The welfare bill is too high. People should be more self reliant.
Never in our history have people had such a sense of entitlement. The same goes for Obama's America.
Most of our welfare bill is spent on our pensioners and those in work but whose tight arse employers don't pay them enough to live on. Are pensioners and the poorly paid scroungers?
Why are those on the dole such an anathema to society? You don't have to work to be a "productive citizen," so the whole negative attitude is wholly unfair. What, they're a strain on the taxpayer? No, not exactly. Tax is for funding the public sector and for the "welfare of people." It's positive.
And what's up with the condescending "scrounger" word? It is completely insulting, used by ignoramuses to subtly justify their irrationality. Don't you realise that most people will choose to work out of pure vested motivation? Welfare leechers on the other hand will remain unproductive even if they're not getting benefits. What's the big deal? Much ado about nothing?
The thread title says it all...
You EARN a living by working
You DO NOT EARN benefits!!!!!
You EARN a living by working
You DO NOT EARN benefits!!!!!
Yes you do. A friend of mine cares for her disabled sister. Believe me she more than earns her benefits and it's a bloody pittance. She could shove her sister in a home and go off and live her own life and be a damn sight better off financially and stop being such a leech, nicking our hard earned taxes. What a bitch she is.
I also disagree that idle will be driven to crime too; the current benefits system should meet all basic needs.
No, you misunderstood. I'm saying that if you believe the idle benefit claimants are such a burden on society, they'd be an even bigger burden if the benefits were to be deliberately ceased. They'd have no choice but to alleviate their poverty via illegal means. Such is the reason welfare is a blessing in disguise.
Lets be clear: You stated it is illogical to demonize those on benefits. I say it is perfectly logical to demoize certain parts of society on benefits. There needs to be a stigma attached to being on benefits to motivate people to get off them. Most people do not need that motivation, but I would hope that stigma would motivate certain parts of society who currently refuse to come off benefits. I also think this is only part of the issue and that along side that stigma should be assistance to help get these people off benefits long term (ie: no short term fixes)
You're just not thinking deep enough, my friend. Stigma is entirely irrelevant to those who are poverty-stricken. That attitude evinces societal irrationality that either adds fuel to the fire or is brushed to the side.
It is not wrong to ask the government to foot the bill for a minority of the populace. Frankly, I find it humorous that you think the foundations of a productive society will crumble. We certainly won't enter a Dark Age due to this. Even if hypothetically a majority of the populace enters the welfare program, when pigs fly of course, it woudn't at all significantly impact the economy badly because we all work in pursuit of our own unilateral interests, don't we? When we see an opportunity, we monopolise it. Enterprises will always be around. There will always be a swarm of people, of varying capabilities, competing for the same job vacancy. It's so absurdly unrealistic to think benefits are a detriment to the GDP.
Or, what, is it that you just altruistically care for how far others exceed in life? Well, that's great and all but it's really none of your business.
You want to punish women because the man abnegates his responsibilities?[/QUOTE
-
Sadly..no amount of time will change biology- women get pregnant..not men..women give birth..not men...women end up with responsibility of a child..not men.
Much more teaching our children through example needed...not jumping into bed with someone we hardly know..not moving in with someone a matter of weeks after we have met them..going back to good old fashioned basics of building a realtionship and learning about someone before jumping into bed would be a good start....that goes for both sexes..but as above ultimately the woman will always have the responsibility..the man,not so much.
I appreciate even long term relationships and marriages break down through noones fault..but we dont need to add to these by creating more life with someone we barely know!!!!..its hard enough when 2 people are together for the long run..
You want to punish women because the man abnegates his responsibilities?[/QUOTE
-
Sadly..no amount of time will change biology- women get pregnant..not men..women give birth..not men...women end up with responsibility of a child..not men.
Much more teaching our children through example needed...not jumping into bed with someone we hardly know..not moving in with someone a matter of weeks after we have met them..going back to good old fashioned basics of building a realtionship and learning about someone before jumping into bed would be a good start....that goes for both sexes..but as above ultimately the woman will always have the responsibility..the man,not so much.
I appreciate even long term relationships and marriages break down through noones fault..but we dont need to add to these by creating more life with someone we barely know!!!!..its hard enough when 2 people are together for the long run..
