Jump to content
Assume Nothing

The Welfare & Benefits System

Recommended Posts

No, it is on the wrong side of the law since it's concealing income from the taxman. As said, I'm not denying that those people exist, I live in a poor area myself and I can give you the names of people I feel the same about from my own childhood. They're a total waste of time and resources and I've got no sympathy for them, and I wish people every luck in routing them out and bringing them to justice, and giving their unfortunate children a brighter future where getting a job isn't something the government hassles you into doing, it's an aspiration for you to improve your quality of life.

 

But faced between two choices: 1) Slash the 'safety net' so full of holes that, yes, "wasters" don't receive anything but genuine people don't receive enough to get by either; or 2) Keep the safety net so that people who are made redundant/become ill/experience hardship have something to fall back on, and accept the inevitable evil that people will abuse that system. I'll choose the latter everytime, and I'm thankful that two of the three major political parties in this country feel the same way as I do. Carry on giving to those who need it, but become more efficient about stopping those who won't give anything back to society and be more careful about institutionalising people into a life on benefits.

 

I'll ask you though: If the main grievance in the British general public is that taxpayers like me and (presumably) you are paying for "scroungers" to live a life of excess, why is this government increasing the threshold for Working Tax Credit from 16 hours to 24 hours from this April onwards? They are actually working for their welfare, and many of the people who'll lose out on this change have legitimate reasons for not being able to work more than 23 hours a week. What sense does it make to punish them when they have made an effort to go out, get a job and improve their circumstances? What kind of message does that send to the people we both mutually feel are undeserving of benefit in the first place because they don't sincerely want to get a job?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The very existence and formation of a centralized welfare system is proof enough that charity alone does not do enough.

Not really. Progressives have been pushing for socialism in America for about a hundred years. I'd call the Department of Education a complete waste but it's existence doesn't mean there wouldn't be schools without it.

Alright, from a different angle: using charity to support the poor would require potential donors to know who the poor are. With a welfare system, the poor go to the place they receive aid, rather than the aid seeking them out. The latter would be impossible.


TANSTAAFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or they just make themselves available, much like early hospitals.

 

Also, aid doesn't have to be organized. Can be as simple as bringing dinner to a family in a tough time, which many people still do.


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I have to say on the welfare issue is that my father is in the emergency services and regularly gets called to places where, "welfare rats" people who live off of the welfare and nothing else, lives most of the places are like pigs stys he says. The people in them have fancy T.V.'s the newest game systems and everything else, but they just live in their own filth and everything else there is nothing physically wrong with them and they could work tomorrow if they got off of their asses, but they don't. This pisses me off incredibly because my grandmother recently went through a divorce with my grandfather (wasn't really close with the grandfather myself anyway) and she highly diabetic and takes at least 4 pills a day just for that, because my grandfather was quite old school my grandmother doesn't have a car or a liscense or anything else. She applied for assistance to get a new roof on her house as she needed it and was turned down because she didn't make enough money of all the possible reasons, she was on welfare, at the time because she didn't work. She went out to find herself a job, she now works at an assisted living/nursing home and all is going well for the most part... But what irks me is that people who are young will just live off of this "free money" while people actually go out and bust their asses to try and better their situation only to pay for these free loaders to live the way they do...

 

The main point there is to say, people who live off of welfare piss me right off because I know several people who go out and work their asses off to try and better their situation while others just sit there and in the end just take the money said people worked so hard for, and all they did was sit on their ass. What needs to be done is for it not to be welfare but for it to be a rehabilitation type thing, anyone on it who isn't infirmed, ill or anything major should be put into programs which help them to obtain jobs instead of just allowing them to sit on their asses. The unfortunate truth of it though, is that for the goverment it is cheaper to pay them their monthly check than it is for them to turn them into productive citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or they just make themselves available, much like early hospitals.

 

Also, aid doesn't have to be organized. Can be as simple as bringing dinner to a family in a tough time, which many people still do.

Surely not every family who needs a meal during a tough time can have one provided by a charitable person, that's impractical. How could you identify them? If they make themselves available, who do they make themselves available to? You seem to be against a centralized welfare system, but in reality what you support is just a series of locally central systems.

 

People who are lazy and try to do the minimum will do so regardless. If it weren't living off welfare it would be selling drugs. Freeloaders are everywhere, and if we directed our efforts towards lifting the real burdens off of our countries, then maybe we would be able to further develop our economies to reward those who work harder. Of course, that would basically be sort of like "to each according to his contribution" which is a characteristic of society in transition to socialism, so expect Republicans to shoot it down if it ever reaches Congress.


TANSTAAFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or they just make themselves available, much like early hospitals.

 

Also, aid doesn't have to be organized. Can be as simple as bringing dinner to a family in a tough time, which many people still do.

Surely not every family who needs a meal during a tough time can have one provided by a charitable person, that's impractical. How could you identify them? If they make themselves available, who do they make themselves available to? You seem to be against a centralized welfare system, but in reality what you support is just a series of locally central systems.

