Should benefits be cut?

Watch
Poll: Do you agree with the government's proposed cuts to welfare?
Yes (18)
52.94%
No (12)
35.29%
Not sure (4)
11.76%
TomatoLounge
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
So there's disagreement in the Labour ranks about whether to fight benefit cuts, with Harriet Harman accepting them and potential future leaders fighting them. Who's right? I think that the poorest have been hit hard already and that we should be making cuts elsewhere...

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33590465

Details of the welfare reform bill: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/...rmandwork.html
0
reply
Bill_Gates
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
You are forgetting the public needs to have a choice a genuine choice between left and right. Labour's stand point should be no. Jeremy Corbyn for Labour!!
1
reply
saayagain
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
Cut them so the working class and middle class can feel the strain of capitalism.

Benefits shield people from the relentless and unforgiving processes of capitalism.

As a socialist, I advocate the removal of the welfare state. If people want capitalism, let them have it. I want people to suffer and yearn for socialism for it will be the only way they will be treated with dignity.

Viva la revolution
0
reply
Meta Cognition
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
(Original post by saayagain)
Cut them so the working class and middle class can feel the strain of capitalism.

Benefits shield people from the relentless and unforgiving processes of capitalism.

As a socialist, I advocate the removal of the welfare state. If people want capitalism, let them have it. I want people to suffer and yearn for socialism for it will be the only way they will be treated with dignity.

Viva la revolution
That's a pretty disgusting way of thinking. There is nothing about capitalism which suggests their shouldn't be some kind of social safety net; you're essentially advocating people suffer for the sake of your ideology.

You may not like capitalism, but economists know a hell of a lot more than you do about it and how it works. Advocating suffering as you are is precisely immoral because you're presuming to understand the economy better than these economists who disagree with you.
0
reply
Sam280297
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
Why should hard working people pay their taxes just so some lazy idiot who refuses to work (if they are able to work) can sit around all day.
We shouldn't scrap the welfare state altogether as there are people who genuinely can't work and those who are out of work and looking very hard to find work. It should be a safety net for the needy, not a bed for the lazy.

And this may sound a bit harsh but for those people who can work but refuse to, we should cut their benefits and let them live on the streets. Take their children off them and put them into care. Sounds quite harsh, but it would be the only way to make sure that people get off their lazy arses and get a job.
0
reply
Meta Cognition
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
OT: Yeah, the welfare state should be practically abolished in its current form, minimum wage should be abolished and a negative income tax should be instituted.
0
reply
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by Meta Cognition)
That's a pretty disgusting way of thinking. There is nothing about capitalism which suggests their shouldn't be some kind of social safety net; you're essentially advocating people suffer for the sake of your ideology.

You may not like capitalism, but economists know a hell of a lot more than you do about it and how it works. Advocating suffering as you are is precisely immoral because you're presuming to understand the economy better than these economists who disagree with you.
The same economists that prevented the global recession in 2008 right? The same ones that said the banks were too big to fail? The same ones that said the minimum wage would lead to mass unemployment ?

Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy.
On almost every debate one could go 'yeah but someone cleverer then you said xyz...'

Especially on issues which certainly are not scientific by nature and haven't been even remotely proven.
0
reply
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by Sam280297)
Why should hard working people pay their taxes just so some lazy idiot who refuses to work (if they are able to work) can sit around all day.
We shouldn't scrap the welfare state altogether as there are people who genuinely can't work and those who are out of work and looking very hard to find work. It should be a safety net for the needy, not a bed for the lazy.

And this may sound a bit harsh but for those people who can work but refuse to, we should cut their benefits and let them live on the streets. Take their children off them and put them into care. Sounds quite harsh, but it would be the only way to make sure that people get off their lazy arses and get a job.
But that's exactly what it is- a safety net. It's not a bed for the lazy despite what the daily mail tells you.
0
reply
Thisguy11
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by TomatoLounge)
So there's disagreement in the Labour ranks about whether to fight benefit cuts, with Harriet Harman accepting them and potential future leaders fighting them. Who's right? I think that the poorest have been hit hard already and that we should be making cuts elsewhere...

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33590465

Details of the welfare reform bill: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/...rmandwork.html
The welfare state needs to be reorganized
there are people who fund gambling addictions of benefits
and there are people who cant even get enough food to eat

so NO CUTS, just a better ways of evaluating how much to give individuals
1
reply
Meta Cognition
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by Bornblue)
The same economists that prevented the global recession in 2008 right?
What does that have to do with socialism vs capitalism as modes of production? Although the 2008 Recession, by the way, didn't come out of bad economics so much as it came out of the institutional ethoses of the central bank and certain legislation.

