is better at running the country (including taking us to into wars by lying). Therefore, I’d suppose, govenance itself is undermined.

Shall I stop the rant and reveal the slant? The welfare state may have added fuel to the housing boom!!!

Well, if its not worth working on an average wage v.s being on the dole then how can individuals make it worth their while being employed? I genuinely believe being able to invest is the trick. Many BTL’ers have been branded greedy (amongst other things). My supposition is rather that they (some of them) would like to better themselves in some way, rise above the idle who are being given near financial parity by benefits, and become self sufficient from the state. Am I wrong?

Oh BTW I don't see why I have a moral duty towards others or other's off spring. I'm not a bad lad and may help those less fortunate than myself. BUT don't presume I have any duty towards you unless the law says so. So there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had a rant yesterday, so why should today be any different? This stuff is being discussed on another thread but, being a presumptuous so and so, I’d like to start another with a slight, but perhaps significant slant.

What is this stuff? – It’s the “welfare system”

The way I see it is that the welfare system is the cause of most of our social and economic problems. That is to say, rich or poor, it disadvantages nearly EVERYBODY including net recipients of benefits. The only exceptions (perhaps) are the genuinely vulnerable, i.e. the genuinely ill or infirm etc.

We now have a system where the benefit of working v.s “playing the system” is only seen if you can earn significantly more than the average national wage. The system is skewed in favour of certain sets of individuals. This may not be a popular view but……Women are favoured more than men, mainly via the sort of  “best interest of the children” nonsense as I had the misfortune to come across during my divorce. Indeed how much cash do we need to throw at “families”? Child poverty DOES NOT EXIST (as I would understand poverty) IN BRITAIN UNLESS NEGLECT IS ALSO PRESENT. Also have you seen recently the latest storm around the CSA? Mentioned the amount the agency has failed to collect, but not the incompetence that has driven many men to their ruin (and/or suicide).  It positively encourages recklessness, single parent families and idleness and discourages fatherhood. Problems for children ensue, can anyone see where I’m going with this?

Some think they are clever sitting on their backsides and claiming all they can. Are they happy? Probably. But they are being held back by the situation. Yep, they will have more leisure time than I ever will. But that’s about all. They will, barring a lottery win, never have any more than the government will let them have. Sad really.

Their burden on the taxpayer (plus also employers) will make their “it’s not worth working” mantra become a truism – more tax and NI for those working.

Sadly too much government time is taken up by tax and redistribution. Sadly elections are won and lost  with too much emphasis on the welfare state, rather than who is better at running the country (including taking us to into wars by lying). Therefore, I’d suppose, govenance itself is undermined.

Shall I stop the rant and reveal the slant?  The welfare state may have added fuel to the housing boom!!!

Well, if its not worth working on an average wage v.s being on the dole then how can individuals make it worth their while being employed? I genuinely believe being able to invest is the trick. Many BTL’ers have been branded greedy (amongst other things). My supposition is rather that they (some of them) would like to better themselves in some way, rise above the idle who are being given near financial parity by benefits, and become self sufficient from the state. Am I wrong?

Oh BTW I don't see why I have a moral duty towards others or other's off spring. I'm not a bad lad and may help those less fortunate than myself. BUT don't presume I have any duty towards you unless the law says so. So there!

What is your point? Society is complex? And you’re going to look after your own a**s? BTL is okay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BUT don't presume I have any duty towards you unless the law says so.

well, the law does say so.

and thank goodness, if left to the discretion of your own generosity i think many would starve in before they have chance to find their next job.

i've never resented a penny i've paid in tax, i know the vast majority of it (welfare, nhs, police, even the lazy fire brigade) goes to a good cause.

"Child poverty DOES NOT EXIST"

i think you are just trying to cause trouble. that or you have no direct experience.

shame my first post on house price crash is an angry one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and thank goodness, if left to the discretion of your own generosity i think many would starve in before they have chance to find their next job.

Only if they didn't save money while they were working, and weren't deserving enough to qualify for charity.

i think you are just trying to cause trouble. that or you have no direct experience.

Maybe defining what 'child poverty' is would be a good start. My parents brought up six kids on the salary of a factory worker and a part-time cleaner... was that poverty? After all, we only had one TV, one car and no mobile phones.

