Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

We SHOULD cut welfare spending! Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should we cut welfare spending?
    Yes
    210
    56.30%
    Leave it as it is
    82
    21.98%
    No-increase welfare spending
    81
    21.72%

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Hmm older people get all that because politician's don't want to upset them and lose their votes
    The old person vote is about the only demographic of the population we have which is growing, they're obviously going to get pandered to. That's just the way that politics works, if a majority of people are old then parties are going to want to have pro-old-person policies or risk losing a huge section of the vote. I think too that old people have quite a good turnout compared to people our age in particular.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by euphful)
    The thing I fear most is a person with a gun killing children in schools. Can't remember the last time that happened I the UK my dear friend. Coincidence? No.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Look at this story and answer these questions.

    What would have happened if she was in the UK and had no access to a gun?
    Sadly the police failed her and this 'man' could have repeated what he did first time or worse
    Do you think that this was a good end to a bad story?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NJQK...wgZ6g&index=52
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wattsy)
    The old person vote is about the only demographic of the population we have which is growing, they're obviously going to get pandered to. That's just the way that politics works, if a majority of people are old then parties are going to want to have pro-old-person policies or risk losing a huge section of the vote. I think too that old people have quite a good turnout compared to people our age in particular.
    That's my point - the 'cuts' will leave older people virtually untouched as a result

    If more young people went to the ballot box, life would improve for us- maybe they'd even stop valuing the work of under-21's less than everyone else (in terms of minimum wage)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I will just put my two cents in before I go to sleep. I pay my taxes and have only been out of work for a brief period of about 3 months between university and my first job. Had I not had unemployment benefit, I'd not have been able to survive. It wasn't for the want of trying to get jobs either, apply for hundreds.. get an interview for 1. For those of you who think it deters people from working, it's not a glamorous life having to watch every single penny that goes out. It's not fun waiting for food to get reduced in the supermarket, and by no means is it fun struggling to meet bill payments. I was even lucky by having more than the usual because I was living in ROI which is twice as much as benefits in the UK. Nobody wants a life on benefits and those who do probably wouldn't be worth employing.

    The welfare system will always benefit you directly or indirectly, and don't punish the majority of genuine people having a hard time because of the few who take advantage. There's always a minority.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Elissabeth)
    I disagree with you about top-up benefits.

    Some people who own a really valuable house are still entitled to them! Its ridiculous. If they were that poor, they'd sell their house. Or people who own a reasonable car or even two cars! Use the tax credits for going on holiday etc!

    Having kids is a lifestyle choice, and if people need benefits, should only pay for the bare minimum. Its just greedy and selfish to expect the taxpayer to pay for a life of luxury!

    It should only be an interest-free loan that people get and have to pay back once their youngest child is 18.

    Also, the biggest cost to the welfare state is pensions. Plenty of pensioners have loads of money and own their own home. Why should the taxpayer pay for their state pension, free bus pass and winter fuel allowance etc?

    And your point about drug addiccts, yes, you are right, plenty of people can't afford to use public transport these days. BUT, remember, no-one ever wakes up one morning and decides to become a heroin addicct.

    Do you yourself drink alcohol? Well, how do you know that one day, you won't have a big crisis, and heavily increase your comsumption of it to numb the pain? And then become addiccted to it? Because, its highly addicctive and just as difficult to give up as hard drugs.

    Having kids is not necessarily a "lifestyle choice" ... I have two children, when the first pregnancy started I was 23, my partner was 21, and we were both at University. Despite what the media would have you believe about people "living it up on benefits" when they have kids - believe me - the easy option would have been to "end" the pregnancy and carry on as normal. However, the right thing to do - no matter how difficult - was to accept responsibility for the life we created and find a way through, which we did. To do so, we do have to rely on Tax Credits, and again, believe me, they don't pay for "two cars" or "luxury holidays". You've been reading too much Daily Mail there.

