You want to abolish the Welfare State?

My sense of morality doesn't change depending on what would be most beneficial to me.

I would benefit if I was given £1,000,000 a day by the taxpayer - but I don't think it would be moral.

Let's assume that what you say is true, that there are legions of teenage girls getting pregnant just to get housing. What would you do instead?

Again, it can only be funded as it stands by taxation, which as I have stated I find to be immoral.

Limit child benefit at 2 or 3 children and do some sort of education regime.

So it's immoral to help a fellow human being who is dying to afford medical care?

So you would make any extra children suffer? Are you aware of the links between poverty and poor health?

o you want no taxation no big government no social contract of any kind? Please tell me what country has done this successfully? It sounds similar to the individualism of America but even more extreme.

I know it's not a good plan but it's the nearest I can think of, how about how these girls don't educate themselves and just become baby making machine contributing comparatively little to society.

Almost every society for almost all of human history.

They say we're all in this together and give people who have plenty of money a tax break while taking money from people on the edge!

The top rate of tax should never have been at 50% in the first place, so the fact that it was cut is irrelevant. Infact the only reason Labour raised it just before they left office was to get this sort of reaction out of people like you.

Ancient societies ran on slave labour fool, Rome gave out bread or dole, do you really know your history?

Did you miss out the word 'almost' in my post?

If you're going to cherry-pick examples contrary to it, you're not going to really address what I said.

Poverty has been in part eradicated by the breaking of the old aristocracy holding land. This has allowed enterprise to take hold and capitalism to boost incomes, spending and output.

Back on topic, society should be designed in a way that the individual is able to create their own dreams (I sound American), but that is the only way that we as a society can progress. However not all people are as self-interested that they aim to create their own path or to forge a new career with fantastic pay.

Therefore when either of these two sets of people fall out of luck whether it be their own faults or others, they should be supported. The support given to them should be minimal so they wish to go out and find a new job and get back to being a provider.

The argument comes though between what people believe is "minimal." I find it extremely interesting to read what everyone believes is "minimal." Personally I believe that no person should be left without a home no matter what.

The welfare states size is being cut which is a good thing. However at a time like this for the economy what is happening is with reduced employment, benefits, incomes that the economy is on a downward spiral or simply stuck in a rut. The government should take the money from the welfare system and reallocate it to infastructure spending in order to boost employment and create jobs. It should not simply throw it back to our creditors while the debt continues to grow.

Assuming again that what you say is true, why do you think this is? Is it all individual? Or are there social forces and influences here?

This isn't about getting 1,000,000 it's about the survival of people and since you don't see the point in 100% employment you're obviously anticipating mass suffering, I don't get how you can be so uncaring.

Well it's socially the done thing in some places, I just don't understand why when the pill is freely available they choose to have these kids so young I never did get it even when i was 17 asking my peers why the hell they want kids so young.