You want to abolish the Welfare State?
The welfare state is essential. It is here to stay unless government can find a system and an environment for economic growth that creates employment for EVERYONE perpetually.
In the system we have there is a surplus of unemployed workers. When jobs are created it is hoped that the surplus is reduced ergo that the unemployed find work. This system is highly competitive and the competition for jobs is made much worse when jobs become scarce. Additionally, the desparate situation that economically inactive people find themselves in is exacerbated by social stigma (i.e. from family and friends but also from newspapers and politicians) and not least by the measly amount of money they get in unemployment allowance. Employment allowance such as JSA, for example, comes from a pot that the tax payer pays into with their own wages. The tax payer also pays for services like the NHS, for example.
Now the system that we have at present works on the basis that those who are unemployed should look for work, and a contract is signed to that effect. Public services i.e., the job centre ensure that people look for work whilst in receipt of benefits. But this is a two-way system because there needs to be jobs available and there needs to be help and guidance to ensure that barriers to work are being 'knocked down'.
Unless the government create the environment for job growth the surplus of unemployed people will not reduce significantly. How can they ignite growth? It cannot be done but taking away people's unemployment benefit. Afterall, is it really their fault that a) there are very little jobs, b) there are 10 people for every job?
At the moment the price of necessities like food, for example, have sky-rocketed. Life is very expensive. Rent rates have increased. You can manage with little money but it is very tough depending upon how well you budget, and that also depends upon where you live. People who have less to live on have to budget, so thinking that unemployed people have it easy is pure nonsense. It is not easy when you have to budget, making sacrifices is not easy.
Now you may think that unemployed have it easy because they get money such as Housing Benefit to pay for their expensive house or flat. Well, people who are in work also claim Housing Benefit. In other words, people who are in work are being subsidised by the tax payer. Shouldn't their wages be enough to live on? And what about food banks? I am told that the food banks which are opening up weekly are frequented by those in work.
Surely, it is easy to see what part of the system is wrong here and what needs to change? If wage earners don't want their taxes to pay for people who are not working then they should demand the system itself be changed. If wage earners don't want their taxes to pay for those who will not look for work, that is a different situation, and the way to tackle that is to incentivise people to become part of the competitive jobs market and to get them interested in something that will land them a job.
All of these problems and more besides ultimately rests at the foot of the very people who keep the system i.e. the politicians and perhaps the wealth creators. Our politicians are sometimes very stupid and many politicians are indeed career politicians. Many politicians are completely out of touch with people's real concerns, and many are wicked and think nothing about the social and economic implications and the effects of their decisions or policies.
Either the government creates jobs thereby reducing the greater surplus of unemployed or we support them with tax money. The amount they get is immaterial because they only get what the government say is enough to live on.
As I say, Housing Benefit might be costly, but that's because rent itself is costly, landlords are charging a lot of money. A small bedsit in Wigan where I live is £60 per week. A flat is £80 and upward. A one bedroom or two bedroom house can be anything up to and over £100 per week. In London I guess that these prices are higher respectively.
If we are to stop tax payer's money going to housing benefit that would mean disaster and many people would soon be homeless. That situation will lead to increases in crime and I doubt that it would improve social mobility either. If we reduce the amount of money they get for Housing Benefit, they have to make up the shorfall, and that would certainly mean hardship for some people, more hardship since the money they get for necessities is already the minimum! How about we get landlords to reduce their rent rates in-line with a level set by government for people who are in, or will be in, receipt of Housing Benefit?
If you don't mind unemployed people getting benefits but you do mind people spending what you pay from your wages on cigarettes and alcohol, then something else needs to change. You cannot stamp your feet and demand that food stamps be given instead of money. Don't you see that it doesn't matter what they spend that money on because the amount in food stamps will be exactly the same as the amount in cash. That they spend that money on cigs and alcohol is simply a none issue unless we are talking about a health issue.
You want to abolish the welfare state? You want to reduce it? Than what system are you going to put in its place? What measures are you going to take to ensure that everyone gets a job? How will you ensure that workers get a pay packet that they can live on without help from the tax payer?