I don't know about the government's definition of 'child poverty', but typically 'poverty' claims come down to claiming that the bottom 20% of people are poor even though they live better than the aristocracy did a few hundred years ago: by defining poverty that way, they can ensure that it never goes away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe defining what 'child poverty' is would be a good start. My parents brought up six kids on the salary of a factory worker and a part-time cleaner... was that poverty? After all, we only had one TV, one car and no mobile phones.

I think it has been difined as access to Housing, Food, Health Care and Education for some time now.

p.s. we didnt even have a car..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolute child poverty doesn't exist in the UK, but relative child poverty does. It is typically defined as living in a household where income is less than 60% of the national average so will always exist. There is also a third definition called "material deprivation and low income combined" which looks at households with less than 70% of national average, and also not having access to things which other families do.

As I have posted on the other thread, I do think that leaving families to claim benefits through generations is doing them a disservice. Children are brought up to believe that they are only worthy of signing on, or playing the welfare system and have a severe lack of ambition and pride. This is no way to be bringing up millions of children in this country - we should be ashamed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only if they didn't save money while they were working, and weren't deserving enough to qualify for charity.

you have to understand that saving money is just not possible for most people on salaries substantially below the national mean. there is no spare capacity beyond essential living costs.

if you earn good money you are totally blinkered to the reality of low pay!

if you can afford to fill your tank, rather than run on just above emtpy, and shop for more than a week at a time you are lucky indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it has been difined as access to Housing, Food, Health Care and Education for some time now.

Then the original poster is basically correct: there's essentially no child poverty unless the parents neglect the kids.

you have to understand that saving money is just not possible for most people on salaries substantially below the national mean. there is no spare capacity beyond essential living costs.

So why do Eastern European people come here to get rich (in their terms, after converting their savings to their home currency) doing low-paid, low-skilled or unskilled jobs?

Also, switching from consuming to saving would cause a massive shift in our economy: nothing would be the same.

Children are brought up to believe that they are only worthy of signing on, or playing the welfare system and have a severe lack of ambition and pride. This is no way to be bringing up millions of children in this country - we should be ashamed.

Ditto. The creation of the welfare class in this country is one of the biggest catastrophes we've ever experienced: even the people who created the welfare state would probably have changed their minds if they could see what it would become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then the original poster is basically correct: there's essentially no child poverty unless the parents neglect the kids.

So why do Eastern European people come here to get rich (in their terms, after converting their savings to their home currency) doing low-paid, low-skilled or unskilled jobs?

Also, switching from consuming to saving would cause a massive shift in our economy: nothing would be the same.

Ditto. The creation of the welfare class in this country is one of the biggest catastrophes we've ever experienced: even the people who created the welfare state would probably have changed their minds if they could see what it would become.

Mark, are there any poor who are deserving of state assistance? Just interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Etc

Children are brought up to believe that they are only worthy of signing on, or playing the welfare system and have a severe lack of ambition and pride. This is no way to be bringing up millions of children in this country - we should be ashamed.

It is for the above reason that I would suggest this.

That all kids above 8/9yrs get sent to BOARDING SCHOOL.

They would (hopefully) get

Good Education, Structure in their lives, A FUTURE if they study well, keeps them off the streets, keeps them away from abusive/druggy influences.

The parents should be made to re-educate themselves or forced to do a job during Term time.

Benefits.

Reduced School "rush hours"

Kids given Best chance education/structural integrity

Sack all the

Psychotherapists,

do-gooders,

Xtra Police,

Social Workers,

time/money wasting council lawyers,

kids having to be fostered @ more public expense

Council tax reductions??

etc

etc

Public Save money on

Xtra Policing,

vandalism,

other crime on cars,houses, gang inspired assaults

no go areas

court time/costs

jailing youths

etc

etc

Drawback - it would take a couple of generations to sort it all out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might I suggest that anyone who tempted to believe all this outrageous claptrap should ask someone who remembers life before the welfare state what they think of it?

My dad remembers well families being thrown out on the street with their furniture because the breadwinner had lost their job or died, kids whose main meal of the day was bread (and jam if they were lucky) and people dying because they couldn't afford to call the doctor. That's within living memory.