    Anyway, as I've said countless times, the reason Tax Credits are required in our society is because our consumerist / capitalist economic structure is SO badly broken. Bills are high, food is expensive, average private sector rent prices are - frankly - ridiculous. A man on a full time wage that has for some reason been deemed acceptable has absolutely no way of supporting a family without top-ups. How is this not indicative of an economic structure that is well and truly broken? It was broken by our society - many in our society live off of the cream generated by such inequality - so no... I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to expect society to top up a wage structure that it helped to break in the first place. The Minimum Wage simply does not reflect the cost of living. I would love not to have to claim Tax Credits - and I fully expect not to have to, in time - but that's a few years off, yet. It also pisses me off as much as the next person to see ****ty, chavvy parents neglecting their kids and spending that money on themselves. More than the next person, probably... I despise people like that. But I'm obviously not willing to see families like my own thrown under the bus in order to "stick it to them". It's not the case that they "get too much money" and that's why they seem to be able to afford a lot. Rather, they get the right amount to live a half decent family life, but spend it all on themselves and not on feeding / educating / nurturing their children properly.


    I actually agree that these things should be better means tested... the cap is a bit high, really. I personally don't understand why a family on £40k would need topping up - considering our family income is around £24k inclusive of Tax Credits and we live comfortably enough. I also agree that there's a bit of an issue with pensions, with some pensioners ending up much better off than others (e.g. being able to claim NHS / Miners / etc pensions and state pension benefits at the same time) and I do think people should be more prepared to support themselves in their old age, if they have at some point in their working lives had the means to put such things in motion... however, you can't put that into effect in retrospect: "todays pensioners" were promised support when they were young enough to have done something about it... you can't turn around NOW and say "Oh well you're not getting it now. You didn't set yourself up for retirement, believing the promises that had been made? Oh. Well tough, enjoy starving ". I think young people today will have to consider their own retirement prospects, and that's OK, because we're forewarned. Those who are already pensioners? The only "right" or "fair" thing to do is to accept the burden and give them as they were promised until they inevitably die off.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Look at this story and answer these questions.

    What would have happened if she was in the UK and had no access to a gun?
    Sadly the police failed her and this 'man' could have repeated what he did first time or worse
    Do you think that this was a good end to a bad story?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NJQK...wgZ6g&index=52
    There is no place for weapons that kill in a modern, progressive society. Whatever you perceive the damage by banning these types of things, I perceive it to be far far greater by allowing them in to every day life. Far greater, there is no comparison for me.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by a729)
    If more young people went to the ballot box, life would improve for us- maybe they'd even stop valuing the work of under-21's less than everyone else (in terms of minimum wage)
    Unlikely - the situation there is getting worse without it even being noticed. With these bogus "apprenticeship" schemes. Which basically involve 16 - 21 year olds doing minimum wage jobs, for almost no money, learning next to nothing and - oh yes - they're for big private companies, so for every one of these "apprentices", there's yet another genuine, properly paid, full time job off the market. It's an absolute mess. The young are being used as cheap labour because they can't expect any better and as a result of that cheap labour, companies are OBVIOUSLY less willing to offer anyone a genuine entry level wage. Leaving anyone who is over 21, not already established in a company, and who doesn't have a professional qualification, utterly screwed.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhumbauze)

    I actually agree that these things should be better means tested... the cap is a bit high, really. I personally don't understand why a family on £40k would need topping up - considering our family income is around £24k inclusive of Tax Credits and we live comfortably enough.
    Someone on 40k would only get tax credits if they have have several children and /or a few children with disabilities.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by euphful)
    There is no place for weapons that kill in a modern, progressive society. Whatever you perceive the damage by banning these types of things, I perceive it to be far far greater by allowing them in to every day life. Far greater, there is no comparison for me.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I think it would be foolish for the US to ban them with situations like that happening daily

    You didn't answer my question lol

    I just think people need to realise banning anything gives criminals the monopoly on it
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    I don't mean to offend people but the only really valid opinions here are those of people who have studied economics or politics. I am studying economics and cutting welfare spending is not as simple as many of you believe - cutting spending here does not necessarily cut the deficit, it could lead to a fall of government receipts or it may require increased spending elsewhere.