In the system we have there is a surplus of unemployed workers. When jobs are created it is hoped that the surplus is reduced ergo that the unemployed find work. This system is highly competitive and the competition for jobs is made much worse when jobs become scarce. Additionally, the desparate situation that economically inactive people find themselves in is exacerbated by social stigma (i.e. from family and friends but also from newspapers and politicians) and not least by the measly amount of money they get in unemployment allowance. Employment allowance such as JSA, for example, comes from a pot that the tax payer pays into with their own wages. The tax payer also pays for services like the NHS, for example.
Now the system that we have at present works on the basis that those who are unemployed should look for work, and a contract is signed to that effect. Public services i.e., the job centre ensure that people look for work whilst in receipt of benefits. But this is a two-way system because there needs to be jobs available and there needs to be help and guidance to ensure that barriers to work are being 'knocked down'.
Unless the government create the environment for job growth the surplus of unemployed people will not reduce significantly. How can they ignite growth? It cannot be done but taking away people's unemployment benefit. Afterall, is it really their fault that a) there are very little jobs, b) there are 10 people for every job?
At the moment the price of necessities like food, for example, have sky-rocketed. Life is very expensive. Rent rates have increased. You can manage with little money but it is very tough depending upon how well you budget, and that also depends upon where you live. People who have less to live on have to budget, so thinking that unemployed people have it easy is pure nonsense. It is not easy when you have to budget, making sacrifices is not easy.
Now you may think that unemployed have it easy because they get money such as Housing Benefit to pay for their expensive house or flat. Well, people who are in work also claim Housing Benefit. In other words, people who are in work are being subsidised by the tax payer. Shouldn't their wages be enough to live on? And what about food banks? I am told that the food banks which are opening up weekly are frequented by those in work.
Surely, it is easy to see what part of the system is wrong here and what needs to change? If wage earners don't want their taxes to pay for people who are not working then they should demand the system itself be changed. If wage earners don't want their taxes to pay for those who will not look for work, that is a different situation, and the way to tackle that is to incentivise people to become part of the competitive jobs market and to get them interested in something that will land them a job.
All of these problems and more besides ultimately rests at the foot of the very people who keep the system i.e. the politicians and perhaps the wealth creators. Our politicians are sometimes very stupid and many politicians are indeed career politicians. Many politicians are completely out of touch with people's real concerns, and many are wicked and think nothing about the social and economic implications and the effects of their decisions or policies.
Either the government creates jobs thereby reducing the greater surplus of unemployed or we support them with tax money. The amount they get is immaterial because they only get what the government say is enough to live on.
As I say, Housing Benefit might be costly, but that's because rent itself is costly, landlords are charging a lot of money. A small bedsit in Wigan where I live is £60 per week. A flat is £80 and upward. A one bedroom or two bedroom house can be anything up to and over £100 per week. In London I guess that these prices are higher respectively.
If we are to stop tax payer's money going to housing benefit that would mean disaster and many people would soon be homeless. That situation will lead to increases in crime and I doubt that it would improve social mobility either. If we reduce the amount of money they get for Housing Benefit, they have to make up the shorfall, and that would certainly mean hardship for some people, more hardship since the money they get for necessities is already the minimum! How about we get landlords to reduce their rent rates in-line with a level set by government for people who are in, or will be in, receipt of Housing Benefit?
If you don't mind unemployed people getting benefits but you do mind people spending what you pay from your wages on cigarettes and alcohol, then something else needs to change. You cannot stamp your feet and demand that food stamps be given instead of money. Don't you see that it doesn't matter what they spend that money on because the amount in food stamps will be exactly the same as the amount in cash. That they spend that money on cigs and alcohol is simply a none issue unless we are talking about a health issue.
You want to abolish the welfare state? You want to reduce it? Than what system are you going to put in its place? What measures are you going to take to ensure that everyone gets a job? How will you ensure that workers get a pay packet that they can live on without help from the tax payer?
Scroll to see replies
Why is it important that everyone has a job?
That's unrealistic and in my view pointless.
That's unrealistic and in my view pointless.
