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 Hanvyj)
    The country has unemployed people.

    The reason for this is there is not enough employment. Even if we managed to "tempt" the people who don't work for years, and aren't interested in working into work - that isn't going to create jobs.

    If we persuade Joe Blogs, who has sat on his arse for 10 years to get a job and by some miracle he does (not going to happen given his employment history and the job market) then some other sod isn't going to get that job and he/she is going to have to go on benefits.

    Anyone who is trying to get a job knows that for most posts there are hundreds of applications.

    Reducing benefits doesn't solve the problem, even if you are tempting people into work - other people then won't get work and be on benefits. All you will be doing is shifting things around.

    And who suffers for it? Probably the poor kids who were born to this world out of stupid decisions from their parents. They are going to suffer a lower quality of life for their parents decisions.

    Given that most of the benefits goes to disability and pensions, which I don't think we can really reduce (except perhaps rich people's pensions maybe?) I don't think reducing benefits is going to do any good to our society.
    Making say fuel payments and free tv license/bus pass means-tested would be a very good move

    Plus if the cuts in welfare were matched with cuts in taxes- i.e cutting employers NI for SMEs would be very good for helping create jobs!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    OP quotes daily mail.... expects to be taken seriously?.

    I may as well say "I watched an episode of F.R.I.E.N.D.S last night and so *this* is how the world is.

    (Hint - they're both works of fiction).

    As for the welfare system and whether it should be cut: Name:  Public-spending-on-Benefi-001.jpg
Views: 51
Size:  95.9 KB
    Compare with: Name:  Tax-language_Corporate-tax-avoidance.jpg
Views: 54
Size:  97.6 KB


    And you want to go after the work-shy poor people and not the beyond-rich thieves?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    we shouldn't cut it, we should increase it, we have the resources as a nation to end poverty and give people a decent quality of life, that is something we should aspire to achieve, if that means people who exploit Labour and Finance to gain large personal fortunes without making significant contributions to society have to pay much higher taxes so that the money they have can be used for something worthwhile instead then so be it imo.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiRory)
    we shouldn't cut it, we should increase it, we have the resources as a nation to end poverty and give people a decent quality of life, that is something we should aspire to achieve, if that means people who exploit Labour and Finance to gain large personal fortunes without making significant contributions to society have to pay much higher taxes so that the money they have can be used for something worthwhile instead then so be it imo.
    If the finance industry goes down it'll drag the rest of the UK economy down with it..
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiRory)
    we shouldn't cut it, we should increase it, we have the resources as a nation to end poverty and give people a decent quality of life, that is something we should aspire to achieve, if that means people who exploit Labour and Finance to gain large personal fortunes without making significant contributions to society have to pay much higher taxes so that the money they have can be used for something worthwhile instead then so be it imo.
    Worthwhile in your opinion...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiRory)
    we shouldn't cut it, we should increase it, we have the resources as a nation to end poverty and give people a decent quality of life, that is something we should aspire to achieve, if that means people who exploit Labour and Finance to gain large personal fortunes without making significant contributions to society have to pay much higher taxes so that the money they have can be used for something worthwhile instead then so be it imo.
    Surely it would be better to invest in order to create more jobs than to increase welfare spending?!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    But no politician is brave enough to anger the 'grey vote' - if young people voted more we would get a fairer deal!
    False. If more young people voted we'd get the likes of the SWP and Respect (already happened in Bradford... oh god) which would totally ruin any traces of liberal values that once existed in Britain.

    Young people are too idealistic. The minimum voting age should be increased to 35.

    I'm 17 by the way. I realise that my wishes to vote don't trump the reality that most people my age are pig ignorant.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    False. If more young people voted we'd get the likes of the SWP and Respect (already happened in Bradford... oh god) which would totally ruin any traces of liberal values that once existed in Britain.

    Young people are too idealistic. The minimum voting age should be increased to 35.

    I'm 17 by the way. I realise that my wishes to vote don't trump the reality that most people my age are pig ignorant.
    You need a bit of idealism to balance the cynicism that infects many people over the age of 40...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by euphful)
    You need a bit of idealism to balance the cynicism that infects many people over the age of 40...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'd say we need about 80% cynicism, 20% idealism right now. We've already got a pretty ideal society, compared with a lot of other places in the world. More meddling will just make it worse.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Cut welfare spending cut my NI contributions aswell.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    False. If more young people voted we'd get the likes of the SWP and Respect (already happened in Bradford... oh god) which would totally ruin any traces of liberal values that once existed in Britain.

    Young people are too idealistic. The minimum voting age should be increased to 35.

    I'm 17 by the way. I realise that my wishes to vote don't trump the reality that most people my age are pig ignorant.
    you have a point

    There are concerns about 16 and 17 year olds having a vote in the Scotland independence

    But I personally would have loved to have a vote in when I was 16 and 17!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    you have a point

    There are concerns about 16 and 17 year olds having a vote in the Scotland independence

    But I personally would have loved to have a vote in when I was 16 and 17!
    The thing I find most worrying is that 16 and 17 year-olds seem to just believe whatever their parents believe on the whole. So by and large, if you allowed them to vote, what you would essentially be doing is extending the voting rights of the sections of society which produce the most amount of children. It would be a sort of discrimination against people that have few or no kids.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    The thing I find most worrying is that 16 and 17 year-olds seem to just believe whatever their parents believe on the whole. So by and large, if you allowed them to vote, what you would essentially be doing is extending the voting rights of the sections of society which produce the most amount of children. It would be a sort of discrimination against people that have few or no kids.
    Hmm true

    But generally speaking the it tends to be the poorest in society who tend to have the most kids

    And generally those people are less likely to vote


    However I see what you mean, there are many prejudiced people (i.e people who would vote labour even if Blair/Brown made a comeback!)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Hmm true

    But generally speaking the it tends to be the poorest in society who tend to have the most kids

    And generally those people are less likely to vote


    However I see what you mean, there are many prejudiced people (i.e people who would vote labour even if Blair/Brown made a comeback!)
    Anyone who votes labour after the past decade must be mentally constipated.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Anyone who votes labour after the past decade must be mentally constipated.
    Even more so with a leader like Ed milliband!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Even more so with a leader like Ed milliband!
    Yeah, Ed Miliband is basically David Cameron. I can't really see any profound difference.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Yeah, Ed Miliband is basically David Cameron. I can't really see any profound difference.
    Well Miliband knows how to stand up to Murdoch and News International for a start...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)

    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.
    That's a good point very well argued. You have changed my viewpoint!





    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Yeah, Ed Miliband is basically David Cameron. I can't really see any profound difference.
    In terms of personality most people rate Boris and Farage and even Cameron more highly than Ed*

    Any opinion ply suggest if Boris was leader of the Conservative party it would be bad for both Labour and UKIP and would lead to a Conservative majority


    *I'm sorry but he seems like a Billy Mitchell (off Eastenders) character who would get pushed around during international summits and even by his cabinet. I reckon he'd be a weaker PM than Major!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tronick)
    That's a good point very well argued. You have changed my viewpoint!





    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Thanks, that's good to hear!

    Hence I'd rather the government spent 15 billion on jobs rather than JSA!
 
 
 
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.