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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Haha, ok, unfortunately this is the world we live in, if you choose a degree with no jobs then you will deal with the consequences, choosing your future is not something you can over simplify you have to look in to it. We as civilian cannot change the way this world works and the economy to that extent, so we deal with it as it is and do whats beneficial for enjoyment AND survival Nobody has the right to live off benefits if they are fit and able to work I believe, oversimplified enough for you The demand for certain fields will always be more than others over simplification does not explain this it's fact.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maryamlondon)
    Haha, ok, unfortunately this is the world we live in, if you choose a degree with no jobs then you will deal with the consequences, choosing your future is not something you can over simplify you have to look in to it. We as civilian cannot change the way this world works and the economy to that extent, so we deal with it as it is and do whats beneficial for enjoyment AND survival Nobody has the right to live off benefits if they are fit and able to work I believe, oversimplified enough for you The demand for certain fields will always be more than others over simplification does not explain this it's fact.
    So people should only gain skills for jobs that are available? As I said, without students studying for liberal arts degrees, universities couldn't afford to teach medicine/engineering/architecture(?).

    What is useful and worthwhile to society is a job market that rewards a wide range of skills.

    We have no responsibility to change the demands of society and ask, as taxpayers, that investment be made in creating jobs for the graduates we already have?

    And we all have influence over the economy and how the 'world works'. We are voting taxpayers, who have forgotten (apparently) that governments are answerable to us, not vice versa.





    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AtlasCanTakeIt)
    So people should only gain skills for jobs that are available? As I said, without students studying for liberal arts degrees, universities couldn't afford to teach medicine/engineering/architecture(?).

    What is useful and worthwhile to society is a job market that rewards a wide range of skills.

    We have no responsibility to change the demands of society and ask, as taxpayers, that investment be made in creating jobs for the graduates we already have?

    And we all have influence over the economy and how the 'world works'. We are voting taxpayers, who have forgotten (apparently) that governments are answerable to us, not vice versa.





    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    There will always be prospective students for media, arts, anthropology, philosophy, whichever degree there are less job prospects in. However, if somebody is concerned about being unemployed for the rest of their lives living off taxes then it would make more sense to take that into consideration when making huge life choices. That does not mean to study sciences, architecture or engineering. Clearly the amount payed out for social welfare is not much compared to how much they recieve through all the different taxes and fines etc but my point is not for everybody to study subjects that I enjoy and are employable but just that most people living off benefits are not university graduates, there may be some who were unfortunate and ended up in that situation, but I am sure in most cases people with the goals and determination to finish university will not spend all of their life intentionally claiming benefits generally speaking. But you seem to be missing the point, so this point is pointless haha.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maryamlondon)
    If you choose a degree that there is few job prospects that isn't a wise choice, everybody has a choice in what they study. If you study something you enjoy and are good at but has no job prospects it makes no sense so you choose something that you enjoy are good at and has good job prospects. It might not be your biggest hobby such as art or media, where there are less prospects but something in the medical or finance field, if you work hard and go to a good university and dedicate your university years to studying and achieve good grades, you will get a job period. I believe if you can afford to study something you enjoy and risk losing out on permenant employment or regular "decent" income then by all means study what you enjoy and educate yourself about your interests, but if you have no means of support and are relying on your degree for a job then choose something that you have done you research and know there are job prospects. I know why I am saying this as I have many relatives and friends who have degrees and all of which have jobs as they studied subjects such as neuroscience, medicine, pharmacy, oral health sciences, computer science, architecture. These are fields always in demand of graduates.
    That was your original statement. You waffled a bit but essentially you state - in response to my mentioning that 1 in 5 graduates are unemployed - that people are out of work because the degrees they obtained are less valuable, as they relate to overly competitive industries. Furthermore, that those in more scientific fields are more likely to be employed. So it is down to the bad judgement of 17 year olds that they end up unemployed and a burden on the taxpayer.

    I've simply stated the sociological reasons why the 'personal choices' of prospective students don't adequately explain why they are struggling to find work. A student who can analyse and critique Plato's Utopia, for example, shouldn't be working in Mc Donald's, and something is wrong with society if useless jobs like these are all we can find for educated people.