    However, despite this, I do still agree with the majority here, welfare SHOULD be reduced from its ridiculous current levels. It makes up around 1/3 of all government expenditure!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhumbauze)
    Unlikely - the situation there is getting worse without it even being noticed. With these bogus "apprenticeship" schemes. Which basically involve 16 - 21 year olds doing minimum wage jobs, for almost no money, learning next to nothing and - oh yes - they're for big private companies, so for every one of these "apprentices", there's yet another genuine, properly paid, full time job off the market. It's an absolute mess. The young are being used as cheap labour because they can't expect any better and as a result of that cheap labour, companies are OBVIOUSLY less willing to offer anyone a genuine entry level wage. Leaving anyone who is over 21, not already established in a company, and who doesn't have a professional qualification, utterly screwed.
    Some apprenticeships are really good like those in TfL- they pay them a decent wage indeed!

    I see what you mean- but politicians know if they follow policies that make life harder for the young -they won't be voted out

    If anyone removed free travel for the elderly they probably would not have another term- even Maggie was scared of upsetting the older people lool
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NotMyToothbrush)
    I don't mean to offend people but the only really valid opinions here are those of people who have studied economics or politics. I am studying economics and cutting welfare spending is not as simple as many of you believe - cutting spending here does not necessarily cut the deficit, it could lead to a fall of government receipts or it may require increased spending elsewhere.

    However, despite this, I do still agree with the majority here, welfare SHOULD be reduced from its ridiculous current levels. It makes up around 1/3 of all government expenditure!
    It's interesting how you say that- Maggie one of the most successful/longest ruling PM's was a Chemist!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    For the people suggesting the living wage, it will simply lead to supply side inflation and the return to the nairu

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    It's interesting how you say that- Maggie one of the most successful/longest ruling PM's was a Chemist!
    The chancellor of the exchequer is the politician dealing with the budget mainly, not the prime minister.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NotMyToothbrush)
    The chancellor of the exchequer is the politician dealing with the budget mainly, not the prime minister.
    George Osbourne has a History degree...




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NotMyToothbrush)
    The chancellor of the exchequer is the politician dealing with the budget mainly, not the prime minister.
    She was the boss in almost every department when she was PM!

    She was nothing like Blair who allowed Brown to be so powerful !
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    She was the boss in almost every department when she was PM!

    She was nothing like Blair who allowed Brown to be so powerful !
    Wasn't she ousted by her own party?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    For me it's clear that welfare is a huge detriment to our society. Welfare doesn't motivate people at all and it gives people the incentive to do nothing. To make things worse -- paying for welfare requires us to punish success. We basically take money away from successful people and redistribute it to the unsuccessful.

    Drop out of high-school to do drugs? No problem! We'll just take money away from the kids who actually do the right thing and give it to you!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...it-broods.html
    Does that seem right to anyone?

    Working hard and smart creates an obligation for you to support other people. That to me is just insanity.

    It punishes the working class when you're richer on benefits than working (after tax/NI )

    Also, redistributing wealth creates a huge system of dependency. People that are dependent on other people are clearly less free. Welfare gives more power to the wealthy in our society because it establishes a system in where the poor are indebted to the wealthy.

    There are many people better off on welfare than working

    We need less welfare and not more.

