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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    what charity? Some are being closed down and others can't give to everyone who needs them.

    What's the point of paying tax and national insurance if the state won't support you?

    Most of you have no idea what it's like to be on benefits. We don't all live the life luxury and most don't want to be on benefits. Many people have killed themselves over losing their benefits. Do we really want more deaths?
    I don't think people should be paying income tax or national insurance.

    I think it's only morally acceptable for the government to provide police, the armed forces, the courts and to prevent negative externalities. I believe that everything else should be reserved to the people and the free market.

    I think this should be funded by a flat 20% consumption tax on consumer goods; I do not think there should be any other taxes, levies, fees or tariffs.

    With lower taxes, I think there is every reason to expect that people will be more charitable - though they are currently very generous.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cheshire1990)
    I think it depends on each individual case. If somebody has no intention of working, thats not due to ill health or other major issues, then yes, I think welfare should be cut.

    There is people over the road from us that have never worked and they are in there mid 60's. Mum is a nurse and works 12 hour shifts, usually a 50 hours week.

    However, people iwho really need it should get support. So people who have lost there job, ill health etc.

    Personal views only.
    That's exactly what I've been saying!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Your point became redundant when your quoted the Daily Heil.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    I don't think people should be paying income tax or national insurance.
    How would contribution based benefits such as pensions be funded, then?
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Elissabeth)
    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?
    I'm not unsympathetic to addicts - I understand how the addiction cycle works and it's a horrible thing. It turns people who were once normal children like any other into empty shells incapable of feeling natural happiness as it destroys the serotonin receptors in the brain. It's probably a fate worse than death... it's horrific. And I actually said, it should be recognised that they are not realistically able to work.

    All I said was - usually, they are not physically disabled... they don't have physical obstacles preventing them from getting around. And therefore, I don't see why they need bus passes. Really, they should be for people who physically can't even get to their locals shops without transport.


    No, course you haven't, you've got two kids to use as meal tickets and as a way of getting endless freebies.
    Sigh. I've said on this thread before - I, personally, would be financially better off (on my salary - I am not unemployed) if I was a single person with no children. Any extra money is for supporting the children and isn't spent on me, at all, so certainly doesn't constitute "a meal ticket". As for "getting countless freebies"? What freebies would those be, exactly?

    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.
    As it happens, I drink very little alcohol - possibly once every 3 to 4 months, sometimes less. I do realise how addictive it is. My mother is an alcoholic, and destroyed her marriage and a successful 25 year long career through abuse of alcohol. I have a fairly deep, personal understanding of the issue... I'm not sure why you think otherwise? I'm not one of the deluded people in this thread screaming "scrap benefits". I know that the issues are deep and complex, and that anyone with an ounce of social responsibility shouldn't be trying to shuffle away from "their tax money" going towards benefits for people who have, 99% of the time, at some point been let down by society.

    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.
    I'm pretty sure I didn't say that either - I think, wherever possible, people should try to make provisions for their own retirement. However, this needs to be reflected in National Insurance contributions as these are and always were intended to go towards pensions. You can't have someone pay them their entire working life, fully believing that it's going towards a pension, only to be told "Oh nope, you're not getting that, we're just keeping the money anyway though". But if someone wants to opt out of those contributions and instead put the money (and more) towards a private pension fund, property, or investments to support them in retirement then that should be entirely possible.

    However... I don't think it should be the case that people who have been working, but on too low an income to save or set up a retirement fund, should have to work themselves into the grave. What would be the point of living at all? It's bad enough that most people work the best 45 years of their lives away, without saying "And you never get to stop, you never get to rest, you just have to keep plugging away until you drop". Horrifying, to be honest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    How would contribution based benefits such as pensions be funded, then?
    Privately. Save money and invest it.

    Our current system is entirely bankrupt. Are you aware of the size of our unfunded pension obligations (which the government deliberately doesn't include in calculations of our national debt)?


    Clearly, we can't afford that. We have to rethink how retirement works and how people pay for it.

    We can't just bury our heads in the sand, or even worse, try to keep this ponzi scheme going. There simply aren't enough young people around to continue to support people that haven't had the ability or the inclination to pay for their retirement.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Privately. Save money and invest it.
    How can a carer receiving £58 a week do that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    How can a carer receiving £58 a week do that?
    Why should someone expect to retire if they can't afford to?

    Why should I be paying for someone else to sit at home not working when I can barely afford to live myself and I am working?

    My standard of living is considerably lower than it would be if I could keep what I work for - and I still try to give to charities I support. If I had more money, I would probably give more.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    How can a carer receiving £58 a week do that?
    I also notice that you haven't said anything about the rest of my post. Could you address the fact that our current pensions system is completely insolvent?
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Why should someone expect to retire if they can't afford to?