    I'm not a snob, I don't think anyone should have to work in places like these. But that's the point, the capitalist system relies on a subservient underclass of people doing meaningless work. My point is that it's not right.

    Not only have I made your point more concisely than you could, I've also rendered it moot. I won't continue to go round in circles with you.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AtlasCanTakeIt)
    That was your original statement. You waffled a bit but essentially you state - in response to my mentioning that 1 in 5 graduates are unemployed - that people are out of work because the degrees they obtained are less valuable, as they relate to overly competitive industries. Furthermore, that those in more scientific fields are more likely to be employed. So it is down to the bad judgement of 17 year olds that they end up unemployed and a burden on the taxpayer.

    I've simply stated the sociological reasons why the 'personal choices' of prospective students don't adequately explain why they are struggling to find work. A student who can analyse and critique Plato's Utopia, for example, shouldn't be working in Mc Donald's, and something is wrong with society if useless jobs like these are all we can find for educated people.

    I'm not a snob, I don't think anyone should have to work in places like these. But that's the point, the capitalist system relies on a subservient underclass of people doing meaningless work. My point is that it's not right.

    Not only have I made your point more concisely than you could, I've also rendered it moot. I won't continue to go round in circles with you.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    You still haven't understood my point. You responded to MY post and I then spoke about graduates. How can jobs for philosophy be created? I would definitely rather work in McDonalds and earn my own money than to go to a job centre and rely on taxes to put a roof over my head and eat, I'd personally find that more degrading than working for my money. In certain circumstances people should be able to rely on that system however, you mentioned graduate unemployment after I spoke about couch potatoes. So to begin with your response to my comment had no real relevance. You are inordinately simplifying things . Like you said somebody who is a scholar should using their knowledge and talent to their full potential, but if their is less demand for it then what can realistically be done? You should come up with suggestions on how to create paying jobs for graduates which actually have a market and a future because nobody else seems to have yet.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maryamlondon)
    You still haven't understood my point. You responded to MY post and I then spoke about graduates. How can jobs for philosophy be created? I would definitely rather work in McDonalds and earn my own money than to go to a job centre and rely on taxes to put a roof over my head and eat, I'd personally find that more degrading than working for my money. In certain circumstances people should be able to rely on that system however, you mentioned graduate unemployment after I spoke about couch potatoes. So to begin with your response to my comment had no real relevance. You are inordinately simplifying things . Like you said somebody who is a scholar should using their knowledge and talent to their full potential, but if their is less demand for it then what can realistically be done? You should come up with suggestions on how to create paying jobs for graduates which actually have a market and a future because nobody else seems to have yet.

    My statement was relevant to the OP's chosen title of the thread.

    Unemployment is actually very low, but proportionally high amongst graduates.

    You think that benefits should be cut.

    Why?

    Because it would provide an incentive? There are only enough jobs available for around 20% of those claiming job seekers. The incentive theory doesn't hold up.

    Because it would save money? Yes it would. But at the cost of the destitution of poor people already caught in the poverty trap.

    You're the one suggesting cutting benefits, so, why?


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tory88)
    In order to get competitive graduate jobs I'm expected to undertake unpaid or underpaid internships, why should it be any different for someone else looking to get into a competitive jobs market?
    Very well said Tory 88 (to Camden town!)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Forget cutting it, abolish it. It isn't other peoples fault you haven't got a job it's yours. Do things to increase your own employ-ability rather than taking money off people who've worked to get where they are.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IAmThatcher)
    Forget cutting it, abolish it. It isn't other peoples fault you haven't got a job it's yours. Do things to increase your own employ-ability rather than taking money off people who've worked to get where they are.
    Except for the disabled and those who've genuinely fallen on hard times*

    * Though it could be partly funded using the profits from a new UK sovereign wealth fund and the savings from leaving the EU
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tory88)
    In order to get competitive graduate jobs I'm expected to undertake unpaid or underpaid internships, why should it be any different for someone else looking to get into a competitive jobs market?
    This devalues the skills and work of those who are actually working for a wage, young people are having to work harder and harder for the exact same opportunities that the previous generation had.

    (Original post by AtlasCanTakeIt)
    So people should only gain skills for jobs that are available? As I said, without students studying for liberal arts degrees, universities couldn't afford to teach medicine/engineering/architecture(?).
    Ha, as if you've lumped architecture with medicine and engineering in terms of economically useful degrees.

