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%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    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.
    So your happy yo help fund some people who are getting more money/better lifestyle than you can afford on your current salary

    I.e some people rake in as much as 40k in child benefit alone!

    There are people having 3+ children and not working when most working people could not afford to have that many children or to live in most parts of London without thousands in housing benefit
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    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.

    Ok. You're entitled to your opinion.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    So your happy yo help fund some people who are getting more money/better lifestyle than you can afford on your current salary

    I.e some people rake in as much as 40k in child benefit alone!

    There are people having 3+ children and not working when most working people could not afford to have that many children or to live in most parts of London without thousands in housing benefit
    Again. Presenting a minority as a majority.

    Broken record.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AtlasCanTakeIt)
    Ok. You're entitled to your opinion.
    As are you.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AtlasCanTakeIt)
    Again. Presenting a minority as a majority.

    Broken record.
    I said some-but you dodged the question
    Still that the minority needs to stop undermining the integrity of the whole system
    Offline

    1
    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

    Welfare should only cover the GENUINE needy i.e disabled people
    Discuss.
    Instead of cutting benefits I think firstly we need to address the root causes of why people are on benefits - the socio-economic reasons. People have alcohol and drug problems because..? People are unemployed because..? People don't go to school because..? I don't think it's because some people are inherently lazy, or are genetically coded in some way which leads to these behaviours, but more that they are a product of the environment that they are born into.

    Children need to have parents who do not abuse or neglect them, who read to them, who feed them properly and are dedicated to them. If parents can start doing this then we won't have the same problems we have today. But I dont believe its solely the responsibility of the parents. They were children too at some point, and if they're ****ed up its probably because of something which happened in their childhood. I read somewhere that there is a link between people who were abused as a child and mental illness (and drug/alcohol abuse). And people who are abused are much more likely to abuse children when they are adults.

    So in order for parents to provide the best environment for their children to grow we need to provide parents with some things... a job would be a good start. If parents are stressing about money they won't be able to be as good a parent as they can be. Raising the minimum wage to an actual living wage (~£8.50) would be good too (presumably you'd be in favour because it would mean that people would earn much more working than on benefits).

    Once the parents are happy, in a secure job etc, this will hopefully allow them to focus more energy on their children (and they can go onto to be well-behaved, tax-paying consumers...).

    But yeah, with regards to benefit culture I don't think it is as big a problem as the daily mail like to make it out. They've done a particularly good job of making you and countless others think that the main problems with British society are immigrants and benefits. Immigrants put 6% more into UK GDP than they take out. And though benefit culture is a problem, the answer certainly isn't to stop giving people benefits. Especially in this economic stagnation where there simply is not enough work.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EwanHarvey)
    Instead of cutting benefits I think firstly we need to address the root causes of why people are on benefits - the socio-economic reasons. People have alcohol and drug problems because..? People are unemployed because..? People don't go to school because..? I don't think it's because some people are inherently lazy, or are genetically coded in some way which leads to these behaviours, but more that they are a product of the environment that they are born into.

    Children need to have parents who do not abusing them, who read to them, who feed them properly and are dedicated to them. If parents can start doing this then we won't have the same problems we have today. But I dont believe its solely the responsibility of the parents. They were children too at some point, and if they're ****ed up its probably because of something which happened in their childhood. I read somewhere that there is a link between people who were abused as a child and mental illness (and drug/alcohol abuse). And people who are abused are much more likely to abuse children when they are adults.

    So in order for parents to provide the best environment for their children to grow we need to provide parents with some things... a job would be a good start. If parents are stressing about money they won't be able to be as good a parent as they can be. Raising the minimum wage to an actual living wage (~£8.50) would be good too (presumably you'd be in favour because it would mean that people would earn much more working than on benefits).

    Once the parents are happy, in a secure job etc, this will hopefully allow them to focus more energy on their children (and they can go onto to be well-behaved, tax-paying consumers...).