If you can't tell the difference between the two, I'm not sure it's worth my time trying to explain it.


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is a series of locally centralized systems of welfare, perhaps overseen by a larger governing body, really any different?

 

No, I think the difference is that you feel you've been cheated by people mooching off welfare and so you (and not specifically you, generally people that make such an argument) think that only you can be a fair arbiter of who does and does not need aid. And I say that's impractical.


TANSTAAFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is a series of locally centralized systems of welfare, perhaps overseen by a larger governing body, really any different?

 

No, I think the difference is that you feel you've been cheated by people mooching off welfare and so you (and not specifically you, generally people that make such an argument) think that only you can be a fair arbiter of who does and does not need aid. And I say that's impractical.

You just don't get it. One size will never fit all, and that's a failure of socialism.

 

It's the difference between 50 different family owned restaurants, and 50 McDonalds. Except it's even worse than that, as each McDonalds is locally owned and operated.


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't a man alive that would stand in the way of charities if they could honestly provide to everyone in need.

 

Of course there is. There's people who deliberately and brutally stand in the way of charitable actions all the time.


slobdf.jpg

Oh, wicked, bad, naughty, evil Zoot!

Oh, she is a naughty person, and she must pay the penalty!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is a series of locally centralized systems of welfare, perhaps overseen by a larger governing body, really any different?

 

No, I think the difference is that you feel you've been cheated by people mooching off welfare and so you (and not specifically you, generally people that make such an argument) think that only you can be a fair arbiter of who does and does not need aid. And I say that's impractical.

You just don't get it. One size will never fit all, and that's a failure of socialism.

 

It's the difference between 50 different family owned restaurants, and 50 McDonalds. Except it's even worse than that, as each McDonalds is locally owned and operated.

 

Socialism? :unsure:


slobdf.jpg

Oh, wicked, bad, naughty, evil Zoot!

Oh, she is a naughty person, and she must pay the penalty!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't a man alive that would stand in the way of charities if they could honestly provide to everyone in need.

 

Of course there is. There's people who deliberately and brutally stand in the way of charitable actions all the time.

Point

Evidence

Explanation.

 

It's not hard, and one out of three ain't good enough.

 

EDIT: Sorry, just noticed from the post after you're an obvious troll. How anyone can comment on the welfare state and not sincerely know the principles of socialism is beyond me.

Edited by Ginger_Warrior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't a man alive that would stand in the way of charities if they could honestly provide to everyone in need.

 

Of course there is. There's people who deliberately and brutally stand in the way of charitable actions all the time.

Point

Evidence

Explanation.

 

It's not hard, and one out of three ain't good enough.

 

EDIT: Sorry, just noticed from the post after you're an obvious troll. How anyone can comment on the welfare state and not sincerely know the principles of socialism is beyond me.

 

Actually, it’s you people in here who don’t appear to comprehend what “socialism” means within this context. You all bandy about the word in such a manner as to demonstrate that you’re playing it up as some form of dirty word. There's not a social or political organization or structure that has not been positively affect by socialism. You're problem is that you don't understand the dialectic, and you have no appreciation for that which existed before socialism modified it.

 

And anyone who watches the news can see perfect examples of people standing in the way of charitable works all over the world. Watch the next time someone attempts famine relief in Africa, or watch Muslim organizations hinder the efforts of Christian groups in the Middle East. Watch the drug cartels hinder the efforts of the Catholic Church in South America. There’s always someone willing to stand in the way of such charitable acts in order that they can wield “the power” over other people. These things happen every single day. You have to be blind not know about them.


slobdf.jpg

Oh, wicked, bad, naughty, evil Zoot!

Oh, she is a naughty person, and she must pay the penalty!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

slobdf.jpg

Oh, wicked, bad, naughty, evil Zoot!

Oh, she is a naughty person, and she must pay the penalty!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pile on meaningless examples because none of them have any relevence to the topic? Go ahead. It was pretty obvious my statement didn't extend to humanitarian atrocities in the Middle East or international aid. Next you'll be bringing up Nazi examples in desperation. We're talking about the welfare state. At home.

 

Then you accuse me of thinking socialism is dirty? Go back over my six year posting history on this board and tell me I'm not a socialist. Utterly cretinous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pile on meaningless examples because none of them have any relevence to the topic? Go ahead. It was pretty obvious my statement didn't extend to humanitarian atrocities in the Middle East or international aid. Next you'll be bringing up Nazi examples in desperation. We're talking about the welfare state. At home.

You made a blanket statement that nobody would stand in the way of charities, something that clearly isn't true. Sorry we didn't take enough time to extract meaning from ridiculous ambiguity.


TANSTAAFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just like to remind everyone, although this is a touchy subject, and one that people will obviously feel strongly about, please remember to try and not get too personal and perhaps too insulting. Even though you may directing comments toward someones argument, that person may take it as if that comment is directed at them personally.

 

Thanks guys! Look forward to reading some more opinions!


