Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    IDS is doing some good work at the DWP. And I dont often say a Tory is doing good work tbh.

    But its time we had a serious debate in the country about how much help we give to those in need. People need to get off their state umbilical cord and stand up on their own two feet. Labour have created a society full of people totally dependent on the state, and it makes me physically sick.

    So the first thing that needs to be done, is changing peoples attitudes towards the state, ie accepting that smaller government is better and that socialist attitudes are out of date. The next step is whole sale cuts in welfare.

    I believe that welfare should be cut across the board and private charities play a greater role in peoples lifes. This could include more food banks and greater community level care.

    Discuss....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Out of curiosity, how much do you think the average individual on benefits gets, how much do you think they should get, and how much do you think is the bare minimum that they could survive on?

    People like to sound tough on benefits, and often I agree with them, but you do realise that more often than not you are saying that children should be placed in greater poverty to make some bland point about society, and it would be backed up effectively if you could actually explain how much of an overspend per person you think there is at the minuite.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Nonsense. This tripe has been bandied around the US for the past decade; their welfare state is far smaller than ours, and it simply means their society is more unequal. A rich few enjoy all the perks, while the many poor sicken, weaken and struggle to get employment.

    We are in a recession. There are fewer vacancies than there are people. Inevitably, there are going to be unemployed people. They need to be sustained so that when a job appears, they are capable of filling it and performing adequately.

    I'm all for making sure benefit scammers are eradicated. But they are by no means a significant proportion of benefits receivers, and you massively misunderstand the nature of benefits recipients. Simply because once in a while a headline appears showing someone who has supposedly scammed a substantial sum does not mean that all other recipients are doing the same. Nor does it mean that removing their benefits will suddenly make them virtuous rugged individuals.

    And I expect Parliament to have a few things to say about stuff such as PIPs and Universal Credit. They are extremely unfair to disabled people.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Nonsense. This tripe has been bandied around the US for the past decade; their welfare state is far smaller than ours, and it simply means their society is more unequal. A rich few enjoy all the perks, while the many poor sicken, weaken and struggle to get employment.

    We are in a recession. There are fewer vacancies than there are people. Inevitably, there are going to be unemployed people. They need to be sustained so that when a job appears, they are capable of filling it and performing adequately.

    I'm all for making sure benefit scammers are eradicated. But they are by no means a significant proportion of benefits receivers, and you massively misunderstand the nature of benefits recipients. Simply because once in a while a headline appears showing someone who has supposedly scammed a substantial sum does not mean that all other recipients are doing the same. Nor does it mean that removing their benefits will suddenly make them virtuous rugged individuals.

    And I expect Parliament to have a few things to say about stuff such as PIPs and Universal Credit. They are extremely unfair to disabled people.
    how is making a disabled person prove they can not work unfair?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    IDS is doing some good work at the DWP. And I dont often say a Tory is doing good work tbh.

    But its time we had a serious debate in the country about how much help we give to those in need. People need to get off their state umbilical cord and stand up on their own two feet. Labour have created a society full of people totally dependent on the state, and it makes me physically sick.

    So the first thing that needs to be done, is changing peoples attitudes towards the state, ie accepting that smaller government is better and that socialist attitudes are out of date. The next step is whole sale cuts in welfare.

    I believe that welfare should be cut across the board and private charities play a greater role in peoples lifes. This could include more food banks and greater community level care.

    Discuss....
    I agree with the idea of welfare it should be there as something to help people get back up on their 'own two feet', as something to prevent people falling into total poverty and as something to support people who can't otherwise support themselves IE the sick, injured and the elderly.

    What's the point on people paying taxes if it doesn't go towards that sort of thing and doesn't provide a safety net for people.

    Might not agree with a 'something for nothing culture' but I don't agree with a 'tax me for nothing culture' either.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I'm all for making sure benefit scammers are eradicated. But they are by no means a significant proportion of benefits receivers, and you massively misunderstand the nature of benefits recipients. Simply because once in a while a headline appears showing someone who has supposedly scammed a substantial sum does not mean that all other recipients are doing the same. Nor does it mean that removing their benefits will suddenly make them virtuous rugged individuals.
    I disagreed with the OP, but I also find myself disagreeing considerably with this sort of rhetoric. Benefit "scammers" are a red herring here. The Guardian and the like often cite small figures showing benefit fraud to be no great problem. Lovely. But that's not the rationale behind welfare reform.