    Why should I be paying for someone else to sit at home not working when I can barely afford to live myself and I am working?

    My standard of living is considerably lower than it would be if I could keep what I work for - and I still try to give to charities I support. If I had more money, I would probably give more.
    Carers save the country billions each year. Would you rather they abandoned the person they were caring for and put them in a care home which would cost thousands per week?

    People not working generally don't receive that much in benefits. Benefits are the minimum the law says you need to live on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    Carers save the country billions each year. Would you rather they abandoned the person they were caring for and put them in a care home which would cost thousands per week?

    People not working generally don't receive that much in benefits. Benefits are the minimum the law says you need to live on.
    Right, you're not actually addressing what I'm saying.

    I'm saying that I don't believe the means is justified by the end.
    I don't believe the state should be providing medical care or care homes either.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by OU Student)
    Most of you have no idea what it's like to be on benefits. We don't all live the life luxury and most don't want to be on benefits. Many people have killed themselves over losing their benefits. Do we really want more deaths?

    I think this is the real issue here; trying to argue the point with young students who, frankly, have very little real-world experience. They're book learners operating purely on economic theory and ingrained prejudice. You won't get a massively rational debate about something like benefits on TSR... as most of the people here are either still living "like a student" on a shoestring budget (supported by loans / parents / part-time jobs) or are single recent graduates with no financial responsibilities other than supporting themselves, which is, let's face it, incredibly easy.

    They see the flat numbers and don't really understand that it's "not what it looks like".

    For example; when I was a student "all in" I was living on around £7k a year. About £4k in student finance and my dad paying just under £3.5k a year in rent for me. I got a part time job in 3rd year and was totalling about £13.5k "all in".

    My household income is now over £23k ...

    I had much, much MUCH more money to spend on myself when I was a student on 7k. When I was on 13.5 I was absolutely effing LOADED in comparison to what I have "spare" now. I was going out with friends 2 or 3 nights a week and spending £50+ on food shopping just for myself. There is absolutely no way I could afford to live like that now. It's a completely different lifestyle.

    But I can fully appreciate that I would have been very confused about that when I was a student. I'd just have thought "Well, that's a lot more money than *I* have and I manage!!" ... but it doesn't really work like that.



    As for the suicides, I think he main issue there is that these "new" government testing procedures basically don't believe that mental health problems exist at all. They completely overlook them and their severity. Whereas, in my opinion, a mentally well person with a minor physical disability is FAR more able to seek appropriate work than, for example, someone with severe bipolar disorder. The truth is, people with some mental health issues are not "well" enough to be seeking any work at all... the government is playing a dangerous game with people's lives.

    There's also the complete shambles when it comes to their criteria for heart conditions... there have been several people who have trusted that they must know what they're talking about and thrown themselves back into work, only to have their heart give out in a matter of weeks. It's barbaric.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GarethEvans)
    Your point became redundant when your quoted the Daily Heil.
    The results of the poll clearly prove you wrong!
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhumbauze)
    I think this is the real issue here; trying to argue the point with young students who, frankly, have very little real-world experience. They're book learners operating purely on economic theory and ingrained prejudice. You won't get a massively rational debate about something like benefits on TSR... as most of the people here are either still living "like a student" on a shoestring budget (supported by loans / parents / part-time jobs) or are single recent graduates with no financial responsibilities other than supporting themselves, which is, let's face it, incredibly easy.

    They see the flat numbers and don't really understand that it's "not what it looks like".

    For example; when I was a student "all in" I was living on around £7k a year. About £4k in student finance and my dad paying just under £3.5k a year in rent for me. I got a part time job in 3rd year and was totalling about £13.5k "all in".

    My household income is now over £23k ...

    I had much, much MUCH more money to spend on myself when I was a student on 7k. When I was on 13.5 I was absolutely effing LOADED in comparison to what I have "spare" now. I was going out with friends 2 or 3 nights a week and spending £50+ on food shopping just for myself. There is absolutely no way I could afford to live like that now. It's a completely different lifestyle.

    But I can fully appreciate that I would have been very confused about that when I was a student. I'd just have thought "Well, that's a lot more money than *I* have and I manage!!" ... but it doesn't really work like that.



    As for the suicides, I think he main issue there is that these "new" government testing procedures basically don't believe that mental health problems exist at all. They completely overlook them and their severity. Whereas, in my opinion, a mentally well person with a minor physical disability is FAR more able to seek appropriate work than, for example, someone with severe bipolar disorder. The truth is, people with some mental health issues are not "well" enough to be seeking any work at all... the government is playing a dangerous game with people's lives.