09144a99bb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is totally my view on the matter.

 

I work 40 hours a week in a convience store/restaurant as a supervisor.

My mom works 40 hours a week as a waitress at the age of 58.

My dad drives truck 70-75 hours a week at the age of 58.

 

We pay weekly and bi-weekly for people who are too lazy to work (for the majority) to collect food stamps, use those food stamps on junk food and drinks...and use what cash they do have to buy cigarettes and other trash. I think the system is terrible, and anyone who collects it and does even a portion of what I just said with it should be shot and killed. I don't care how extreme it is. It's pathetic. You complain there are no jobs, well part of it is because you don't want to move off your lazy ass and make a little less..but hey, at least it's honest.


Turnpikes.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is totally my view on the matter.

 

I work 40 hours a week in a convience store/restaurant as a supervisor.

My mom works 40 hours a week as a waitress at the age of 58.

My dad drives truck 70-75 hours a week at the age of 58.

 

We pay weekly and bi-weekly for people who are too lazy to work (for the majority) to collect food stamps, use those food stamps on junk food and drinks...and use what cash they do have to buy cigarettes and other trash. I think the system is terrible, and anyone who collects it and does even a portion of what I just said with it should be shot and killed. I don't care how extreme it is. It's pathetic. You complain there are no jobs, well part of it is because you don't want to move off your lazy ass and make a little less..but hey, at least it's honest.

Then why not stop working and live on welfare?


"The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is."

siggy3s.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people on welfare should be given a time limit to find employment. Of course people will have disabilities and things preventing them from working, and they should be given special treatment... But I know people who've been on welfare for years, have mustangs, big screen T.V's, and every console you could think of. Yet, I'm unfortunately handicapped, can still make a decent amount for myself working at home, and they refuse to pay me even a fraction of what these other people are getting.

 

Yeah, it's definitely flawed.


09144a99bb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was on benefits for a brief time before I went to university since my course started in January instead of September. I remember making up job searches (basically in England you need to keep a job search diary to show you're looking for work) and nobody ever double-checked anything. I would literally write down what I had done to look for a job in the last two weeks; 10 minutes before my appointment. And yes, all the money I got from benefits went on fun whilst my parents provided everything I needed. The system is beyond easy to abuse and although from the very first payment I already knew I was going to go to University I could easily see how a welfare system this good CREATES laziness. Or, at least, kindles it. I could easily have lived on it, never having to really search for work. The only work you have to do is making up an adequate number of Job searches for someone to quickly glance at and then sign. And in return for this work you can have an adequate existence not too far removed from somebody on minimum wage (and your benefits increase with children/age).


zerker_jane.png

99 farm easy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is totally my view on the matter.

 

I work 40 hours a week in a convience store/restaurant as a supervisor.

My mom works 40 hours a week as a waitress at the age of 58.

My dad drives truck 70-75 hours a week at the age of 58.

 

We pay weekly and bi-weekly for people who are too lazy to work (for the majority) to collect food stamps, use those food stamps on junk food and drinks...and use what cash they do have to buy cigarettes and other trash. I think the system is terrible, and anyone who collects it and does even a portion of what I just said with it should be shot and killed. I don't care how extreme it is. It's pathetic. You complain there are no jobs, well part of it is because you don't want to move off your lazy ass and make a little less..but hey, at least it's honest.

 

I want to briefly take the devil's advocate route here: Why does it matter what they spend it on, if they so choose? If they can live off a fraction of what they get, and decide to spend the rest on luxuries like tobacco, alcohol, or even strippers - why does it matter to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is totally my view on the matter.

 

I work 40 hours a week in a convience store/restaurant as a supervisor.

My mom works 40 hours a week as a waitress at the age of 58.

My dad drives truck 70-75 hours a week at the age of 58.

 

We pay weekly and bi-weekly for people who are too lazy to work (for the majority) to collect food stamps, use those food stamps on junk food and drinks...and use what cash they do have to buy cigarettes and other trash. I think the system is terrible, and anyone who collects it and does even a portion of what I just said with it should be shot and killed. I don't care how extreme it is. It's pathetic. You complain there are no jobs, well part of it is because you don't want to move off your lazy ass and make a little less..but hey, at least it's honest.

 

I want to briefly take the devil's advocate route here: Why does it matter what they spend it on, if they so choose? If they can live off a fraction of what they get, and decide to spend the rest on luxuries like tobacco, alcohol, or even strippers - why does it matter to you?

 

I think the point made is that, if they can afford luxuries, then it means they got more money than they would absolutely need, so they should get less to be less of a burden on society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they deserve to spend it on luxuries if they so choose - but that must mean a compromise on other spending; i.e. a compromise on food. I think a lifestyle with no luxuries is a little too rigid - it's not much of a life worth living, and it doesn't motivate them by depriving them. It might be an idea to give welfare payments in non-monetary terms though, maybe like foodstamps - except it'll be more tightly controlled (e.g. government permits stores/managers to ban people if they obviously exploit the stamps)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.