I think that the welfare state is one of the best things about this country. It shows that a government looks after it's people.
However, I believe that there should also be a limit. You know, like those people who literall scrounge off the benefits system and don't work or anything? That's plain wrong, not only because they do nothing all day, but because there are other people who need that help.
However, I believe that there should also be a limit. You know, like those people who literall scrounge off the benefits system and don't work or anything? That's plain wrong, not only because they do nothing all day, but because there are other people who need that help.
Original post by Aspiringlawstudent
Why is it important that everyone has a job?
That's unrealistic and in my view pointless.
That's unrealistic and in my view pointless.
It's important if people don't want their taxes being spent on benefits.
Original post by Martyn*
It's important if people don't want their taxes being spent on benefits.
Why do you need 100% employment to not have a welfare state?
Can private charity not provide assistance to the needy?
If it cannot, what argument is there that such assistance should be compelled - if people would not freely choose it, how can it be moral to force it?
Original post by The_Dragonborn
I think that the welfare state is one of the best things about this country. It shows that a government looks after it's people.
However, I believe that there should also be a limit. You know, like those people who literall scrounge off the benefits system and don't work or anything? That's plain wrong, not only because they do nothing all day, but because there are other people who need that help.
However, I believe that there should also be a limit. You know, like those people who literall scrounge off the benefits system and don't work or anything? That's plain wrong, not only because they do nothing all day, but because there are other people who need that help.
Completely agree. It's the people that take advantage of the system that's the problem, although the system itself needs certain limits.
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Original post by The_Dragonborn
I think that the welfare state is one of the best things about this country. It shows that a government looks after it's people.
However, I believe that there should also be a limit. You know, like those people who literall scrounge off the benefits system and don't work or anything? That's plain wrong, not only because they do nothing all day, but because there are other people who need that help.
However, I believe that there should also be a limit. You know, like those people who literall scrounge off the benefits system and don't work or anything? That's plain wrong, not only because they do nothing all day, but because there are other people who need that help.
Taking money from people and giving it to people that haven't earned it is one of the best things about this country?
Why not go ahead and think that the bank bailouts were the best thing to happen in this country by that logic?
Our welfare system needs to be cut down to bare bones. It just acts as a psychological safety net where people know that if they don't find a job they can always rely on our super generous welfare system.
I'm glad the coalition are cut it down to size, it's a kick in the backside to those who think having a job and contributing to society isn't important.
I'm glad the coalition are cut it down to size, it's a kick in the backside to those who think having a job and contributing to society isn't important.
(edited 11 years ago)
It's certainly a hard question I believe some form of welfare state is essential however the worrying trend of young girls having children on benefits cannot continue, the lowest intellect and socially least likely to be productive portion of society is the fastest breeding portion...
This is not to say all end up repeating the cycle but many do the problem is welfare is like putting a plaster on a cut artery, the underlying social issues go unsolved or worsen and people develop an apathetic outlook on life.
I wish I had the answer to what would work but with the current smear campaign against the poor unemployed or not that need benefits I don't think anyone will be politically motivated the fact is we have the biggest inequality in the western world which is something I'm ashamed of. No wonder the working poor need benefits to get by they simply don't earn enough to live in rip off Britain, yet this morning I watched a CEO argue that leaving the EU would be good so they could lower the minimum wage, with a public brain washed by right wing media we may end up shooting ourselves in the foot irreparably.
This is not to say all end up repeating the cycle but many do the problem is welfare is like putting a plaster on a cut artery, the underlying social issues go unsolved or worsen and people develop an apathetic outlook on life.
I wish I had the answer to what would work but with the current smear campaign against the poor unemployed or not that need benefits I don't think anyone will be politically motivated the fact is we have the biggest inequality in the western world which is something I'm ashamed of. No wonder the working poor need benefits to get by they simply don't earn enough to live in rip off Britain, yet this morning I watched a CEO argue that leaving the EU would be good so they could lower the minimum wage, with a public brain washed by right wing media we may end up shooting ourselves in the foot irreparably.