    There's also the complete shambles when it comes to their criteria for heart conditions... there have been several people who have trusted that they must know what they're talking about and thrown themselves back into work, only to have their heart give out in a matter of weeks. It's barbaric.
    Finally, someone who knows what they're talking about. Regarding your point about mental illness - many physically disabled people find the system of having to fill in a form, attend an assessment, appeal, etc. mentally draining and some have killed themselves over this. I did used to know someone who has a disability which whilst it won't kill her, is progressive. She kept getting these forms to fill in frequently and her care plan clearly states no to these forms because it will just make her worse than what she already is. Her MP got involved and was told that because her condition isn't terminal, she has to fill the forms in. That I understand; but she was sent a form 6 weeks after being found unfit for work. What a joke. She had to have an assessment, the doctor turned up and said "I don't know why I'm here" as it was clear that she was in no fit state to work.

    The whole system needs to be sorted out now. I was lucky that I had no face to face; but received a phone a few weeks later telling me I've got to come in to see my old work programme provider. I refused and explained that my letter says I don't have to do that. It's because of their attitude towards disability that I'm on benefits in the first place. (they decided that the disabilities I'd just been diagnosed with couldn't be that bad - I am harder to diagnose because I'm female and the other is generally caused by things like noise trauma)

    The way the system works means that I have no idea when I'll be assessed again. It could be in a few weeks time or it could be in 2 years.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    The results of the poll clearly prove you wrong!
    In what way? Put up a poll saying 'Is the Daily Mail a reliable source of information?' then tell me I'm wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    People should either save or purchase private insurance to mitigate that risk.

    They should rely on the voluntary charity of their friends and family and the public at large if they are unwilling to save or purchase insurance.
    I don't even know where to start with you...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    I don't think people should be paying income tax or national insurance.

    I think it's only morally acceptable for the government to provide police, the armed forces, the courts and to prevent negative externalities. I believe that everything else should be reserved to the people and the free market.

    I think this should be funded by a flat 20% consumption tax on consumer goods; I do not think there should be any other taxes, levies, fees or tariffs.

    With lower taxes, I think there is every reason to expect that people will be more charitable - though they are currently very generous.
    The problem with the 'free market' is that when it goes wrong, it really is the 'people' who have to pick up the pieces in the form of numerous multi-billion pound bailouts...

    There are some things that it is morally wrong to make money from. Education and health care and social care are just two of them. Profit should not be the driving force behind the wellbeing of people


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by euphful)
    The problem with the 'free market' is that when it goes wrong, it really is the 'people' who have to pick up the pieces in the form of numerous multi-billion pound bailouts...

    There are some things that it is morally wrong to make money from. Education and health care and social care are just two of them. Profit should not be the driving force behind the wellbeing of people


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Why shouldn't I have the freedom to buy and sell education or healthcare?

    If you think it is immoral to make money from providing those services, presumably you think doctors, teachers, people that manufacture drugs and medical devices and textbooks etc should be unpaid?

    Because I don't know about you, but I wouldn't work as a doctor or a teacher or manufacture anything if I didn't expect to profit from it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Why shouldn't I have the freedom to buy and sell education or healthcare?

    If you think it is immoral to make money from providing those services, presumably you think doctors, teachers, people that manufacture drugs and medical devices and textbooks etc should be unpaid?

    Because I don't know about you, but I wouldn't work as a doctor or a teacher or manufacture anything if I didn't expect to profit from it.
    There's nothing immoral about earning an honest deserved living from a job, whatever that job may be. We need people to do those jobs. We do not need people to make extortionate amounts of money from essential services such as these. State providers of health, with their focus on the patient rather than profit maximisation, are preferable to the alternative. Market forces have their place but there are some things that the state is best placed and most equipped to deliver on a national and strategic scale. Our health service is vastly more efficient and effective than the market-riddled system they employ in the US


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by euphful)
    There's nothing immoral about earning an honest deserved living from a job, whatever that job may be. We need people to do those jobs. We do not need people to make extortionate amounts of money from essential services such as these. State providers of health, with their focus on the patient rather than profit maximisation, are preferable to the alternative. Market forces have their place but there are some things that the state is best placed and most equipped to deliver on a national and strategic scale. Our health service is vastly more efficient and effective than the market-riddled system they employ in the US


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The system in the US is terrible because the government intervenes in it too much. Do you actually know anything about medicare, medicaid and the PPaACA?
 
 
 
Poll
Which pet is the best?
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.