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

Welfare

Recommended Posts

This isn't a topic about how welfare is bad, more an observation and a question. It comes from my experience of thinking about "welfare recipients" in general (not very symapthetic) and whenever I meet someone who needs help as an individual ( Iwant to help in any way I can).

Why the apparent paradox?

Most people would acknowledge that the government is pretty bad at running things in general. (a trip to the council offices should convince if not).

So why do we trust them to be able run something as important as welfare? We are entrusting people's lives to an incompetent bureaucracy that actually has an interest in trapping people on welfare to keep them as a voting population, or as a way of swelling the budget under thei control.

There is real need and real deprivation in the UK, wouldn't a charity or charities be better equipped, more experienced and better at dealing with it?

A modest proposal then - give people a voucher or vouchers that they can give to any local charity that engages in poverty reduction/helping the homeless etc. and let the charities do what they do so well, but with much more funding.

People would have an interest in how their money was spent and what it was spent on.

They would be able to see if their money was spent wisely and change where it went on an annual basis.

They might start to see the people in need as individuals worthy of help instead of a faceless "lazy underclass".

Thoughts?

Edit - you could keep the money spent nationally the same, just portion it out on a per capita basis and let people choose, maybe allocate at random if they dont choose by the end of April or something.

Edited by LJAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't a topic about how welfare is bad, more an observation and a question. It comes from my experience of thinking about "welfare recipients" in general (not very symapthetic) and whenever I meet someone who needs help as an individual ( Iwant to help in any way I can).

Why the apparent paradox?

Most people would acknowledge that the government is pretty bad at running things in general. (a trip to the council offices should convince if not).

So why do we trust them to be able run something as important as welfare? We are entrusting people's lives to an incompetent bureaucracy that actually has an interest in trapping people on welfare to keep them as a voting population, or as a way of swelling the budget under thei control.

There is real need and real deprivation in the UK, wouldn't a charity or charities be better equipped, more experienced and better at dealing with it?

A modest proposal then - give people a voucher or vouchers that they can give to any local charity that engages in poverty reduction/helping the homeless etc. and let the charities do what they do so well, but with much more funding.

People would have an interest in how their money was spent and what it was spent on.

They would be able to see if their money was spent wisely and change where it went on an annual basis.

They might start to see the people in need as individuals worthy of help instead of a faceless "lazy underclass".

Thoughts?

Edit - you could keep the money spent nationally the same, just portion it out on a per capita basis and let people choose, maybe allocate at random if they dont choose by the end of April or something.

The existence of third or fourth generation benefit recipients is a disaster IMO. Those single mums I hear so much about would be incapable to teach their kids about values, even if they knew about them.

Any benefit should be limited to survival help IMO, not a penny more. I don't think it should be left to charities however, I think this kind of support to those truly in need should be our duty as a nation, not an act of kindness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue it is our duty as individuals to look after those who have not been as lucky as us.

"the nation" can't be responsible for anything since it is only a concept in your head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue it is our duty as individuals to look after those who have not been as lucky as us.

"the nation" can't be responsible for anything since it is only a concept in your head.

There is such thing as nation and it involves collective responsibility. It's been so long since such things have been discussed that most people have forgotten what it means.

If you don't want a nation you'll have to pay for your own personal security from your own pocket and I can tell you, it's very expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the apparent paradox?

If you met someone who said they needed your help but took your money, made no effort to improve their situation and seemed entirely satisfied that you should support them you'd soon lose your enthusiasm for helping them.

If people using the welfare state had the attitude and motivation to take its support only for as long as necessary, and it really was a safety net not a way of life, then you'd feel much more positive about paying for it.

There's no paradox :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it with some people and vouchers?

Every right wing politician in the world is obsessed with giving people vouchers or leeching off charities.

My point is always should the child suffer for the sins of the parents? If some 16 year old has 3 kids with different feckless fathers then it is tempting to say she should get no help off the state.

However if that causes her 3 kids to suffer is that fair on them? Why should a baby suffer harm in a country where we have enough resources to help it thrive.

Or should the kids be removed at birth and given to the many nice middle class families wanting to adopt? That doesn't sound particularly small government to me - sounds like the state forcibly breaking up families.

It is a complex issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had a non mean tested basic income I'd work for the council for free. Although extra beer rations would be nice, I was hoping I might be allowed an allotment so I could grow some fruit and tatos for wine and vodka.

Not everyone is an alcoholic, but there's a hell of a lot us out there, often not working, who could and would. We have some twisted form of financial prohibition. Rent is so high, that housing benefit withdrawal determines your wage, whilst providing your landLORD a stable income. I might gain £1 NET per hour worked for the time being, but with Universal credit I can earn £1.50 an hour.

The sad fact of the matter is, that's 1 can of supermarket lager, or half a pint down the pub.

(The pub is shut and people are unhappy the NETTO is becoming an ASDA)

If you thought cannabis production was a high yielding investment, check out the sums wrt the distillation of vodka.

