Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should benefits be scrapped? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should Benefits be completely scrapped?
    Yes
    11
    8.80%
    No
    70
    56.00%
    Restricted to certain criteria (e.g disabilities)
    44
    35.20%
    Im unsure
    0
    0%

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    Nothing happens :s

    You get slightly cheaper food and the person who values **** above food starves.
    You mean just like they do if real money is used to buy **** instead of food?

    You cannot spin this as anything other than taking choice and free market access away from the poor.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    i as someone brought up on a primarily benefit claiming household (for legitimate reasons as listed above) i would agree with this wholeheartedly as they made cuts to the genuine claimants whilst paying vast sums to scroungers (my parents got about £1700 a month from benefits and £400-600 in allowed earnings compared to scroungers hitting £4/5,000 a month, earning nothing but what they made from tv and press appearances)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by djh2208)
    They should be getting any old job. They can get a job on minimum wage in the short term and continue to look for work after, then they would be contributing to their income and not be living solely off of taxpayers money. They still get in work benefits as well so I see no issue.

    The real problem is that we have got to stop rewarding bad behaviour. If someone doesn't work hard then that's their issue, you can't expect the taxpayer to bail them out.
    Yeah so you're fine with in work benefits :rolleyes: are you heck.

    Not working doesn't necessarily equate to bad behaviour!

    Let's face it you want the economy rolling at any cost.

    You're a Tory what else would you do care about people?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    No we should get them
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    Nothing happens :s

    You get slightly cheaper food and the person who values **** above food starves.
    So you're just pissing away money implementing all of this statist micromanagement for no reason whatsoever as it changes nothing. Although I guess it gives a sense of patronizing controlling the poorer members of society. The current government spares no expense for that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Popcorns)
    Yeah so you're fine with in work benefits :rolleyes: are you heck.
    Well to fix our welfare state I would encourage the introduction of a system whereby those on benefits are encouraged into work. Therefore I do support in work benefits. As I said earlier, something like a negative income tax would work well but for the time being tax credits are not a bad form of welfare.

    (Original post by Little Popcorns)
    Not working doesn't necessarily equate to bad behaviour!
    True. Anyone can lose their job at any moment and those people should have support. But if they're still not working after two or three or four months then maybe we should rethink whether they are abusing the system.

    (Original post by Little Popcorns)
    Let's face it you want the economy rolling at any cost.
    At any cost? No. Having said that, sometimes people fall through the cracks. There may be special circumstances in which the occasional person is treated unfairly. I would encourage them to speak to their local MP about this.

    (Original post by Little Popcorns)
    You're a Tory what else would you do care about people?
    Well I'm not a Toy and I do care about people. But I know that nothing I say will convince you of this so I guess there's no point in responding to that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    Scrap child benefit.
    (Original post by AzimHV2)
    Scrap Child benefits? What about the single mothers who barely make enough for their households?
    The part about scrapping child benefits makes sense if it applies to say more than 2 kids and you wont get it for the third. Because at the end of the day and not everyone will agree who the f*** asked you too have 10 kids and what gives you the right to take money from someone else in order to look after them? 1 kid fine but having 4 kids and expecting the tax payer to look after them whilst you open your legs for the fifth youre having a laugh.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Although I guess it gives a sense of patronizing controlling the poorer members of society. The current government spares no expense for that.
    Yup, that's exactly why :rolleyes:
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    Ditch the computer, the rest is the responsibility of the landlord to fix.

    A high initial cost but the real benefit comes in the form of serving as a disincentive.
    How exactly is someone supposed to find a job if they don't have a computer? Loads of jobs require you to apply online or through email, and you'd also need to write a CV and cover letter. If you can't find work and are looking to get into a new line of work, a computer and internet means you can look for things like training courses that are available, or just find out more information.

    A computer is not a luxury in the way some people seem to think they are. If someone budgets their benefit money so that they can afford to fix or replace theirs when it breaks, surely that is a good thing? Surely responsible budgeting of benefit money to the point they can occasionally afford so called "luxuries" should be encouraged?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    How exactly is someone supposed to find a job if they don't have a computer? Loads of jobs require you to apply online or through email, and you'd also need to write a CV and cover letter. If you can't find work and are looking to get into a new line of work, a computer and internet means you can look for things like training courses that are available, or just find out more information.
    Please spare me the impossible to find a job without a computer line, There's plenty of ways around it.

    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    Surely responsible budgeting of benefit money to the point they can occasionally afford so called "luxuries" should be encouraged?
    I think it's pretty clear I disagree with that
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    Please spare me the impossible to find a job without a computer line, There's plenty of ways around it.



    I think it's pretty clear I disagree with that
    It is more difficult to find work and apply for jobs if you don't have a computer and internet. And some jobs you can only apply for online. If you want people to get off benefits and back into work, making it harder for them to do exactly that is a slightly stupid thing to do, is it not?

    I suppose you could use library computers instead. Unless your local library has been closed due to budget cuts of course.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    It wont reduce tax with an overhead deficit, the extra will be kept by the govt. Taking it away to prevent scroungers is punishing some to spite others, its unfair to those who need it. There is some problems with the system yes but in a country of overpopulation, with the housing age being pushed up and up, with property prices rising and the surplus of employees to positions taking away benefits will cause severe problems. I think they could potentially work as contracts, the benefit pay matches that of govt employees to do govt jobs but this would need to be highly regulated to avoid turning it into slave or unfairly low paid labour but this is an initial thought which i havent really explored in any great detail. If their benefits are taken but they cant get a job, what then?