    But yeah, with regards to benefit culture I don't think it is as big a problem as the daily mail like to make it out. They've done a particularly good job of making you and countless others think that the main problems with British society are immigrants and benefits. Immigrants put 6% more into UK GDP than they take out. And though benefit culture is a problem, the answer certainly isn't to stop giving people benefits. Especially in this economic stagnation where there simply is not enough work.
    Fantastic post, it's true that reducing benefits is putting an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff when we should be thinking about putting a fence at the top (addressing the issues that lead people to claim benefits in the first place). What no-one ever mentions is that over 40% of the entire benefits bill is spent on pensioners and a further 20% on housing benefit. Why don't we start looking at why people have to claim so much in housing benefit in the first place? E.g. the UK's extortionate property market.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noneofthemknew)
    Fantastic post, it's true that reducing benefits is putting an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff when we should be thinking about putting a fence at the top (addressing the issues that lead people to claim benefits in the first place). What no-one ever mentions is that over 40% of the entire benefits bill is spent on pensioners and a further 20% on housing benefit. Why don't we start looking at why people have to claim so much in housing benefit in the first place? E.g. the UK's extortionate property market.
    If I was in charge, the cuts would affect public sector workers earning over 100k

    All benefits -bar state pensions which people have paid NI payments for years to claim-should be means tested


    We should cut tax evasion, fraud and government waste
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Slave didn't have Blackberries
    Neither did slavemasters or royalty. I think not being invented then may have something to do with it, but thats just a theory.

    the right to vote
    Yeah, thats worth a lot... :rolleyes:

    and free housing in some of the most prestigous areas in the country
    Majority of poor welfare claimants live on council estates and run down areas, not Mayfair.

    I like how the some nutcases seem to glorify living on benefits, as if somehow everyone on benefits lives in a 5 bedroom mansion in Kensington with ipads and iphones and multiple 50 inch tvs, fancy cars, and burberry clothes.
    Having been on benefits for a short while, I could not WAIT to be off it, i could not afford to do anything at all,i spent all day researching jobs, studying and preparing for interviews, I could not afford to even socialise at all, or even heat my room in the winter, being completely isolated from society almost drove me mental.

    Was i just doing it wrong? Or is it the case that the people glorifying benefits are Daily Mail readers who just believe what they are told and have absolutely no concept of what it really is like living on benefits.

    I seriously want to know, because living on benefits was the absolute WORST experience of my life, and this is despite living a brief portion of my child hood in near poverty in a 3rd world country without a bed after my father died and my mother had to get by for years living in an unfinished house on less than what was effectively £100 a month.

    The majority of people on benefit, not only want to be able to provide for themselves, but are persons who previously have been in employment and have already contributed to society Giving them the helping hand they need to get back to being able to provide for themselves is an important safety net.

    But no, lets read the daily mail and focus on the handful of scroungers who don't want to work and glorify the lifestyle they live and cut holes in the safety net so it harms not just them but those who truly need it too.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhumbauze)
    I think the welfare budget should be left alone - I don't think it can stand to be cut, but I don't think it particularly needs increasing. It could do with reshuffling in some areas... for example, currently, in Scotland at least... Junkies are given disabled bus passes to travel throughout the country for free. Which is, frankly, insane. When did being a drug addict become a disability? There needs to be a distinction made between being declared "unfit for work" (which let's face it - active heroin addicts are) and genuinely "disabled". Apparently, no such distinction is currently made.

    .
    Your views on drug adicction are incredibly ignorant!

    Do you realise that often people are made homeless first and THEN turn to hard drugs as a way to cope? Have you ever slept rough on the streets?

    No, course you haven't, you've got two kids to use as meal tickets and as a way of getting endless freebies.

    Nobody ever wakes up one day and decides to become a drug adicct!

    Do you drink alcohol? You do realise how incredibly addicctive that is? One day, you may go through a crisis, have no help or support and drink heavily as a way to cope, before you know it, you are an alcoholic.