Does anyone really and truly want a return to that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Might I suggest that anyone who tempted to believe all this outrageous claptrap should ask someone who remembers life before the welfare state what they think of it?

My dad remembers well families being thrown out on the street with their furniture because the breadwinner had lost their job or died, kids whose main meal of the day was bread (and jam if they were lucky) and people dying because they couldn't afford to call the doctor.  That's within living memory.

Does anyone really and truly want a return to that?

Sometimes it is difficult to ask questions about a system. I do not think that the welfare system is working, and that is from someone who voted Labour for years until they sold out. I consider myself to be left wing, but recognise that the welfare system is not working. I do not want the welfare state to be scrapped, but I do want to find ways to stop young people who are born in certain areas to be left on the welfare state, with no hope of achieving anything. I refuse to consign young people onto the rubbish tip, and want them to feel as if they can genuinely achieve something in life.

To my mind, this means more government involvement and not less. By the time children come to primary school, it is too late. Many have grown up in households where no one goes out to work, and by the age of 5 will consider that to be the norm. We have to do something to target these young children -whether by providing free child care for all at a far earlier age, or some other target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Bluelady that life without the welfare state would be a damn sight worse. I've no problem paying taxes so long as they go to the right places but......

...how the 'f' can the system allow itself to be so widely available and thoroughly generous to spongers ?? I mean, look at that horrible pig from 'wife-swap'.

If the reports are true then she was claiming £37k a year in benefits. Thirty seven, fuggin grand !!! :blink:

That is not far off being double the local wage in my (admittedly rural) area and for what ??? Sitting at home and getting pregnant.

We shouldn't blame people for taking advantage - these amounts of money just shouldn't be made available to them.

I would love to hear how anyone can justify giving someone £37,000.00 a year in state benefits when our nurses and firemen are lucky to earn 2/3rds of that figure.

The welfare system is well and truly fuc8ed !!

<Rant over>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would love to hear how anyone can justify giving someone £37,000.00 a year in state benefits when our nurses and firemen are lucky to earn 2/3rds of that figure.

The welfare system is well and truly fuc8ed !!

<Rant over>

Particularly when that £37k is tax free, and housing costs are subsidised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is for the above reason that I would suggest this.

That all kids above 8/9yrs get sent to BOARDING SCHOOL.

They would (hopefully) get

Good Education, Structure in their lives, A FUTURE if they study well, keeps them off the streets, keeps them away from abusive/druggy influences.

The parents should be made to re-educate themselves or forced to do a job during Term time.

Benefits.

Reduced School "rush hours"

Kids given Best chance education/structural integrity

Sack all the

Psychotherapists,

do-gooders,

Xtra Police,

Social Workers,

time/money wasting council lawyers,

kids having to be fostered @ more public expense

Council tax reductions??

etc

etc

Public Save money on

Xtra Policing,

vandalism,

other crime on cars,houses, gang inspired assaults

no go areas

court time/costs

jailing youths

etc

etc

Drawback - it would take a couple of generations to sort it all out!

Your right, it would take a couple of generations to get to this, afterall, it took a couple of generations to get the pi55 awful state were in.

Social workers, youth crime, pi55y left wing dogooders, chavs, the police state, none of this existed before WW2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with Bluelady that life without the welfare state would be a damn sight worse. I've no problem paying taxes so long as they go to the right places but......

...how the 'f' can the system allow itself to be so widely available and thoroughly generous to spongers ?? I mean, look at that horrible pig from 'wife-swap'.

If the reports are true then she was claiming £37k a year in benefits. Thirty seven, fuggin grand !!!    :blink:

That is not far off being double the local wage in my (admittedly rural) area and for what ??? Sitting at home and getting pregnant.

We shouldn't blame people for taking advantage - these amounts of money just shouldn't be made available to them.

I would love to hear how anyone can justify giving someone £37,000.00 a year in state benefits when our nurses and firemen are lucky to earn 2/3rds of that figure.

The welfare system is well and truly fuc8ed !!