    Welfare is a PRIVILEGE not a RIGHT
    It should be a safety net NOT a lifestyle choice
    This should also accompany moves to cut tax evasion and benefit fraud
    Benefit claimants should do some community service to contribute to society. This would help end the something for nothing culture
    Discuss.
    Probable 16-24 middle class white male who still lives with his parents and has high qualifications possibly at a prestigious university thinks we should cut welfare spending. Where do I start? All I will say is this; I was talking to my mum recently about how the government is using the same tactics as the Nazis in getting public support. While the Nazis used that Jews as a scapegoat for all of Germany's problems, the conservatives are doing the same thing with people on welfare. Yes there were some money grabbing Jews in Germany and there are scrounging benefit claimants but the majority including me struggle every day in a system that gives you the bare minimum to live on, is a total nightmare to deal with and offers you no real help in finding a job in a tough current job market.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tea-Party)
    Yes, but it doesnt matter how rich someone is, its HIS property. You dont have any right at all to judge about someone elses property. You cant demand that someone takes something from someone against his will. And just think about how hard it its to actually get rich. It takes decades of extreme hard work, intelligence, creativity etc. of course there are always exceptions, but someone like bill gates that created so much wealth, that gave so many people jobs, that improved our lifes deserves BILLIONS of dollars. Just thiknk about the immense impact he had on this planet. And everyone that thinks otherwise is either jealous, stupid and definitely not even slightly able to do the same thing.
    These are the disgusting shouting dirty human beings that go on occupy wall street protests.
    If you think people who protest are disgusting shouting dirty human beings, there is something wrong with you. People have a freedom of speech and people on protests are choosing to speak out. At least these people have a set of balls and are prepared to stand up for what they believe in.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhumbauze)
    Having kids is not necessarily a "lifestyle choice" ... I have two children, when the first pregnancy started I was 23, my partner was 21, and we were both at University. Despite what the media would have you believe about people "living it up on benefits" when they have kids - believe me - the easy option would have been to "end" the pregnancy and carry on as normal. However, the right thing to do - no matter how difficult - was to accept responsibility for the life we created and find a way through, which we did. To do so, we do have to rely on Tax Credits, and again, believe me, they don't pay for "two cars" or "luxury holidays". You've been reading too much Daily Mail there.

    Anyway, as I've said countless times, the reason Tax Credits are required in our society is because our consumerist / capitalist economic structure is SO badly broken. Bills are high, food is expensive, average private sector rent prices are - frankly - ridiculous. A man on a full time wage that has for some reason been deemed acceptable has absolutely no way of supporting a family without top-ups. How is this not indicative of an economic structure that is well and truly broken? It was broken by our society - many in our society live off of the cream generated by such inequality - so no... I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to expect society to top up a wage structure that it helped to break in the first place. The Minimum Wage simply does not reflect the cost of living. I would love not to have to claim Tax Credits - and I fully expect not to have to, in time - but that's a few years off, yet. It also pisses me off as much as the next person to see ****ty, chavvy parents neglecting their kids and spending that money on themselves. More than the next person, probably... I despise people like that. But I'm obviously not willing to see families like my own thrown under the bus in order to "stick it to them". It's not the case that they "get too much money" and that's why they seem to be able to afford a lot. Rather, they get the right amount to live a half decent family life, but spend it all on themselves and not on feeding / educating / nurturing their children properly.


    .
    So are you saying that both of your children were contraceptive failures? How unlucky!

    Who is to say whether abortion is right or wrong? The catholic church don't make me laugh!

    Don't you think your children had the right to NOT be born into poverty?

    What about what would have been 'right' for everyone else? I.e the taxpayer supporting your children? Did they get any say??? You have not accepted responsibilty if you are claiming benefits to raise your children.

    If you happened to be in a country with no welfare system, what would you have done? Kept the baby, and begged with it on the streets? I don't think you would have, some how.

    My opinion is not based on the Daily Fail. My cousin and his partner have a mortgage in London, are fairly well-off, and entitled to child tax credits.

    A former work colleague had one child, a partner on about £26K and she claimed CTC, they had 2 cars, holidays, a trip to the US, nights out,nice clothes etc.

    Are you seriously suggesting that you have no luxuries? Do your children get birthday and christmas presents? Are they wearing rags/charity shop clothes? Have they got any toys? How did you afford them?

    Do you all eat Tesco Value food?

    Have you got a TV?

    Maybe if you stopped mismanaging your money and wasting it, you could live off the minimum wage!
 
 
 
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.