    Also, being over 60/65 doesn't automatically mean you are 'unfit for work'. Plenty of old people can and do work. It should be decided on a case by case basis. There is no need to give all old people a free bus pass.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elissabeth)
    There is no need to give all old people a free bus pass.
    Which many don't use anyway, because they either drive, or there's not much of a bus service.

    Where I am, we have buses that only go to the city centre. To get to the hospital, you've got to walk a mile or so to get to the bus which goes to the hospital, or get a bus into town. Much easier to drive there.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    Which many don't use anyway, because they either drive, or there's not much of a bus service.

    Where I am, we have buses that only go to the city centre. To get to the hospital, you've got to walk a mile or so to get to the bus which goes to the hospital, or get a bus into town. Much easier to drive there.
    That's a sweeping statement!
    Especially considering how expensive car ownership is-high fuel duty and high insurance costs

    Plus having to resit your test at 70
    Also a significant proportion of over 60s aren't able to drive due to health conditions
    Plus don't forget the high parking fees at Hospitals-in England and 2 PFI hospitals in Scotland

    And in London-car ownership is even less feasible for the majority of Londoners
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    All benefits -bar state pensions which people have paid NI payments for years to claim-should be means tested
    Why should DLA be means tested? Regardless of whether someone receives benefits or works, they would still have the same costs. And where do you draw the line? Some may only spend £20 a week on their disabilities and some of us spend far more.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    Why should DLA be means tested? Regardless of whether someone receives benefits or works, they would still have the same costs. And where do you draw the line? Some may only spend £20 a week on their disabilities and some of us spend far more.
    But those earning say over 100k or so shouldn't really get benefits at all apart from say a few exceptional cases
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    But those earning say over 100k or so shouldn't really get benefits at all apart from say a few exceptional cases
    You are in effect, means testing the blue badge there. But the family who earn £100k and have a disabled child are in need of a blue badge the same as someone else who receives benefits and has the same disability and needs.

    That's not right at all.

    Some people have very expensive disabilities. How would you decide whether their case is exceptional? And why should one person whose partner earns £100k receive DLA; but another doesn't?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    You are in effect, means testing the blue badge there. But the family who earn £100k and have a disabled child are in need of a blue badge the same as someone else who receives benefits and has the same disability and needs.

    That's not right at all.

    Some people have very expensive disabilities. How would you decide whether their case is exceptional? And why should one person whose partner earns £100k receive DLA; but another doesn't?
    It should be done on a case by case basis

    If a person needs support they should get it , However it is unlikely those earning over 100k would need support but as I said there are a few exceptional cases

    A blue badge isn't really a benefit-after all it is effectively worthless for disabled people who don't drive
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    I

    A blue badge isn't really a benefit-after all it is effectively worthless for disabled people who don't drive
    It's not worthless for someone who can't drive. I have friends whose children have Downs Syndrome and can't walk. How is the badge worthless to them? They (unlike non-disabled people) can't spark in normal sized parking spaces.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    It's not worthless for someone who can't drive. I have friends whose children have Downs Syndrome and can't walk. How is the badge worthless to them? They (unlike non-disabled people) can't spark in normal sized parking spaces.
    If someone can't drive they won't benefit from the blue badge

    I have a friend disabled people who can't walk and is totally dependant on public transport-she doesn't benefit from a blue badge at all- though she is a Londoner and Londoners are known for been highly dependant on public transport

    Plus some disabled people are totally unable to drive at all
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    If someone can't drive they won't benefit from the blue badge

    I have a friend disabled people who can't walk and is totally dependant on public transport-she doesn't benefit from a blue badge at all- though she is a Londoner and Londoners are known for been highly dependant on public transport

    Plus some disabled people are totally unable to drive at all
    How won't they benefit from a blue badge? How are they meant to go shopping or whatever if there's nowhere for them to park and get out the car?

    It's sod all to do with driving.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'd support cutting it by 100%.
 
 
 
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.