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

Why doesn't Labour use money from people on benefits to fund the armed forces? Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Heyjude)
    Whoah one quote at a time! lol

    Because vocational training does not ensure that work will appear on your doorstep. Besides, you also exclude them from bettering their career/life prospects by seeking academic qualifications.

    Funding for the army can be solved by altering the national budget (which of course would be a difficult decision, but the answer is not to punish the poorest in society) rather than setting up a convoluted method of reinbursement of funds.

    To sign on and recieve unemployment benefits, you are required to apply for at least three jobs a week. Thus, the statement "many people never bother" is false. You're massively generalising millions of people and perpetuating a vile and ignorant stereotype.
    The UK unemployment benefit system should work more like the scheme drafted in under Clinton:

    http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/new/prwora.htm

    I am not sure where you got the three jobs a week figure, I just checked the government website and didn't see it- the only thing I saw was 'regular visits to the jobcenter' and 'diary recording activity.' But I hope you are right because that is a good policy. The real flaws in the UK though are the fraudulent claims to disability benefits - which have dramatically risen since Labor came to power.

    Personally I believe that the UK government should help fund the military by lowering the amount of money to disability benefits - which have been politicized as they allow the government to represent a lower unemployment figure than the actual one -, through cutting spending on the NHS, and through lowering wages in particular public sector areas, eg tube drivers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I have it on good authority from the personal experience of a friend, there may be variation in Jobcentre policy nationally though.

    I think any political capital gained from unemployment figures has been lost in the past year. I don't think funding for the NHS should be cut but rather the organisation should undergo urgent restructuring, as beauocracy is currently preventing the vast investment made by the government in recent years from having any effect on a local level.

    Any pay cut to public sector workers would almost certainly result in industrial action. However any solution to rectify the budget deficit in the armed forces is going to be unpopular, considering a public spending cut has aalready been admitted as necessary by all parties.

    Perhaps downsizing the various vocational qualification schemes introduced by New Labour to incourage more people into higher education could be the answer. On the whole I think they have been ineffectual - it would be embaressing for the government as Tony Blair famously campaigned on 'education, education, education' but would do the least harm to the least amount of people, but funding for Universities has already been cut in the past year.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaniqua)
    I'm referring to those people who have been on benefits for years, even pre-recession and spend the money on crap. Ministers have been moaning about lack of funding for the armed forces, so why doesn't Labour start taking people off benefits to fund their wars?
    Another ridiculous attack on the poor; by a Tory supporter, I presume.

    Tell me, why shouldn't the government instead launch an assault on the wealthy who are exploiting legal loopholes to avoid tax? That would raise far more money.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The wealthy generate income or contribute to society through there actions, tax dodging or not. The benefit scrounger does not
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dn013)
    The real flaws in the UK though are the fraudulent claims to disability benefits - which have dramatically risen since Labor came to power.
    NAO figures?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    NAO figures?
    http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd/d....asp#allowance
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    The wealthy generate income or contribute to society through there actions, tax dodging or not. The benefit scrounger does not
    This is pretty dogmatic stuff. Not all wealthy people generate income or contribute to society particularly. I suppose it depends on whether you count invested money as making a positive contribution. Some wealthy people own businesses which provide employment though, and that is a definite good.

    Benefit scroungers actually aren't that bad for the economy. They are low income, and hence unable to save. That means that any money given to them is pumped directly back into the economy through grocery shopping etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    OP was banned, presumably for being mentally handicapped. The party's over, let's all go home
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    havent read the whole thread but how about the idea that instead of giving benefits money giving food/clothes/etc vouchers which cant be refunded for money (for example they can specify exactly for whom theyre intended for and the person using them would have to show ID) and cant be used to purchase certain things either (e.g. alcohol, cigarettes etc).

    not saying this is my view on what should necessarily be done but just want to see others views on its practicality/possibility. id imagine that it might cause quite a bit of bureaucracy making and delivering individual 'stamps' and then having shops refund them?

    sorry if this point has already been raised in this thread, as ive said, i only read first page :redface:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaniqua)
    Then you're a vile, repulsive human being. Thank goodness not many other people share your juvenile views.

    If you engaged your brain and read my post correctly, I was clearly referring to those who have been on benefits for years and are spending the money on worthless luxuries. You're frankly delusional if you believe benefits money isn't wasted on luxuries, alcohol or even drugs.
    How many drugs, alcohol and widescreen TV's can you get for £65 a week? As well as feeding yourself, basic transport, rent and so forth? Sadly, for many people getting a job simply isn't that easy.

    We also spend more on defense than almost any other country (except for the US) http://www.globalissues.org/article/...itary-spending
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaniqua)
    I'm referring to those people who have been on benefits for years, even pre-recession and spend the money on crap. Ministers have been moaning about lack of funding for the armed forces, so why doesn't Labour start taking people off benefits to fund their wars?



    'Social protection' obviously being a fancy word for mainly benefits.
    Other way round. Why dont we get the **** out of a pointless conflict, which has run costs into the billions (not to mention the cost in lives) and start combating the social ills of this country instead. Your thinking is backwards.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I believe the armed forces shoud first redistribute money by stopping paying for private education and possibly university for potential officers, I'm sure this would save millions to be spent on the front line and help save lives. I also think subsidies like the ones for the theatre need to be used more wisely.

    The majority of welfare will go on genuinely disabled people and pensioners, these people often struggle to survive and many pensioners die from the cold in fuel poverty, these benefits need to be improved not cut.

    As for the others, the job seekers, child benefits etc. the majority of these are also genuinely stuck on benefits, with 1/3 of all children in this country living in poverty, that does not happen in a country with an overly generous welfare system, that happens in a country which is leaving our poorest behind.

    The welfare system is a safety net, but far too often that net becomes a trap. We are in a position where people are looking for work but finding the'll be worse off in work than on benefits, which considering most people's benefits are already at poverty/minimum levels is an awful position to be trapped in. What we need is a more progressive welfare system, more help with training and gaining experience, for example we have people dying from diseases in dirty hospitals, whilst having many thousands of people who need a job and are desperate for experience and work, I wouldn't have thought t took a genius to add both together. We need more of an emphasis on getting people out of poverty and into work, our current problem is not that it's too generous, but that firstly for many it's too small, and secondly that it's too easy to be trapped on benefits.

    If the army needs more money, the government should look elsewhere for funding.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.