    If there's a lack of positions children will end up in deteriorating conditions, struggling people will be made destitute and crime will rise to compensate. It could cause ghettos by widening the gulf between the haves and the have nots. Many rely on benefits to prop up their incomes and to support their families because of the poor situations as it stands. People wont starve, they wont accept being unable to live and it'l destabilise communities. The state cant look after all the disadvantaged it'd cause and the problems would be excessive. There is good reason to impose more limitations in so far as must be looking for employment, must adhere to certain criterion and so forth but to try and arbitrarily cut without careful consideration is a recipe for disaster.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Pro save lots of money

    Con return to the social conditions of the 1800's


    It's not even a debate


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Right so there is not even a single thing wrong with the current benefit system?

    (Original post by paul514)
    Pro save lots of money

    Con return to the social conditions of the 1800's


    It's not even a debate


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    I think they could potentially work as contracts, the benefit pay matches that of govt employees to do govt jobs but this would need to be highly regulated to avoid turning it into slave or unfairly low paid labour but this is an initial thought which i havent really explored in any great detail. If their benefits are taken but they cant get a job, what then?
    I came up with a idea that they could also work voluntary for things like the council (excluding those with disabilties etc..) And could do jobs which the council require (park maintence etc..) Like yourself i obviously have not really explored this with much detail im sure there are many positives this could produce but also could have many detrimental effects. However as a whole could be put into practice.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AceViva)
    I came up with a idea that they could also work voluntary for things like the council (excluding those with disabilties etc..) And could do jobs which the council require (park maintence etc..) Like yourself i obviously have not really explored this with much detail im sure there are many positives this could produce but also could have many detrimental effects. However as a whole could be put into practice.
    If these jobs require doing then why wouldn't councils pay the people doing them the minimum wage?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AceViva)
    I came up with a idea that they could also work voluntary for things like the council (excluding those with disabilties etc..) And could do jobs which the council require (park maintence etc..) Like yourself i obviously have not really explored this with much detail im sure there are many positives this could produce but also could have many detrimental effects. However as a whole could be put into practice.
    If those are jobs that need doing then just make them into actual jobs and pay the people doing them an actual wage.

    Otherwise (which has already been shown to happen) you get companies and organisations taking advantage of these "volunteers" getting them to do hours and hours of work and at the end of the week they're only getting £50-70 a week in job seekers which they would lose out on if they refuse to "volunteer" which is something that happens now. If they are working they deserve to be paid, simple as. You also have the problem of it can increase unemployment by companies instead of hiring people and paying them they are instead just getting these free workers and a pat on the back from the government for giving them something to do. It is never as simple as a lot of people seem to think.

    ChaoticButterfly
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmallTownGirl)
    If these jobs require doing then why wouldn't councils pay the people doing them the minimum wage?
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    If those are jobs that need doing then just make them into actual jobs and pay the people doing them an actual wage.

    Otherwise (which has already been shown to happen) you get companies and organisations taking advantage of these "volunteers" getting them to do hours and hours of work and at the end of the week they're only getting £50-70 a week in job seekers which they would lose out on if they refuse to "volunteer" which is something that happens now. If they are working they deserve to be paid, simple as. You also have the problem of it can increase unemployment by companies instead of hiring people and paying them they are instead just getting these free workers and a pat on the back from the government for giving them something to do. It is never as simple as a lot of people seem to think.

    ChaoticButterfly
    I agree with what you both are saying (hence why i put this could have detrimental effects) But if you take the other approach of jobs which are not being done by the council (probably many cant think of any on the spot) then surely it would benefit both the community which these people are living in whilst also giving them something to do. However restricting these jobs so as you say large companies do not benefit, could also be implemented. It is definitely much harder then it seems however i imagine the pros of this COULD possibly outweigh the cons?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AceViva)
    I agree with what you both are saying (hence why i put this could have detrimental effects) But if you take the other approach of jobs which are not being done by the council (probably many cant think of any on the spot) then surely it would benefit both the community which these people are living in whilst also giving them something to do. However restricting these jobs so as you say large companies do not benefit, could also be implemented. It is definitely much harder then it seems however i imagine the pros of this COULD possibly outweigh the cons?
    Doesn't take away from the fact if people are working these hours they deserve to get paid for these hours. Job seekers allowance is well well below minimum wage. How is it right to essentially force people to work and then not pay them accordingly? Which is something that already happens now (workfare).

    This also ignores the fact that councils are perfectly capable of taking advantage of people too.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Democracy is not a perfect form of government ( or perfect science) and one of the building blocks on it is utilitarianism.. Acting for the good of most. Therefore with regard to welfare state it is quite "normal" to get those who deserve help and benefit, those you benefit although at the borderline some might say they do not deserve, those who should benefit but are sadly above the line, those who pay for others, those who think that they should not pay for others, those who think that it is a good thing.... il faut de tout pour faire un monde ~
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    How are your GCSEs going so far?
    Useful resources
  • 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.

  • 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.