    In most cases, it's about reprioritising cash where it's most needed, ensuring there is a robust system of assessment and being able to monitor assessments in the future.

    And I expect Parliament to have a few things to say about stuff such as PIPs and Universal Credit. They are extremely unfair to disabled people.
    They really aren't. There's been a great deal of scaremongering over these issues. Yes, some people will get less under PIP - some will get more. Overall spending on it will continue to increase.
    • Offline

      13
      (Original post by dj1015)
      ...Labour have created a society full of people totally dependent on the state, and it makes me physically sick...
      Post WWII the generation of mass unemployment in Britain took off under Thatcher in the 1980s when whole industries were abandoned. Labour didn't make much of a dent when taking power in 1997 as it continued with pro-capitalist (and thus unemployment sustaining) policies - though they did benefit from the boom which preceded the recent crash.

      The fact is that capitalism generates and sustains unemployment and underemployment and thus sustains welfare - that's right, while capitalism makes some people rich it also makes others dependent on the state. The alternative, to do away with welfare, is to threaten the entire capitalist system; people don't need to go without food for very long before they will gladly force their way into your house and kill you for the contents of your pantry. Seriously dude.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      benefits will cost £205 billion this year, if we got rid of the whole system not only could we lower taxes so working people have more money in their pocket and able to put money away but we could invest some of the money in British industry and also instead of giving handouts could provide businesses and work that were structured around people with illnesses or disabilities
      Online

      16
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by dj1015)
      Labour have created a society full of people totally dependent on the state, and it makes me physically sick.
      No, Thatcher did, as Oswy said. It's not that benefits have become an easier option, in fact in comparison to about 1970 they've gone down, but rather that working has become harder - wages are lower, working your way up the ladder is tougher, it's become much tougher to keep a job long term, etc.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by anarchism101)
      No, Thatcher did, as Oswy said. It's not that benefits have become an easier option, in fact in comparison to about 1970 they've gone down, but rather that working has become harder - wages are lower, working your way up the ladder is tougher, it's become much tougher to keep a job long term, etc.
      So everything is thatchers fault again......

      Well theres a surprise.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by gladders)
      Nonsense. This tripe has been bandied around the US for the past decade; their welfare state is far smaller than ours, and it simply means their society is more unequal. A rich few enjoy all the perks, while the many poor sicken, weaken and struggle to get employment.

      We are in a recession. There are fewer vacancies than there are people. Inevitably, there are going to be unemployed people. They need to be sustained so that when a job appears, they are capable of filling it and performing adequately.

      I'm all for making sure benefit scammers are eradicated. But they are by no means a significant proportion of benefits receivers, and you massively misunderstand the nature of benefits recipients. Simply because once in a while a headline appears showing someone who has supposedly scammed a substantial sum does not mean that all other recipients are doing the same. Nor does it mean that removing their benefits will suddenly make them virtuous rugged individuals.

      And I expect Parliament to have a few things to say about stuff such as PIPs and Universal Credit. They are extremely unfair to disabled people.
      Yeah, I agree. I actually looked into the DWP stats as I was interested in the amounts which were actually believed to be lost by people defrauding the government. The estimated amount that is lost due to these "benefit scammers" is not dissimilar to the amount lost by administrative errors. I think it would make so much more sense to make corporations actually pay the amount of tax that they are required to rather than ****ing over poor people.
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by dj1015)
      IDS is doing some good work at the DWP. And I dont often say a Tory is doing good work tbh.

      But its time we had a serious debate in the country about how much help we give to those in need. People need to get off their state umbilical cord and stand up on their own two feet. Labour have created a society full of people totally dependent on the state, and it makes me physically sick.

      So the first thing that needs to be done, is changing peoples attitudes towards the state, ie accepting that smaller government is better and that socialist attitudes are out of date. The next step is whole sale cuts in welfare.

      I believe that welfare should be cut across the board and private charities play a greater role in peoples lifes. This could include more food banks and greater community level care.

      Discuss....
      You're not Eric Pickles's love child, by any chance?
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by EwanHarvey)
      Yeah, I agree. I actually looked into the DWP stats as I was interested in the amounts which were actually believed to be lost by people defrauding the government. The estimated amount that is lost due to these "benefit scammers" is not dissimilar to the amount lost by administrative errors.
      Enormous misdirection. Addressing fraud in the benefits system is a tiny part of the government's welfare reform policies.

