Does the welfare system cause you "huge resentment" ?

Actually not even going to comment anymore here as most of you are arrogant benefit advocates who think all rich people are laughing at the poor, and that all rich people need to be hammered with taxes because they are evil mortal enemies.

Good luck promoting the welfare state and justifying our country's ridiculous expenditure. (and I hope most of you understand public sector jobs are financed by the private sector taxpayer because it seemed to be a recurring misunderstanding between many of you).


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Nope. This is simply Tory pandering to their rich, selfish, snobbish core vote.

Ah, insulting and generalizing about your opponents - the true sign that you've lost

I said "most of you." Are you brain dead? That Is not a generalisation if I say "most." Also it's not an insult - many of you are plain arrogant!

Lost? Since when was this a fight? I thought it was merely a discussion..

Also when you say "lost" who is the judge of that? A few socialists sitting at computers?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

You lost old bean, socialists have kicked your butt.

Idgaf what you think <3


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Am I the only one who thinks there should be some kind of card they're given and it shows what they have bought with the benefits? Like if say they spent the money on a flat screen tv and stuff like that then they would get a warning and if done again it would end up with the benefits being stopped because they are not being spent on the stuff they're given for. I mean fair enough if they need a TV but like they do not need to spent £6000 on a tv when they're given to feed and clothe the kids


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Why can't we find a happy medium between the two of them though? I agree with what the welfare system provides to an extent but it's becoming too much now and is far too easily abused.

no one needs a T.V, I agree with a lot of your statements yet you seem to be holding back for fear of people lashing out, or I'm wrong which is equally as likely?

I am in favor of benefits, to a point. The question for me will always be entitlement. Using two examples you'll see what I mean.

First family. Never worked a day in their lives and live in a known council estate for those who don't work. Live in the North East of England and on the general face of things contribute nothing whatsoever to both society and the country. This family get £500 a week from benefits yet still complain about the amount that they get, saying that it is not enough.

Second family. An injured war veteran with both a serious leg injury and depression from the battle that he had fought in Iraq, aged 45. Living with his wife who has learning disabilities and cannot do things for herself and needs constant supervision and attention. Arguably this family has contributed a bucket load more to society than the first family by fighting for the country. This family has to live off a measly £95 a week, and both eventually commit suicide from lack of support and money.

Entitlement was the key word that I used before and the above cases show a distinct and ridiculous share of resources. In my honest opinion benefits should be given on entitlement to them. For example, a student who has never had a job before and has no ACTIVE intention of looking for one should get the lowest level of benefit necessary to live. An experienced worker who is in a transition between jobs should naturally get more. The system should work akin to the phrase "The more you put in the more you get out."

According to your PM the welfare system causes huge resentments and therefore requires a fundamental overhaul.

As per here

Vote and discuss.

I am in favor of benefits, to a point. The question for me will always be entitlement. Using two examples you'll see what I mean.

First family. Never worked a day in their lives and live in a known council estate for those who don't work. Live in the North East of England and on the general face of things contribute nothing whatsoever to both society and the country. This family get £500 a week from benefits yet still complain about the amount that they get, saying that it is not enough.

Second family. An injured war veteran with both a serious leg injury and depression from the battle that he had fought in Iraq, aged 45. Living with his wife who has learning disabilities and cannot do things for herself and needs constant supervision and attention. Arguably this family has contributed a bucket load more to society than the first family by fighting for the country. This family has to live off a measly £95 a week, and both eventually commit suicide from lack of support and money.

Entitlement was the key word that I used before and the above cases show a distinct and ridiculous share of resources. In my honest opinion benefits should be given on entitlement to them. For example, a student who has never had a job before and has no ACTIVE intention of looking for one should get the lowest level of benefit necessary to live. An experienced worker who is in a transition between jobs should naturally get more. The system should work akin to the phrase "The more you put in the more you get out."

1 - I'd like to see any evidence of families who do not want to work getting £500 and injured soldiers families just getting £95.

While I agree that it is hardly fair how the money is distributed in certain cases - war veterans being a classic example - I think that you have missed a key aspect.

Just because someone hasn't contributed much to society, doesn't mean society shouldn't help them. Just going by your example, we have no idea of the background of either, and so you can hardly blame the couple for being unemployed and relying on benefits. And if the view that their parents always held was "the state should give me everything I want" then it will likely have influenced their way of thinking. And this is without mentioning whether they have children, who surely deserve to be helped by the state regardless of their parents' contribution to society.

Also, where would you draw the line as to someone contributing to society, and someone not contributing? And you can hardly assume that just because someone hasn't contributed yet, they won't later on in life. Sorry for the long post, but hopefully some of it makes sense

1 - I'd like to see any evidence of families who do not want to work getting £500 and injured soldiers families just getting £95.

2 - In the case of the student who has never had a job and has no active intention of looking one - as far as I am aware they would not actually get anything.

3 - Why should an experienced worker who is in transition between jobs get more than someone who has just come out of education who is trying hard to find a job?

You'll just have to trust me.

2. I know people who are not actively looking yet still get a decent amount from the dole office every week. I mentioned this earlier in the post.

3. Because they have theoretically given more to society. Contributed more so to speak. The difference should not be vast, but certainly enough to be seen as a reward.

We can all say that! Doesn't exactly add any backing to what you are saying though.



If you are not looking for a job then you are not entitled to JSA. So either they are lying, in which case report them. Or the staff in the job centre are not doing their job, in which case report them.



Someone who is "between jobs" does not need anymore money to survive and live than someone just out of education who is trying to find a job.
Benefits are not paid out based on what you have given to society.

2. I know people who are not actively looking yet still get a decent amount from the dole office every week. I mentioned this earlier in the post.

The problem has become worse over the last 13 years since labour came into power and I say that considering I support them.

The system rewards people for not working and has killed all incentive to do so.

You get free prescriptions, dental care, housing benefits, social housing, and all the other top ups that make working seen pointless really.

What's the point of working if everything is provided on a plate and you get the same for free?

The problem is that although cutting benefits will get some people into work, the problem is there is a culture of lazyness that has formed with the current generation that they feel the benefits system is an entitlement rather than a luxury.

If you cut the benefits you will no doubt see a spike in crime rates as the lazy people we talk about are usually on long term benefits because they tend to be unemployable.

So we spend more on police, prisons instead which costs a lot too.

its a juggling act really but I think its one of those things that needs to change in a dramatic and harsh way and for The benefits system to be seen as for those only as a need rather than a preference for their to be a change in culture here.

I think the worrying thing is people are getting really less tolerant of it and its abuse of it and hence such a drastic change will affect genuine people worse too.

This was sent from Mephestics Galaxy Far far away..