Our welfare, much like our economy, isn't working.

To be fair though, it doesn't pay to work.

I wonder if structural unemployment should be called 'prohibition'.

Consumption taxes are regressive (DUTY), The DUTY on a Chateau d'Yquem 1811 priced at £75000 is the same as the DUTY on £3 bottle of Lambrini.

Income taxes, NI, TAX etc. are levied upon the minimum wage.

Poll/council tax, opposed to a land tax.

CGT<income tax+ NI on min wage workers

Need I say more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our current welafare system doesn't work.

It doesn't give the people who pay for it any reason to be involved or have an interest and it doesn't give those receiveing welfare the help that they need in a way that helps them get back to work.

the idea is that instead of having one provider of welfare - each person could choose where "their" taxes got spent by deciding which charity they would go to.

we wouldn't reducce the spending on welfare - but it might get channeled into effective providers rather than a big state apparatus.

why is it better to have the government do it? They are demonstrably crap.

+1 on the general taxation system being a massive cockup in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our current welafare system doesn't work.

It doesn't give the people who pay for it any reason to be involved or have an interest and it doesn't give those receiveing welfare the help that they need in a way that helps them get back to work.

the idea is that instead of having one provider of welfare - each person could choose where "their" taxes got spent by deciding which charity they would go to.

we wouldn't reducce the spending on welfare - but it might get channeled into effective providers rather than a big state apparatus.

why is it better to have the government do it? They are demonstrably crap.

+1 on the general taxation system being a massive cockup in the UK.

Should rename it Wellunfair instead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the idea is that instead of having one provider of welfare - each person could choose where "their" taxes got spent by deciding which charity they would go to.

we wouldn't reducce the spending on welfare - but it might get channeled into effective providers rather than a big state apparatus.

Who decides what qualifies to be a charity? What if I decided I was most deserving of the benefits of this voucher?

What if I just shredded it because I wanted to oppose this process/couldnt be arsed participating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it with some people and vouchers?

Every right wing politician in the world is obsessed with giving people vouchers or leeching off charities.

My point is always should the child suffer for the sins of the parents? If some 16 year old has 3 kids with different feckless fathers then it is tempting to say she should get no help off the state.

However if that causes her 3 kids to suffer is that fair on them? Why should a baby suffer harm in a country where we have enough resources to help it thrive.

Or should the kids be removed at birth and given to the many nice middle class families wanting to adopt? That doesn't sound particularly small government to me - sounds like the state forcibly breaking up families.

It is a complex issue.

Having a child is now a choice. There are many who see it as a way of getting money. I heard a case of a man who had managed to get custody of his two kids, and in court he revealed looking after them was his job. He had a million pound three bed flat in London w1. Normally it is women that exploit the system, to get housing and entitlements that are remarkably good, but men will do that too if they get a chance.

A child though is a responsibility, not a job and a meal ticket. Given that children are a choice, we should now take away all child related benefits so parents cannot profit from them. People will then learn to work, as having kids to get entitlements ceases to be an option. As for the kids, they are better off if the parents have them because they are wanted for themselves, not for the entitlements they bring. We as a nation should no longer be blackmailed emotionally by mums and dads with little ones crying at their feet. If the parents are unable to look after the kids and have them without consideration for their welfare, then perhaps those children don't best remain with such parents.

The current experiment of welfare and placing responsibility with others for financial security has failed our nation and our children. Time to change to a different approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the idea is that instead of having one provider of welfare - each person could choose where "their" taxes got spent by deciding which charity they would go to.

Would create caos.

Edited by miko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current experiment of welfare and placing responsibility with others for financial security has failed our nation and our children. Time to change to a different approach.

What do you suggest?

In the past we had beggars, taking the kids away from the parents, getting people to sleep in dormitories with no privacy.

I agree with you that the current system doesn't work but what do you suggest? A return to any of the above or some alternative solution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you suggest?

In the past we had beggars, taking the kids away from the parents, getting people to sleep in dormitories with no privacy.

I agree with you that the current system doesn't work but what do you suggest? A return to any of the above or some alternative solution?

No child related benefits, thought I said that. Now having a child is a choice, I don't see how they can be justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't a topic about how welfare is bad, more an observation and a question. It comes from my experience of thinking about "welfare recipients" in general (not very symapthetic) and whenever I meet someone who needs help as an individual ( Iwant to help in any way I can).

Why the apparent paradox?

Most people would acknowledge that the government is pretty bad at running things in general. (a trip to the council offices should convince if not).

So why do we trust them to be able run something as important as welfare? We are entrusting people's lives to an incompetent bureaucracy that actually has an interest in trapping people on welfare to keep them as a voting population, or as a way of swelling the budget under thei control.

There is real need and real deprivation in the UK, wouldn't a charity or charities be better equipped, more experienced and better at dealing with it?