No amount of 'leading by example' will battle the nature of sexual maturity I'm afraid! Men and women have sex, end of! You can't simply change millions of years of evolutionary development simply because women shouldn't be bringing unplanned babies into the world!
this thread is slightly embarassing. There's a reason the benefits system is there- so everyone can fall back on. The problem is because of the paranoia of benefits being used fraudalently there's a massive nose in everyone one other's business.
In a way if the government had benefits set up right- there would be none of this.
While there are undoubtedly people on benefits who are taking the piss, I am extremely suspicious of right wing tabloids giving as much coverage as they do to scroungers. On one hand we hear how bad the economy is and people losing their jobs, on the other they're trying to make out that anyone on benefit is lazy and doesn't want to work...
We do need as a country to break the cycle of benefits dependency, but that's unlikely to happen with nothing but cuts with no measures for growth. I suspect at least some of the Tories have no interest in increasing people's prospects for well paid jobs when they can just use scare and scapegoat tactics to make people accept low paid work as cheap labour for the Tories' friends and benefactors in big business.
I have thought people should be given basic living benefit in order to live regardless if they want to work or not. So say you don't want to work for 5 years then that's fine, no questions asked and you don't have to look for work or anything. I am sure there would not be many more people on benefits than there is now and plus it would be a must more flexible and tolerant society.
Not sure i have ever seen anything posted on digital spy that i disagree with more totally and completely.
While the 5 day 40 hour week remains the expected norm, even more and more job creation schemes just can not provide the work experience for all. Some have said that they could get by without the thrill (and respect) of working, and I think it's time they should be encouraged to do so.
It's also " illogical " [?] and highly immoral to expect Society to fund an idle life while contributing nothing to that Society.
I don't think the architects of The Welfare State in the post-war era envisaged the idea of generations of healthy people happy to spend their entire life on the dole.
Those architects could have had no idea what we've achieved with our technology and all the oil we ever needed. We've successfully produced far more workers than are required to run our bit of civilisation. That's a good thing isn't it? Just need to share out the available leisure time more fairly - isn't it?
If a child is born to parents who 'don't think and/or don't care' aren't they already suffering? Isn't a child who is brought up to think that self-responsibility is for idiots when you can just rely upon the state also suffering. All the welfare state does is chuck money at a problem without any thought to how that will effect people's behaviour, hence becoming an enabler to irresponsible people.
Parents at some point have to cut the apron strings and let their child stand on their own two feet. We all know that is healthy and correct. Why shouldn't it be the same for the state?
I don't think that's healthy or 'correct' and probably never has been. By the time parents have time to think about anything other than getting through the days, they would have no idea what job-seeking is like for those entering the market.
How isn't it? If you can't afford it you don't have it.
Don't have children and expect the state to pay for them. It's not complicated.
PAY YOUR WAY,
That's pretty ugly. So they not only have to forgo the pleasure of meaningful work, but child rearing too. Would have been kinder (for some) to have refused them life at birth.
I agree, it won't stop there either, the next target are the immigrants, then who next, I wonder...
Divide and rule is the name of the game.
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." Malcolm X
-
Sadly..no amount of time will change biology- women get pregnant..not men..women give birth..not men...women end up with responsibility of a child..not men.
Much more teaching our children through example needed...not jumping into bed with someone we hardly know..not moving in with someone a matter of weeks after we have met them..going back to good old fashioned basics of building a realtionship and learning about someone before jumping into bed would be a good start....that goes for both sexes..but as above ultimately the woman will always have the responsibility..the man,not so much.
I appreciate even long term relationships and marriages break down through noones fault..but we dont need to add to these by creating more life with someone we barely know!!!!..its hard enough when 2 people are together for the long run..
Or how about leaving that attitude in 1857 where it belongs and making sure fathers pay their share?
I think taxpayers should be able to say whether they want part of their tax to be spent on benefits or not. Then make adjustments to the total benefit bill dependant on the results!!
My guess is there would be a not so small cut in benefits the next month
Hmm. The woman in the story is on ESA, not jobseekers. There must be more to the story that she 'doesnt want to work'. Its extremely hard to get ESA. Even if you are seriously disabled.
People like to work, but jobs, in our highly advanced and automated world, are becoming more of a privilege than something everyone can expect.