      I think it would make so much more sense to make corporations actually pay the amount of tax that they are required to rather than ****ing over poor people.
      Corporations are already compelled to pay the tax they are required to by law. Spending more and more on investigating tax evasion doesn't necessarily produce more cash for the Exchequer.
      Offline

      8
      ReputationRep:
      At first I read this and I was gonna get all keyboard warrior on you. But yeah, what's welfare for? survival money whilst you look for work? A lot of my relatives spend their hard earned doll on drink, drugs and cigarettes- If they had their money cut and food distributed to them they could live above the poverty level and have a motive for getting back to work, no matter how sad and pathetic that motive.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by dj1015)
      how is making a disabled person prove they can not work unfair?
      Depends on the methodology, which is rather questionable as it stands:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ring-work.html
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ed?INTCMP=SRCH
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      The argument about benefits increasing at double the rate of wages is a nonsense one- people think that means they are somehow doing better than workers- It means they get 75 quid/week instead of 70 or something like that.

      There needs to be something done to stamp out benefit scroungers, but not at the expense of working families and the disabled


      Posted from TSR Mobile
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by biggie)
      Depends on the methodology, which is rather questionable as it stands:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ring-work.html
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ed?INTCMP=SRCH
      Every scheme of assessment is going to have errors, appeals and so forth. That's hardly a point against the revised WCA.

      The Daily Mail article you've pointed to isn't even an issue with the assessment: although the article doesn't make it clear, the inference must be that the man in question was assessed before ending up in intensive care. Being in hospital does not lessen eligibility for ESA (at least not a normal hospital stay).

      On the Guardian's points, I do agree that fear has arisen. Some is perhaps natural in any sort of reassessment exercise. However the majority of it has been stoked up for political advantage by opponents of the Government. There are plenty of disabled people out there who, entirely wrongly, think they will lose their benefits.
      • Offline

        13
        (Original post by Try Rekorderlig)
        At first I read this and I was gonna get all keyboard warrior on you. But yeah, what's welfare for? survival money whilst you look for work? A lot of my relatives spend their hard earned doll on drink, drugs and cigarettes- If they had their money cut and food distributed to them they could live above the poverty level and have a motive for getting back to work, no matter how sad and pathetic that motive.
        In general terms why should it matter what a benefit recipient spends their welfare payments on? If we're talking about JSA then then AFAIK a recipient's obligation is to be available for and actively seeking suitable employment (i.e. sufficient hours at minimum wage where they have appropriate skills and/or experience and thus stand some chance of being offered an interview). In many parts of the country there is a simple and substantial shortfall between those who want work and its actual availability. I happen to be a Marxist so I reject the capitalist-welfare paradigm anyway and consider these debates over welfare moot, but setting that aside I don't see the logic of your position. Do you want an unemployed person to live a miserable life because they happen to live in a society not of their making and where they can't obtain suitable paid work because they face too much competition and too little opportunity?
        Offline

        16
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by L i b)
        Every scheme of assessment is going to have errors, appeals and so forth. That's hardly a point against the revised WCA.

        The Daily Mail article you've pointed to isn't even an issue with the assessment: although the article doesn't make it clear, the inference must be that the man in question was assessed before ending up in intensive care. Being in hospital does not lessen eligibility for ESA (at least not a normal hospital stay).

        On the Guardian's points, I do agree that fear has arisen. Some is perhaps natural in any sort of reassessment exercise. However the majority of it has been stoked up for political advantage by opponents of the Government. There are plenty of disabled people out there who, entirely wrongly, think they will lose their benefits.
        There have been some pretty shocking decisions made when it comes to assessments - especially reassessments made when there is a change to benefit (like the switchover from Incapacity Benefit to ESA.)

        I've had cases where it is so clear that the decision maker was wrong, the judge has allowed the appeal on the papers and written submissions alone - rather than going through the full oral hearing. Which is great because I can go home/to the pub early.
        Offline

        19
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by InnerTemple)
        I've had cases where it is so clear that the decision maker was wrong, the judge has allowed the appeal on the papers and written submissions alone - rather than going through the full oral hearing.
        Yeah, but that's been true of benefits assessments since time immemorial.
       
       
       
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • Poll
      What newspaper do you read/prefer?
      Useful resources

      Groups associated with this forum:

      View associated groups
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

      Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

      Quick reply
      Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.