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

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    So what would you cut instead?

    Health? Police? Education?
    I agree with most of the current welfare developments i was simply stating that the debt won't nessesarily rise if we don't make welfare cuts.

    Most important however is that we institute an educational voucher system.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    Yes and no.Yes, many people sponge off the state and get far too many benefits. Want more kids? Have a raise in your benefits, yet everyone working won't get this.
    But if you work and your income is low enough, you'll receive benefits / more in benefits.

    Can I point out that the single parent who works 16 hours a week will get more in benefits than they would if they didn't work?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    But if you work and your income is low enough, you'll receive benefits / more in benefits.

    Can I point out that the single parent who works 16 hours a week will get more in benefits than they would if they didn't work?
    I do wonder if we need to take a radical approach in regards to future welfare planning.

    For example one of the reasons for high benefits is to keep up with the increasing cost of transport to work however if we were to build high rise buildings in city and town centers this would no longer be nessesary.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForKicks)
    Oh, lol. That is never a good idea, and probably one that would be a shot in the foot for even the strongest right winger in the long-run!
    i wish that were true but between this one and chefdave, i dont think they will ever give up their crusade to trample the poor
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    i wish that were true but between this one and chefdave, i dont think they will ever give up their crusade to trample the poor
    Just hearing his name makes me shudder.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I do wonder if we need to take a radical approach in regards to future welfare planning.

    For example one of the reasons for high benefits is to keep up with the increasing cost of transport to work however if we were to build high rise buildings in city and town centers this would no longer be nessesary.
    How is that relevant to my post?:confused:
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    How is that relevant to my post?:confused:
    It was'nt, i must have clicked quote on your earlier.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    i wish that were true but between this one and chefdave, i dont think they will ever give up their crusade to trample the poor

    (Original post by danny111)
    Just hearing his name makes me shudder.

    (Original post by chefdave)
    .
    Dave, I dont think they like us you know......
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    Dave, I dont think they like us you know......
    Look at your gems, and I don't even neg you anymore because there's no point
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    But if you work and your income is low enough, you'll receive benefits / more in benefits.

    Can I point out that the single parent who works 16 hours a week will get more in benefits than they would if they didn't work?
    Actually it is in many peoples interests to not work or to work part time, because if they worked full time, the loss of benefits would put them in a financially worse position.
    This is utterly unfair to those who do work, but of course, the cost of living is far too high in this country.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    Look at your gems, and I don't even neg you anymore because there's no point
    So you have some little green boxes next to your name suddenly makes your argument more valid?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    So you have some little green boxes next to your name suddenly makes your argument more valid?
    I never said that, you said "they dont like us dave" and i merely pointed out your gems, kinda obvious TSR doesnt like you, dont you think?

    but thanks for making a fool out of yourself again with this ridiculous post.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    I never said that, you said "they dont like us dave" and i merely pointed out your gems, kinda obvious TSR doesnt like you, dont you think?

    but thanks for making a fool out of yourself again with this ridiculous post.
    So ridiculous that you replied to it???

    So ridiculous that like most of the quality discussions I start, it gets 100s of replies???

    So ridiculous that the majority of the British public agree with me???

    The only ridiculous thing around here, is your attitude.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Forget abolishing benefits and start thinking about investment in jobs and opportunities. And no investment doesn't mean spending money we don't have it means we need to start reallocating the billions of pounds we waste on council leaders and civil servants gold-plated pensions - before the fellow lefties shoot me down I'm not talking about normal civil servants - I'm talking about your council leaders. Whilst there figures is optimistic I'd support this idea as in the long run it will benefit the economy. Stop calling the poor scroungers and start calling into question the amount of money your council has that isn't being spent on council services - your view on whether welfare is a waste of money or the vital lifeline it needs to be might change for the better. I heard a figure bandied about by a union, so don't trust it too much, that half a million construction workers are on the dole. If Cameron wants to reduce unemployment it's time to get builders back into work.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Some people are so quick to accept the Daily Mail and co's demonisation of the poor, it's bloody nauseating.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheSmithsIndeed)
    Some people are so quick to accept the Daily Mail and co's demonisation of the poor, it's bloody nauseating.
    who said anything about the daily mail on this thread?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    Forget abolishing benefits and start thinking about investment in jobs and opportunities.
    Yes. You need policies which create jobs.

    Something like the Future Jobs Fund which was set up by Labour. The coalition scrapped it because it was 'ineffective.' Must have been quite embarrassing for them when a report was released by the DWP which found that the Future Jobs Fund decreased the amount of time participants spent on benefits and increased the time they spent in unsubsidised employment. The DWP report also found that society gained £7,750 per participant through wages, increased tax receipts and reduced benefit payments through the fund.

    You create jobs - you get people off benefits - people have a bit more money - they spend a little more - this is good.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    Yes. You need policies which create jobs.

    Something like the Future Jobs Fund which was set up by Labour. The coalition scrapped it because it was 'ineffective.' Must have been quite embarrassing for them when a report was released by the DWP which found that the Future Jobs Fund decreased the amount of time participants spent on benefits and increased the time they spent in unsubsidised employment. The DWP report also found that society gained £7,750 per participant through wages, increased tax receipts and reduced benefit payments through the fund.

    You create jobs - you get people off benefits - people have a bit more money - they spend a little more - this is good.
    Yes, we agree about something..

    But the only things more important that job creation is:

    1) Reducing deficit / debt.
    2) Reducing the size of the state.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    So ridiculous that you replied to it???

    So ridiculous that like most of the quality discussions I start, it gets 100s of replies???

    So ridiculous that the majority of the British public agree with me???

    The only ridiculous thing around here, is your attitude.
    Yea I'm bored, problem?

    And the rest, you got 100s of replies to the thread not that one post you made quoting me.

    You really are an idiot, you purposefully misinterpret posts and twist them to suit your needs.

    Again I never even talked about the thread so far, just the one post you quoted me in. How you somehow got from that to the topic is beyond me when I never even mentioned it.

    Stop embarrassing yourself.
    Offline

    14
    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.
    Labour's not limited to Blair and Brown.

    Thatcher stood up to what was happening to Britain, and forced Britain to face what was heading its way. We've been on the way down for over the past 100 years in terms of a nation. That means we're losing economic as well as political power, and are no longer able to force the rest of the world to buy from us. This means we've been falling in how our living standards compare to those of the rest of the world for a long time now. The fact that the world's living standards have kept on rising meant that ours have risen too (quite significantly), but we've lost significant parts of our head start. Britain would be much worse of if Thatcher hadn't come along.

    As an example, take the regulations in order to fire people. If you effectively prevent firms from firing people, you'll do great in the election in 2 years time. Hardly anyone's gotten unemployed. The problem is that hiring people becomes far more expensive, and when firms eventually lose people (due to retirement, etc), they don't hire as many others. New firms decide to set up in other countries, or not at all, as it has become more expensive to start up. Ultimately, in 20 years time, you end up with far fewer people being employed, even though very few people got hired.

    The world has become a tougher place, and we need to work very hard to compete. It was always going to get worse, unless we would've continued with the same place in the world and it's collonialism, which would have been horrendous for most of the 99% of the world which lives outside of Britain.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    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.