<Rant over>

Well, labour - in 1997 - brought in policies to ensure no children were living in poverty. To me this was a laudable aim. However it has had unintended consequences of encouraging people who should be out working to fall into a benefit trap, as discussed by Frank Field recently. I dont have an answer how to ensure child poverty is attacked and discouraging a benefit dependency culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest magnoliawalls
It is for the above reason that I would suggest this.

That all kids above 8/9yrs get sent to BOARDING SCHOOL.

They would (hopefully) get

Good Education, Structure in their lives, A FUTURE if they study well, keeps them off the streets, keeps them away from abusive/druggy influences.

That raises an interesting point - why is it now assumed that neglected children are best off with the parents who are incapable or unwilling to care for them?

I went to a boarding school and it was a positive experience. Discipline was rigorously enforced so there was no bullying and no pressure to drink/smoke/use drugs/have underage sex - at least during term time. As teenagers we expressed resentment but secretly appreciated our boundaries. For those from troubled homes it was a safe haven.

Why are foster homes and adoption seen as bad things? Surely it is better for a baby born to a single teenage drug addict to be put up for adoption. Is anyone aware if adoption is actively encouraged by social workers today?

Fertility levels drop dramatically as a woman gets older - those who invest in their education and career and aspire to own their own home often have to put off having a baby until it is nearly too late and then require expensive fertility treatment. At the same time a legion of chavettes are having babies as a means to get a council house and or benefits, partly paid for by the taxes of those who cannot afford children. Some of those children will be properly cared for, many will not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are foster homes and adoption seen as bad things?  Surely it is better for a baby born to a single teenage drug addict to be put up for adoption.  Is anyone aware if adoption is actively encouraged by social workers today? 

Social workers are desperate to keep families together for the simple reason that there are so few people willing to adopt or foster children. Few people are willing to take on the upbringing of a child who has been born addicted to heroin - it is a big undertaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest magnoliawalls
Social workers are desperate to keep families together for the simple reason that there are so few people willing to adopt or foster children. Few people are willing to take on the upbringing of a child who has been born addicted to heroin - it is a big undertaking.

I thought babies were very much in demand?

I recently spoke to a woman who claimed to have been on the waiting list for years - she has been offered the opportunity to adopt older children which she does not want to do. Infants in whatever condition are apparently in short supply.

I do understand that few people will want to adopt an older child who has suffered years of neglect and is likely to have developed anti social tendencies. Surely social workers should intervene before it gets to that stage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought babies were very much in demand?

I recently spoke to a woman who claimed to have been on the waiting list for years - she has been offered the opportunity to adopt older children which she does not want to do.  Infants in whatever condition are apparently in short supply. 

I do understand that few people will want to adopt an older child who has suffered years of neglect and is likely to have developed anti social tendencies.  Surely social workers should intervene before it gets to that stage?

Not babies who have to be taken into hospital to get their methodone fix every day. My cousin fosters such babies, and has been begged to take more because people aren't willing to take them on. She's ended up adopting one because there was no one else willing to take the baby on. Babies born with a drug addiction have a lot of problems - it isn't just neglect which causes them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest magnoliawalls
Not babies who have to be taken into hospital to get their methodone fix every day. My cousin fosters such babies, and has been begged to take more because people aren't willing to take them on. She's ended up adopting one because there was no one else willing to take the baby on. Babies born with a drug addiction have a lot of problems - it isn't just neglect which causes them.

That is a shame. I suppose it is not really the fault of the welfare state though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont have an answer how to ensure child poverty is attacked and discouraging a benefit dependency culture.

I do, as a parent, try getting off your ars* and get a job, I know many people idly sitting in council estates, fraudulantly claiming housing benefit, you name it. my ex-sister in law got caught fiddling the state (70K of tax payers money) got 2 years for it...serves her Fuc**g right, what gives these Shyters the right to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont have an answer how to ensure child poverty is attacked and discouraging a benefit dependency culture.

I do, as a parent, try getting off your ars* and get a job, I know many people idly sitting in council estates, fraudulantly claiming housing benefit, you name it. my ex-sister in law got caught fiddling the state (70K of tax payers money) got 2 years for it...serves her Fuc**g right, what gives these Shyters the right to do this.

They don't have the right to do it. That's why she got locked up. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 302 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.