The same ones that said the banks were too big to fail?
. . . Identifying banks as TBTF is a good thing.

The same ones that said the minimum wage would lead to mass unemployment ?
And who would that be? There's a lot of good empirical work on the minimum wage, but no claims of "mass unemployment" I'm aware of.

Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy.
I should be clear that I'm not doing that, although I can see why you think that. I'm saying there that are myriad people who've studied and reviewed and corrected the empirical evidence more times than we can count. To presume to know more on some ideological, non-empirical basis like "muh socialism" is not a correct way to think.
2
reply
Fleming1928
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by Sam280297)
Why should hard working people pay their taxes just so some lazy idiot who refuses to work (if they are able to work) can sit around all day.
We shouldn't scrap the welfare state altogether as there are people who genuinely can't work and those who are out of work and looking very hard to find work. It should be a safety net for the needy, not a bed for the lazy.

And this may sound a bit harsh but for those people who can work but refuse to, we should cut their benefits and let them live on the streets. Take their children off them and put them into care. Sounds quite harsh, but it would be the only way to make sure that people get off their lazy arses and get a job.
I agree. There are a lot of families who live off having 10 children and the parents don't work. They just live off benefits. If you can't afford having so many children you shouldn't be having so many. Everyone who is capable of working should do so, instead of relying on the government, and then moaning about it.
1
reply
Sam280297
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by Bornblue)
But that's exactly what it is- a safety net. It's not a bed for the lazy despite what the daily mail tells you.
So do you think its a safety net for all these people who refuse to work and sit around all day, especially considering about half of them spend most of it on alcohol and cigarettes
0
reply
Meta Cognition
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by Fleming1928)
There are a lot of families who live off having 10 children and the parents don't work.
Source?
0
reply
Meta Cognition
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by Sam280297)
especially considering about half of them spend most of it on alcohol and cigarettes
Source?
0
reply
Thisguy11
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by Sam280297)
Why should hard working people pay their taxes just so some lazy idiot who refuses to work (if they are able to work) can sit around all day.
We shouldn't scrap the welfare state altogether as there are people who genuinely can't work and those who are out of work and looking very hard to find work. It should be a safety net for the needy, not a bed for the lazy.

And this may sound a bit harsh but for those people who can work but refuse to, we should cut their benefits and let them live on the streets. Take their children off them and put them into care. Sounds quite harsh, but it would be the only way to make sure that people get off their lazy arses and get a job.
I understand your point, but its hard to judge who is actually trying to get to work.

I think we need to give people who get over a certain amount of benefits community service, that way, actually getting a job is not so much worse
0
reply
Fleming1928
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by Meta Cognition)
Source?
All you have to do is look around, no source is necessary.

But if you truly demand a source then here's an example http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-homeless.html

I know it's outdated, but similar stories are on the news all the time.
0
reply
Meta Cognition
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by Fleming1928)
All you have to do is look around, no source is necessary.
That sentence is one long fallacy. Anecdotes from you are not legitimate evidence; so yes a source is always necessary.

But if you truly demand a source then here's an example http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-homeless.html
So, in order to demonstrate that there are "a lot" of families with ten kids and parents who don't work you give me one mother with seven kids.
0
reply
Meta Cognition
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by Wattsy)
Well this is ridiculous. Do you also want to bring back debtor's prisons?
Uh. . . No. Are you trying to make a ridiculous comparison with my views because you don't like them, or because you don't understand them? Nothing I said even slightly indicated debtor's prison is a good idea.
0
reply
Wattsy
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by Meta Cognition)
Uh. . . No. Are you trying to make a ridiculous comparison with my views because you don't like them, or because you don't understand them? Nothing I said even slightly indicated debtor's prison is a good idea.
I know, I got it wrong, the post was supposed to delete but didn't. Sorry.
0
reply
Meta Cognition
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by Wattsy)
I know, I got it wrong, the post was supposed to delete but didn't. Sorry.
Aha, no worries man.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Feeling behind at school/college? What is the best thing your teachers could to help you catch up?

Extra compulsory independent learning activities (eg, homework tasks) (3)
3.75%
Run extra compulsory lessons or workshops (11)
13.75%
Focus on making the normal lesson time with them as high quality as possible (14)
17.5%
Focus on making the normal learning resources as high quality/accessible as possible (9)
11.25%
Provide extra optional activities, lessons and/or workshops (29)
36.25%
Assess students, decide who needs extra support and focus on these students (14)
17.5%

Watched Threads

View All