    (Original post by IAmThatcher)
    Forget cutting it, abolish it. It isn't other peoples fault you haven't got a job it's yours. Do things to increase your own employ-ability rather than taking money off people who've worked to get where they are.
    No, can your thinking be any more simplistic? Unemployment is both a systemic problem caused by a dynamic relationship between the number and skill level of workers and the supply of jobs and the skills required to do them along with being a fundamental condition for the survival of capitalism.

    Also, you have to spend money to make money, how are people able to fund building up their skill set/work experience on zero income? How are people able to feed themselves on zero income?

    (Original post by a729)
    Except for the disabled and those who've genuinely fallen on hard times*

    * Though it could be partly funded using the profits from a new UK sovereign wealth fund and the savings from leaving the EU
    So you mean the 99.3% of everyone who is currently claiming jobseekers?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AtlasCanTakeIt)
    A student who can analyse and critique Plato's Utopia, for example, shouldn't be working in Mc Donald's, and something is wrong with society if useless jobs like these are all we can find for educated people...........I'm not a snob
    Whether you are or not, I don't know, but you certainly come across that way in your post. I'd say working in McDonald's is much more "useful" than self righteously peacocking your academic credentials and pompously dismissing other people's comments:

    (Original post by AtlasCanTakeIt)
    Not only have I made your point more concisely than you could, I've also rendered it moot. I won't continue to go round in circles with you.


    (Original post by AtlasCanTakeIt)

    You think that benefits should be cut.

    Why?
    Welfare (what this thread is about, not exclusively unemployment benefit) is about 30% of government spending and the UK is planning to spend just under 20% more than it takes in tax (http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget...ve_summary.pdf). Perhaps if you were studying a "useful" subject that was firmly placed in the real world, you may be better placed to appreciate this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am simultaneously saddened and astounded at the comments I am reading in this thread. Yes there are those that screw the system, but the vast majority do not. I am a mature student with a severely disabled son and a husband with a chronic debilitating condition who is now, through ill health, having to try and claim ESA. I also worked in the care sector for over 9 years supporting adults with learning disabilities. I am hopeful that most people commenting on this thread have never needed to access welfare services and won’t need to in the future, but if something unfortunate occurs to you or a loved one then I can only wish you good luck. In 2009 the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has released statistics in respect of ESA medical examinations. The figures seem to suggest out of 189,800 assessed, 130,500 were found fit for work. Those found fit included some with terminal conditions and others with conditions like Autism. The National Autistic Society in October 2009 revealed that 100,000 people with Autism out of 300,000 were living with no job and no allowances. And that was before the farce of a Coalition government we have now got in.
    Despite Cameron’s 2010 statement about ‘Fairness means giving money to help the poorest in society’, by the end of the Coalition’s time in Parliament, £9BN of the £18BN of the cuts being made to welfare will come from benefits and grants which help disabled people.
    In September 2012 Save the Children had to launch its first ever domestic fundraising appeal. A growing number of children in Britain do not have their basic needs met and in Oxfam’s Perfect Storm said that between the rising cost of living and the welfare cuts the UK is threatening to return to ‘levels of inequality not seen since the Victorian times’.
    And yet we are hearing about tax breaks for those with second homes, huge corporations slipping through tax loop holes and generally a massive amount of money mismanagement. And why are items such as helicopters VAT exempt?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldie_2013)
    Whether you are or not, I don't know, but you certainly come across that way in your post. I'd say working in McDonald's is much more "useful" than self righteously peacocking your academic credentials and pompously dismissing other people's comments:







    Welfare (what this thread is about, not exclusively unemployment benefit) is about 30% of government spending and the UK is planning to spend just under 20% more than it takes in tax (http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget...ve_summary.pdf). Perhaps if you were studying a "useful" subject that was firmly placed in the real world, you may be better placed to appreciate this.
    So, the welfare budget should be cut because we're borrowing to cover our spending, correct?

    That doesn't explain why welfare should be cut, and other government expenditures shouldn't.