A modest proposal then - give people a voucher or vouchers that they can give to any local charity that engages in poverty reduction/helping the homeless etc. and let the charities do what they do so well, but with much more funding.

People would have an interest in how their money was spent and what it was spent on.

They would be able to see if their money was spent wisely and change where it went on an annual basis.

They might start to see the people in need as individuals worthy of help instead of a faceless "lazy underclass".

Thoughts?

Edit - you could keep the money spent nationally the same, just portion it out on a per capita basis and let people choose, maybe allocate at random if they dont choose by the end of April or something.

all benefits should stop and be replaced by subsidised, protected and always available council jobs, which would pay 70% of the minimal wage

Edited by Damik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think about it, these looters have been housed by the State, educated by the State, cared for by the State, fed by the State, protected by the State and then finally incarcerated by the State. Their entire lives are predicated on the State.

Government welfare doesn't seem to be a good replacement for the family, if the latest evidence is anything to go by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No child related benefits, thought I said that. Now having a child is a choice, I don't see how they can be justified.

Child benefit is not a benefit, it's a travesty, a political bribe.

But I don't think child benefit is a problem, more of a problem is people who breed children to exploit the state or out of sheer thoughtlessness. We pay tons of money to these people in benefits, accommodations, etc. And then the children learn that what Mum and Dad was OK and do it themselves. What do you do with these?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all benefits should stop and be replaced by subsidised, protected and always available council jobs, which would pay 70% of the minimal wage

No jobs should equal pay as in be able to live on the money earn't . 70% of the minimal wage is not pay and anyone calling for it should give over anything that they earn over that amount before they tell others to work for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Child benefit is not a benefit, it's a travesty, a political bribe.

But I don't think child benefit is a problem, more of a problem is people who breed children to exploit the state or out of sheer thoughtlessness. We pay tons of money to these people in benefits, accommodations, etc. And then the children learn that what Mum and Dad was OK and do it themselves. What do you do with these?

I said child RELATED benefits.

All the extra accommodation and stuff you get now would go too, as would extra income support. You would get no more than what a childless adult gets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it with some people and vouchers?

Every right wing politician in the world is obsessed with giving people vouchers or leeching off charities.

My point is always should the child suffer for the sins of the parents? If some 16 year old has 3 kids with different feckless fathers then it is tempting to say she should get no help off the state.

However if that causes her 3 kids to suffer is that fair on them? Why should a baby suffer harm in a country where we have enough resources to help it thrive.

Or should the kids be removed at birth and given to the many nice middle class families wanting to adopt? That doesn't sound particularly small government to me - sounds like the state forcibly breaking up families.

It is a complex issue.

You are right it is not fair on the kids, but what about all the future generations that are caught up in benefit dependency by not nipping the problem in the bud. The problem just grows and grows, like it has here, until it becomes a monster that starts to tear down the fabric of society and the prosperity of the country.

This should never have happened. Not in this day and age. Free education, free contraception and free abortions are freely available to educate young people how not to get in to trouble and give them the means to avoid trouble. If someone can't afford a child, then why should any one else pay? They should be the responsibility of their own family.

I have a real life example for you from a nice market town. The house next door to me got rented to a 19 year old benefits single mum a couple of years ago, by the stupid b1tch landlady who owns the house. 1 week later the boyfriend moves in. Next thing you know a Pitbull moves in that is never walked and spends the entire time going crazy, barking and whining. They never cleared the dog shit up in the garden, they dumped an old fridge outside next doors house and never put the rubbish out for the six months they lived there, just dumped the bags in the back garden in a stinking heap. This girl had parents, I'd see them pull up in a 4x4 occasionally. Sure they looked like scum, but they could afford a car and no doubt had a roof they could have put their daughter and grandson up under if need be. Scum like her should be their responsibility, no one else's.

Since we got her out she got another house to herself down the road, but this time bigger because she's now got another kid by another dad. Are you telling me she'd have done that if she was forced to live at home with mum and dad? I bet my life that if parents knew their feral shitbags weren't going to get a free house if they pregnant and would end up being their problem, they would drill it into them that they better not get pregnant.

For the really unlucky ones that have no family, a sanitised modern day version of the workhouse with basic accommodation for mother and child, a nursery, canteen and job centre will suffice until such time they are able to stand on their own two feet. They would be cared for, but the very thought of ending up in such an institution should chill the carnal passions of any young chav slag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said child RELATED benefits.

All the extra accommodation and stuff you get now would go too, as would extra income support. You would get no more than what a childless adult gets.

I don't see what's wrong with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think about it, these looters have been housed by the State, educated by the State, cared for by the State, fed by the State, protected by the State and then finally incarcerated by the State. Their entire lives are predicated on the State.

Government welfare doesn't seem to be a good replacement for the family, if the latest evidence is anything to go by.

Indeed. In their world, near communism exists, yet they don't even need to do any labour. Is it any wonder that it doesn't work?

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.

  • 284 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.