This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- thoughts on sats?
- Thames Water boss says bills need to rise by 40%
- Easter GCSE Science
- Does Kingston University monitor attendance?
- Crossroads, help!
- opinions on scrapping GCSEs?
- do you still have to pay back ALL of maintenance loan if you don't use all of it?
- Overall uni grade
- Rwanda bill likely to be stalled at least till April after seven defeats in the Lords
- 2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxes
- Year 9 Advice
- Economics personal statement
- Personal statement advice
- How to scrap car without a log book
- Uni societies and their initiations
- What should I do
- Schools encouraged to scrap gendered language like Sir and Miss
- Resitting a levels
- CGP or exam board textbook for A level
- Btec actually going to be scrapped?
Should benefits be scrapped?
This poll is closed
Should Benefits be completely scrapped?
Yes 9%
No 56%
Restricted to certain criteria (e.g disabilities) 35%
Im unsure :(0%
Total votes: 125
So at school yesterday we were asked to debate on the current benefit system of this country. What are your guys opinions on this topic?
A few pros and cons i picked up from peers yesterday
Pros
- More money in order to cut deficit
- Less people having the ability to "scrounge" of benefits
- People will be forced into work as "some" are just lazy
- If its reduced to only those with disability or a general reason then they will be entitled to more money
- People will pay less tax (possibly) meaning more take home pay
- Larger incentive to work
- Takes away unfairness as some jobs are paid the same as people on benefits meaning people are working 40 hour weeks in order to earn the same as someone sitting at home all day
Cons
- People in genuine need will suffer (however this issue will be eradicated if the requirements are altered)
- Working class families will be forced to make kids work from a young age in order to support (could detriment studies)
I go to a private school so as you can imagine the cons were not as great, however i would like to hear other peoples opinion as to what they think.
A few pros and cons i picked up from peers yesterday
Pros
- More money in order to cut deficit
- Less people having the ability to "scrounge" of benefits
- People will be forced into work as "some" are just lazy
- If its reduced to only those with disability or a general reason then they will be entitled to more money
- People will pay less tax (possibly) meaning more take home pay
- Larger incentive to work
- Takes away unfairness as some jobs are paid the same as people on benefits meaning people are working 40 hour weeks in order to earn the same as someone sitting at home all day
Cons
- People in genuine need will suffer (however this issue will be eradicated if the requirements are altered)
- Working class families will be forced to make kids work from a young age in order to support (could detriment studies)
I go to a private school so as you can imagine the cons were not as great, however i would like to hear other peoples opinion as to what they think.
Scroll to see replies
Helping the less fortunate should never be in question. As a society we need to help those who may not have as much. But I'm not entirely sure the benefits system, in its current state, is the best solution.
Original post by Aceadria
Helping the less fortunate should never be in question. As a society we need to help those who may not have as much. But I'm not entirely sure the benefits system, in its current state, is the best solution.
I completely agree, as this system is flawed beyond belief. What it is actually doing is giving people who do not actually need money (too lazy to work etc) all the luxuries where people in genuine need are going with very little (disabilities, carers etc..). I definitely believe there needs to be some sort of reform into the whole of this benefits issue.
We shouldn't scrap benefits, we should just reform them. Make the system more effecient (roll all the payments into one similar to universal credit or Negative income tax) and set a limit on the period of time in which someone has to find a job (maybe a couple of months). If they don't, cut their benefits.
Scrap them or cut them massively for certain people. i.e. those who have opportunities to work but do not use them (I'm not sure if they already do this, but it's publicised a lot on TV with Benefits Street etc.). Definitely keep them for the disabled/those unable to work and I don't think child benefits should be scrapped.
I'm not promoting starving people, just suggesting that they need an incentive.
I'm not promoting starving people, just suggesting that they need an incentive.
No, of course benefits shouldn't be scrapped.
Firstly, we have to make work pay: that means wages must rise and in-work tax credits must be expanded when necessary.
Benefits fraud accounts for very, very little of the total benefits claimed. The vast majority of people who are receiving benefits genuinely need them. Unemployment benefit is simply one aspect of the welfare system, and is necessary too.
The alternative is an unconditional basic income, but this would be costly to implement and may not actually improve incentives to work relative to the current system, although it's an interesting proposal that has been endorsed by people both on 'the left' and 'the right'.