    The defence budget for example. Overpayment of housing benefit is largely due to private landlords in inner cities overcharging tenants. Corporate tax evasion is rife, and if dealt with properly, would contribute to the public purse. Economists, even those from neoliberal organisations like the IMF are stating publicly that austerity isn't working, another Osborne axiom.

    There are plenty of ways to reduce expenditure and borrowing.

    It is your opinion that welfare expenditure should be on the front line of cuts, not mine.

    And I don't study philosophy, nor would I have to for my point to be valid.

    Congratulations for being able to link to a government document by the way.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AtlasCanTakeIt)
    So, the welfare budget should be cut because we're borrowing to cover our spending, correct?

    That doesn't explain why welfare should be cut, and other government expenditures shouldn't.

    I didn't say they other departments shouldn't be cut. I said that welfare is such a massive area of spending, £220bn/£720bn, that you would have to devastate other departments to leave it intact. When pensioners receive a free TV licence, free bus pass, winter fuel allowance etc regardless of income, I think there is some leeway.

    (Original post by AtlasCanTakeIt)
    even those from neoliberal organisations like the IMF are stating publicly that austerity isn't working

    They have always and still do support the view that the UK deficit has to be brought back to reality. The chief economist at the IMF has suggested that they slow the pace of deficit reduction but has absolutely not suggested that the deficit doesn't need to be reduced. I don't think there are any respected economic commentators who think the deficit can stay as it is for the medium term.

    Whilst talking about austerity and since you are so keen on government docs and data here is a good one for you, it's UK expenditure since 2009:


    2009 £671Bn
    2010 £697Bn
    2011 £710Bn
    2012 £711Bn*
    2013 £720Bn

    *(incorporating one-off royal mail pension asset transfer) (from http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget2013_documents.htm and http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/news/nol/...eport_2591.pdf)

    All the "cuts" and "austerity" thus far have been in the form of freezes/small increases with inflation making the real expenditure go down; it's hardly the axe wielding pandemonium that some people seem to think. Quite frankly, it's actually a bit insulting to Greece and Ireland to refer to the UK's policy as "austerity".


    (Original post by AtlasCanTakeIt)
    And I don't study philosophy, nor would I have to for my point to be valid.

    Okay, I'm not sure I said you did. I'm going to take a wild guess though and predict that you don't study economics....?





    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mumoftmt)
    I am simultaneously saddened and astounded at the comments I am reading in this thread. Yes there are those that screw the system, but the vast majority do not. I am a mature student with a severely disabled son and a husband with a chronic debilitating condition who is now, through ill health, having to try and claim ESA. I also worked in the care sector for over 9 years supporting adults with learning disabilities. I am hopeful that most people commenting on this thread have never needed to access welfare services and won’t need to in the future, but if something unfortunate occurs to you or a loved one then I can only wish you good luck.
    Well said. Most people on here have no idea what it's like to struggle on benefits or be disabled and have to apply benefits. I hate it. I want to work; but other people are putting barriers in my way.

    Yes, there are some who do scam the system and claim benefits when they shouldn't do; but they're a minority. I have friends who have struggled to get ESA. One of whom was finally told a few weeks ago, (after trying since November 2008) that she qualifies. Before then, it was a case of failing the assessment, failing the appeal and starting all over again. She was unable to claim JSA because she's unfit for work. What a ridiculous system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AtlasCanTakeIt)
    190 families, out of the 17+ million in the UK. You're deluded mate.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    "Posted from iPhone/iPad App".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    "Posted from iPhone/iPad App".
    Are you having a senior moment Maggie?


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AtlasCanTakeIt)
    Are you having a senior moment Maggie?


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Such items are luxuries. Can't be doing too badly?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    Such items are luxuries. Can't be doing too badly?
    I work very hard. And I'm happy to see my hard earned taxes contribute to a welfare system that protects working class people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AtlasCanTakeIt)
    I work very hard. And I'm happy to see my hard earned taxes contribute to a welfare system that protects working class people.
    As a safety net, yes. Most people believe that.

    But your hard earned money should never be taxed too much and it should not be used to fund those abusing the system. Its your money. You even admit you work hard. So, you deserve to keep quite a bit of it.

    High taxes destroy incentive. Therefore the incentive used to create Apple products may never have been there if the resources weren't there to innovate and if the fear the government would have taxed profit too much.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
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.