Original post by tinkertailor
Our welfare system needs to be cut down to bare bones. It just acts as a psychological safety net where people know that if they don't find a job they can always rely on our super generous welfare system.
I'm glad the coalition are cut it down to size, it's a kick in the backside to those who think having a job and contributing to society isn't important.
I'm glad the coalition are cut it down to size, it's a kick in the backside to those who think having a job and contributing to society isn't important.
Cutting benefits to the bone while enacting economic policies that shed jobs as the economy shrinks is sheer lunacy.
Original post by Aspiringlawstudent
Taking money from people and giving it to people that haven't earned it is one of the best things about this country?
Why not go ahead and think that the bank bailouts were the best thing to happen in this country by that logic?
Why not go ahead and think that the bank bailouts were the best thing to happen in this country by that logic?
Whereas taking from the poor to give to the rich is a good idea (tax cuts for the rich while cutting disability benefits!)
Original post by amholcroft
Whereas taking from the poor to give to the rich is a good idea (tax cuts for the rich while cutting disability benefits!)
You're not 'taking' from someone when you don't give them something.
Similarly, you are not giving someone something when you do not take it from them.
If I don't break into your house and steal your TV, I haven't 'given' you anything, have I?
Think about things, come on.
Original post by amholcroft
Whereas taking from the poor to give to the rich is a good idea (tax cuts for the rich while cutting disability benefits!)
Cutting disability benefits to those that don't need it. Even after 2 years worth of cuts, our welfare system is still bloated as hell. It needs to be reduced to a state where it acts as a last resort for those who need it the most.
With regards to tax breaks for the rich, there does need to be a balanced approach. Though in the end it's all about rewarding the hard working. You look at France and their borderline communist 75% top rate tax and it's pathetic.
Original post by Aspiringlawstudent
You're not 'taking' from someone when you don't give them something.
Similarly, you are not giving someone something when you do not take it from them.
If I don't break into your house and steal your TV, I haven't 'given' you anything, have I?
Think about things, come on.
Similarly, you are not giving someone something when you do not take it from them.
If I don't break into your house and steal your TV, I haven't 'given' you anything, have I?
Think about things, come on.
I don't know when there's a person who is completely unable to work and has been surviving on benefits then you come along and using back handed methods of assessment say they can work when their GP's and other healthcare professionals involved with them say they're unable to work, I call that stealing because the government still maintains a disabled person unable to work is entitled to disability benefits.
The only difference is they're willing to bend the facts using unscrupulous private companies to pretend these disabled people are 'shirkers and scroungers'.
Original post by amholcroft
I don't know when there's a person who is completely unable to work and has been surviving on benefits then you come along and using back handed methods of assessment say they can work when their GP's and other healthcare professionals involved with them say they're unable to work, I call that stealing because the government still maintains a disabled person unable to work is entitled to disability benefits.
The only difference is they're willing to bend the facts using unscrupulous private companies to pretend these disabled people are 'shirkers and scroungers'.
The only difference is they're willing to bend the facts using unscrupulous private companies to pretend these disabled people are 'shirkers and scroungers'.
I don't think they should ever have been allowed to think that they're entitled to such things. People become dependent upon entitlements, and these can only be paid for by taking money from people by force. I don't think that's moral.
Original post by Aspiringlawstudent
I don't think they should ever have been allowed to think that they're entitled to such things. People become dependent upon entitlements, and these can only be paid for by taking money from people by force. I don't think that's moral.
These people cannot work what would you suggest gas them? Many are veterans with missing limbs e.g. two arms and a leg gone.
What is the % of welfare budget lost to fraud in the last year? Anyone like to have a guess?
Original post by tinkertailor
Cutting disability benefits to those that don't need it. Even after 2 years worth of cuts, our welfare system is still bloated as hell. It needs to be reduced to a state where it acts as a last resort for those who need it the most.
Many who need benefits are having them cut.
Original post by amholcroft
These people cannot work what would you suggest gas them? Many are veterans with missing limbs e.g. two arms and a leg gone.
I would suggest they rely upon private charity.
I didn't want to, but then I read this thread and suddenly I inexplicable do.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