Those architects could have had no idea what we've achieved with our technology and all the oil we ever needed. We've successfully produced far more workers than are required to run our bit of civilisation. That's a good thing isn't it? Just need to share out the available leisure time more fairly - isn't it?
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." Malcolm X
Although your sentiments, at first glance appear stark raving mad, there are a few nuggets in there. Society is a long way from accepting such changes, but there be some truth in some of what you say. But on the whole still a bit too radical.
Also I see the dont have kids if you cant afford them argument has reared its head again.
Anyone came up with a solution to those who were working when they had the children yet lost their jobs yet? What do we do with those irresponsible people who couldnt see the future?
Comments
Most of our welfare bill is spent on our pensioners and those in work but whose tight arse employers don't pay them enough to live on. Are pensioners and the poorly paid scroungers?
The thread title says it all...
You EARN a living by working
You DO NOT EARN benefits!!!!!
Yep, pretty much discussed near the beginning of the thread!
Yes you do. A friend of mine cares for her disabled sister. Believe me she more than earns her benefits and it's a bloody pittance. She could shove her sister in a home and go off and live her own life and be a damn sight better off financially and stop being such a leech, nicking our hard earned taxes. What a bitch she is.
Divide and rule is the name of the game.
Having kids to absent fathers is NOT to be condoned as it is today.
Single mothers, it would seem.
Oh hang on! You're on the wind up aren't you *slaps forehead smiley*! I'm not going to feed you any more!
No no, zay zimply vant order to society, you vill obey!!!
No, you misunderstood. I'm saying that if you believe the idle benefit claimants are such a burden on society, they'd be an even bigger burden if the benefits were to be deliberately ceased. They'd have no choice but to alleviate their poverty via illegal means. Such is the reason welfare is a blessing in disguise.
You're just not thinking deep enough, my friend. Stigma is entirely irrelevant to those who are poverty-stricken. That attitude evinces societal irrationality that either adds fuel to the fire or is brushed to the side.
It is not wrong to ask the government to foot the bill for a minority of the populace. Frankly, I find it humorous that you think the foundations of a productive society will crumble. We certainly won't enter a Dark Age due to this. Even if hypothetically a majority of the populace enters the welfare program, when pigs fly of course, it woudn't at all significantly impact the economy badly because we all work in pursuit of our own unilateral interests, don't we? When we see an opportunity, we monopolise it. Enterprises will always be around. There will always be a swarm of people, of varying capabilities, competing for the same job vacancy. It's so absurdly unrealistic to think benefits are a detriment to the GDP.
Or, what, is it that you just altruistically care for how far others exceed in life? Well, that's great and all but it's really none of your business.
What about people on Workfare?
In a way if the government had benefits set up right- there would be none of this.
We do need as a country to break the cycle of benefits dependency, but that's unlikely to happen with nothing but cuts with no measures for growth. I suspect at least some of the Tories have no interest in increasing people's prospects for well paid jobs when they can just use scare and scapegoat tactics to make people accept low paid work as cheap labour for the Tories' friends and benefactors in big business.
People like to work, but jobs, in our highly advanced and automated world, are becoming more of a privilege than something everyone can expect.
Those architects could have had no idea what we've achieved with our technology and all the oil we ever needed. We've successfully produced far more workers than are required to run our bit of civilisation. That's a good thing isn't it? Just need to share out the available leisure time more fairly - isn't it?
I don't think that's healthy or 'correct' and probably never has been. By the time parents have time to think about anything other than getting through the days, they would have no idea what job-seeking is like for those entering the market.
That's pretty ugly. So they not only have to forgo the pleasure of meaningful work, but child rearing too. Would have been kinder (for some) to have refused them life at birth.
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." Malcolm X
Or how about leaving that attitude in 1857 where it belongs and making sure fathers pay their share?
All I have to say about that is look at his/her past threads and posts and it's pretty obvious
My guess is there would be a not so small cut in benefits the next month
That may not be the case in all circumstances. How many men dont know they are the father of a child.
Although your sentiments, at first glance appear stark raving mad, there are a few nuggets in there. Society is a long way from accepting such changes, but there be some truth in some of what you say. But on the whole still a bit too radical.
Anyone came up with a solution to those who were working when they had the children yet lost their jobs yet? What do we do with those irresponsible people who couldnt see the future?