Personally, I think that periodic moderate rises in the minimum wage combined with in-work tax credits is the best way forward, so I essentially support our current system. Fraudsters and people who aren't trying to work should be identified, but we can't have a situation that we've had under this Conservative government in which people have committed suicide as a result of benefits sanctions.
Firstly, we have to make work pay: that means wages must rise and in-work tax credits must be expanded when necessary.
Benefits fraud accounts for very, very little of the total benefits claimed. The vast majority of people who are receiving benefits genuinely need them. Unemployment benefit is simply one aspect of the welfare system, and is necessary too.
The alternative is an unconditional basic income, but this would be costly to implement and may not actually improve incentives to work relative to the current system, although it's an interesting proposal that has been endorsed by people both on 'the left' and 'the right'.
Personally, I think that periodic moderate rises in the minimum wage combined with in-work tax credits is the best way forward, so I essentially support our current system. Fraudsters and people who aren't trying to work should be identified, but we can't have a situation that we've had under this Conservative government in which people have committed suicide as a result of benefits sanctions.
How about we instead collect the unpaid tax from prominent tax-evaders such as :Google, Amazon, Starbucks, Apple and many others just to name a few. Not only that but also the many rich people that continue to avoid paying their tax through no fault of their own, but through the vacant loopholes in the current system and the many companies and lawyers that help them to do so. Not to also mention the uncollected VAT, uncollected income tax, national insurance and the capital gains all worth £34 billion in comparison to the £4.6 billion in benefit fraud (£3 billion of which was from errors from officials and mistakes made by claimants when applying).
Forcing benefit claimants into to work should be made tougher (why not train them and get them to build the houses and schools we desperately need?) however generally speaking the way in which they are handed out and how much is handed out should remain the same.
The real problem is tax avoidance which very clearly needs to be eradicated, Dave and Georgie have failed to address this and have clearly done nothing about it. Time for them to stop protecting their Eton buddies and daddies friends and to start doing their jobs.
Forcing benefit claimants into to work should be made tougher (why not train them and get them to build the houses and schools we desperately need?) however generally speaking the way in which they are handed out and how much is handed out should remain the same.
The real problem is tax avoidance which very clearly needs to be eradicated, Dave and Georgie have failed to address this and have clearly done nothing about it. Time for them to stop protecting their Eton buddies and daddies friends and to start doing their jobs.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Reue
No, they should be restricted though.
In what way?
Original post by callum_law
In what way?
Scrap child benefit, reallocate housing benefit to council house construction and pay out benefits in vouchers or similar.
We should help the less fortunate. Some people act as if benefits entitle you to loads of money and it's a free ride- you will be better off working. No sane person wants to be on benefits apart from the occasional attention whores that make it on the Daily mail.
P.S they(current government) slashed benefits yet those who work still pay a **** load of tax.
P.S they(current government) slashed benefits yet those who work still pay a **** load of tax.
Original post by Reue
Scrap child benefit, reallocate housing benefit to council house construction and pay out benefits in vouchers or similar.
Scrap Child benefits? What about the single mothers who barely make enough for their households?
Original post by AzimHV2
Scrap Child benefits? What about the single mothers who barely make enough for their households?
Depends on the circumstances.
Original post by Reue
Depends on the circumstances.
So rather than scrap child benefits you think we should look into each case? You should have said that from the beginning mate.
Original post by djh2208
We shouldn't scrap benefits, we should just reform them. Make the system more effecient (roll all the payments into one similar to universal credit or Negative income tax) and set a limit on the period of time in which someone has to find a job (maybe a couple of months). If they don't, cut their benefits.
Also there's a difference between getting a job and being able to live off it and just getting any old job irrespective of it's pay.
So what would most likely happen if you put a time limit to the provision of benefits/period within which people needed to find work is a hell of a lot of people would quickly getting any old job that they may not feasibly afford to live off. Either that or worse still homeless etc.
Original post by TeeEm
I am a higher rate tax payer and say definitely not!!
In fact I am happy to pay more through my taxes.
In fact I am happy to pay more through my taxes.
My brother too works full time and pays a lot of tax however he said he does not mind as long as someone who is less fortunate gets help from benefits.
