Do people deserve benifits Watch

unknown_t_
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#1
I’m doing a speech on benefits and wheather people should have them I have a side , I’m just wanting to hear urs , willing to debate
0
reply
Satyr
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 week ago
#2
No no no
The welfare system is outdated and unnecessary.
1
reply
Neilos
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 week ago
#3
Depends which people you're talking about, and which benefits.
10
reply
random_matt
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 week ago
#4
Opinions by people who probably never been on them, ignorance is bliss and all.
25
reply
Mike172
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 week ago
#5
I sit to the right of centre so for the most part my answer is no. I believe in less government involvement in society and I don’t see why I should should be a net contributor whilst others are net beneficiaries. I pay around £1,000 a month in tax and I feel that is far too much.
1
reply
random_matt
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 week ago
#6
All cost you more tax if a system did not exist, crime would be up for starters, people would not be able to afford needed medication which would then entail more money needed within the NHS to help those who are now ****ed. You then would also have more homeless people which would also entail more costs from the NHS to help those dying. The list is endless, TSR users are too young and clueless.
4
reply
Mike172
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 week ago
#7
(Original post by random_matt)
All cost you more tax if a system did not exist, crime would be up for starters, people would not be able to afford needed medication which would then entail more money needed within the NHS to help those who are now ****ed. You then would also have more homeless people which would also entail more costs from the NHS to help those dying. The list is endless, TSR users are too young and clueless.
If that’s aimed at me, I’m 31.

The counter argument is that reducing tax leads to increased spending which in turn strengthens the economy. Reducing corporation tax encourages new business, leading to new employment opportunities and you guessed it... more revenue for the government.

Regarding the NHS I’d be in favour of private healthcare so that argument doesn’t wash with me, I’m afraid. You should pay your way through life, not expect the state and in turn hardworking taxpayers to fund you.
0
reply
Satyr
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 week ago
#8
(Original post by random_matt)
All cost you more tax if a system did not exist, crime would be up for starters, people would not be able to afford needed medication which would then entail more money needed within the NHS to help those who are now ****ed. You then would also have more homeless people which would also entail more costs from the NHS to help those dying. The list is endless, TSR users are too young and clueless.
Well it is the Student room so you would expect students under the age of 25 mostly to be on here.
1
reply
Dancer2001
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 week ago
#9
I would definitely talk about when different types of benefits started and the differences they made at the time (and possibly why these are still relevant now).
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
random_matt
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 week ago
#10
(Original post by Mike172)
If that’s aimed at me, I’m 31.

The counter argument is that reducing tax leads to increased spending which in turn strengthens the economy. Reducing corporation tax encourages new business, leading to new employment opportunities and you guessed it... more revenue for the government.

Regarding the NHS I’d be in favour of private healthcare so that argument doesn’t wash with me, I’m afraid. You should pay your way through life, not expect the state and in turn hardworking taxpayers to fund you.
Then perhaps you should work within the government and try argue your case, one which has never come to fruition for obvious reasons. Your last sentence is way to assuming, you honestly think people expect, have some self-entitlement to free money? You are lost son, time to get your head out the ground.
0
reply
Mike172
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 week ago
#11
(Original post by random_matt)
Then perhaps you should work within the government and try argue your case, one which has never come to fruition for obvious reasons. Your last sentence is way to assuming, you honestly think people expect, have some self-entitlement to free money? You are lost son, time to get your head out the ground.
Yes I do. I’ve met people on benefits who have even said so themselves. Some people on benefits, not all, do see it as a right.
0
reply
JamesManc
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 week ago
#12
Yes obviously, the measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable, be that ill, poor, or unemployed.
19
reply
Prussianxo
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 week ago
#13
Of course people deserve benefits we don't live in the 1800s no more when people were forced to continue working or risk not putting food on the table because they were sick or injured.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
4
reply
nutz99
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 week ago
#14
To consider whether people should be on benefits you will need to look at all types of benefits and all types of people who are on benefits. Consider why they are on benefits. Consider whether they are capable of work. I can see already there are a few on here with blinkered opinions who have very limited experience of life on benefits - you should ignore them.

There are those who choose to be on benefits but could work but there are others who cannot work because of physical or mental problems and need benefits to live. Have an open mind about it.
3
reply
XOR_
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 week ago
#15
Well, benefits are a form of society worse-case optimization strategy - If people didn't receive benefits when in need it would probably cost more later anyway. Also given we have the NHS it would definitely cost a lot more in health costs later.
0
reply
naem071
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 week ago
#16
Collectively, we have a duty to look after the most vulnerable groups in our society who are reliant on the help of others. Be they the disabled, the terminally ill, struggling families or unemployed people trying to get on their feet. Some of these groups face an inherent disadvantage in our economic system, and many of them are the product of the huge economic inequality spurred by neoliberalism. Society shouldn't look to punish those at the bottom, rather it should offer a helping hand to support them. If you were to suddenly stop benefits, deaths would rise rapidly - those with long term illnesses would die as they cannot enter work to support themselves, expect child mortality to increase to levels not seen in decades, crime would rise and you'd probably create mass scale civil unrest in Britain not seen in over a century.

Many right-wingers would argue that some people leech off benefits, which I don't doubt, though despite media reports they form a slither of claimants. The use of sanctions to encourage employment only leads to people entering poorly paid employment which offers lower pay and only forces them to reclaim benefits, or people may just exit the system entirely - just look at the extent of homelessness in Britain. The welfare system is necessary to avoid a return to Dickensian poverty, but also to regulate unchecked capitalism which disproportionally affects the lowest strata of society.
Last edited by naem071; 1 week ago
6
reply
Stiff Little Fingers
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 week ago
#17
If there's any purpose to a government at all, it is to serve and protect its citizens and ensure their well-being. A safety net like welfare is necessary for that under the current capitalist system.
3
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 week ago
#18
(Original post by Satyr)
No no no
The welfare system is outdated and unnecessary.
I couldn't agree more. I want to see more of this on our streets like back in the glory days of the great Victoria.


I mean - just look how happy those street urchins look!

</sarcasm>
3
reply
jamal tyrone 2
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 week ago
#19
Evaluate the quality of the argument, not the individual making the argument.
2
reply
Wooord
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 week ago
#20
(Original post by Satyr)
No no no
The welfare system is outdated and unnecessary.
'outdated' ? its not a fashion statement lol. 'Unnecessary' is also arguable
3
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
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

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (133)
18.79%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (72)
10.17%
No I am happy with my course choice (402)
56.78%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (101)
14.27%

Watched Threads

View All