Some of you don't appear to know very much about the way the current system works:
- if you're on JSA, you can be sanctioned for either not taking a job or not doing enough to secure employment
- the current system, they are trying to reform. At the same time, they are seriously screwing over disabled people and their carers. People like me, who actually have very little chance of working. Meanwhile, they appear to be doing very little about the people who have child after child by multiple men.
They want to change the current system for disabled people which means that:
- part of my money will be in the form of vouchers (meaning I will be told what I can and can't spend my money on - meaning that in theory, I wouldn't be able to pay my parents to do things like take me shopping or paying the decorator to decorate my flat because I can't do it)
- I could lose anything up to £60 a week. That £60 a week pays for things like the general extra costs of being at home most of the day because due to my disabilities, I can't work and can't really go out
- if you're on JSA, you can be sanctioned for either not taking a job or not doing enough to secure employment
- the current system, they are trying to reform. At the same time, they are seriously screwing over disabled people and their carers. People like me, who actually have very little chance of working. Meanwhile, they appear to be doing very little about the people who have child after child by multiple men.
They want to change the current system for disabled people which means that:
- part of my money will be in the form of vouchers (meaning I will be told what I can and can't spend my money on - meaning that in theory, I wouldn't be able to pay my parents to do things like take me shopping or paying the decorator to decorate my flat because I can't do it)
- I could lose anything up to £60 a week. That £60 a week pays for things like the general extra costs of being at home most of the day because due to my disabilities, I can't work and can't really go out
Original post by AceViva
So at school yesterday we were asked to debate on the current benefit system of this country. What are your guys opinions on this topic?
A few pros and cons i picked up from peers yesterday
Pros
- More money in order to cut deficit
- Less people having the ability to "scrounge" of benefits
- People will be forced into work as "some" are just lazy
- If its reduced to only those with disability or a general reason then they will be entitled to more money
- People will pay less tax (possibly) meaning more take home pay
- Larger incentive to work
- Takes away unfairness as some jobs are paid the same as people on benefits meaning people are working 40 hour weeks in order to earn the same as someone sitting at home all day
Cons
- People in genuine need will suffer (however this issue will be eradicated if the requirements are altered)
- Working class families will be forced to make kids work from a young age in order to support (could detriment studies)
I go to a private school so as you can imagine the cons were not as great, however i would like to hear other peoples opinion as to what they think.
A few pros and cons i picked up from peers yesterday
Pros
- More money in order to cut deficit
- Less people having the ability to "scrounge" of benefits
- People will be forced into work as "some" are just lazy
- If its reduced to only those with disability or a general reason then they will be entitled to more money
- People will pay less tax (possibly) meaning more take home pay
- Larger incentive to work
- Takes away unfairness as some jobs are paid the same as people on benefits meaning people are working 40 hour weeks in order to earn the same as someone sitting at home all day
Cons
- People in genuine need will suffer (however this issue will be eradicated if the requirements are altered)
- Working class families will be forced to make kids work from a young age in order to support (could detriment studies)
I go to a private school so as you can imagine the cons were not as great, however i would like to hear other peoples opinion as to what they think.
Wow. I love the idea of privileged private school kids debating whether people have enough money to afford a warm home, clothes and food for them and their families. That's so unheard of.
Oh wait... That's exactly what happens in Parliament.
Original post by Reue
Scrap child benefit, reallocate housing benefit to council house construction and pay out benefits in vouchers or similar.
As the housing is being built, which should take a couple years, what should all the people who currently claim housing benefit do? Live in the carcass of a dead elk in the style of Bear Grylls?
Related discussions
- thoughts on sats?
- Thames Water boss says bills need to rise by 40%
- Easter GCSE Science
- Does Kingston University monitor attendance?
- Crossroads, help!
- opinions on scrapping GCSEs?
- do you still have to pay back ALL of maintenance loan if you don't use all of it?
- Overall uni grade
- Rwanda bill likely to be stalled at least till April after seven defeats in the Lords
- 2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxes
- Year 9 Advice
- Economics personal statement
- Personal statement advice
- How to scrap car without a log book
- Uni societies and their initiations
- What should I do
- Schools encouraged to scrap gendered language like Sir and Miss
- Resitting a levels
- CGP or exam board textbook for A level
- Btec actually going to be scrapped?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
