If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Scale down the welfare state
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
In my mind one of the principle positive aspects of Thatcherism was the attack on the dependency culture. Even Blair concurs with such a notion.
Aren't benefits too excessive? A person is better off maintaining a job than living off the state. Those who abuse the safety net of welfare deserve neither aid nor compassion from any government. They simply must fend for themselves.
Aren't benefits too excessive? A person is better off maintaining a job than living off the state. Those who abuse the safety net of welfare deserve neither aid nor compassion from any government. They simply must fend for themselves.
0
Comments
If there should be any welfare from a government, then it must enable people to help themselves in addition to receiving support from the state.
There is an old saying - "Give a man a fish and he has food for a day. Teach a man to fish and he can have food for a lifetime."
Yes, I believe that with welfare comes some responsibility. That those in receipt should be required to put something back into the community in return.
However, the "give a man a fish" expression is only useful if there are any fish available. In some areas of the country life isn't as easy as you make out, and perhaps society has a responsibility to help people through those hard times. Not indefinately mind, but we should certainly assist then, rather than the pathetic efforts we have at the moment.
The more I read of your comments, the more I am glad that you aren't in control of the country. We often laugh that Steelgate is out of touch with reality. So are you, just in an opposing direction.
I can only assume from your comments to date that you have lived a life in financial security. I also suspect that this is thanks to Daddy's efforts rather than your own...
As for 'financial security', I've spent most of the last two years unemployed. Have you?
Do you receive social security benefits? Or are you able to support yourself without them?
Hmm yeah okay. If you insist.
In my case I have been unemployed, but I got off my arse and helped myself, now I flourish. Why was I able to do that...well because when I was at my lowest, the welfare sustem kicked inand stopped me from becoming homeless (along with my wife and child) and it made sure there was food on the table.
Back then though, it wasn't enough to make sure I had a PC tho', guess times change.
Anyway, without that support, I'd still be down there. Had I been in a position where I had to "fend for myself" (as you suggested earlier) I would have turned to crime, or become a vagrant.
I guess though that you live the life you preach, and I can assume that you haven't drawn a single payment from the State, or that you are actively involved in putting something back...
However... ... in all fairness to them they did launch New Deal which was a new attempt to get people off the welfare state, and into jobs.
Its also worth considering what Mok said. The welfare system worked for him - giving him a chance to get back on his feet.
So all in all maybe the welfare system in this country isn't too bad.
And as one of your political 'values' is "The limitation of inequality", how does casting people aside to "simply fend for themselves" achieve this?
Are you claiming benefit from the government? How are you making any money? How can you afford to run a computer and access the internet without an income?
welfare money buys loaves, petrol, mars bars etc. take this money out of the system and corner shops in some areas would go bust. what would you do with all that welfare money you saved if you stopped putting it into the hands of those at the bottom of the pile ?build a lot more prisons i pressume. the crime rate would rocket if you pulled billions of pounds from the economy. essential money for those who ..mostly need and deservr it. and what if the odd one now and again abuses the system. well. why do those at the top , always blame those at the bottom ? for those at the top theres always a little piece of the uk set aside as a tax haven..isle of man etc. now that is repugnant. make millions from the society you live in but put nothing back in. fat bastard leeches.
As for 'Angelsey', what stopping someone from moving away to get a job?
why shouldn't a rich nation poor billions into poverty. it makes your world a lot more pleasant to live in.
Geez...so much for adult behaviour...:rolleyes:
I never stated that all welfare must be eliminated. Nonetheless, I feel that welfare should enable people to help themselves in addition to receiving aid from the state.
I reckon that most people, irrespective of their political leanings, would not approve of people living off the state in a parasitic fashion. I certainly do not. That is all I am stating here.
Answer this simple question. Until you do none of your arguments have any credibility.
you should be closing down tax havens. you should be chasing the companies who fiddle tax and vat and all the other expenses. you should be closing loopholes that alow the wealthy to contribute almost sod all. funny how the patriotic never sweat or pay, while the poor take the blame. i could end up with steelgate with you around. have you got a personal beef against people on meagre benefits or have you got some kind of economic argument ?
Quote number 1:
Quote number 2:
I've never felt so disgusted in my entire life. How dare you steal the profits of your shareholders by failing to be completely and utterly 100% productive for every moment you're at work!?!
If I were you I'd kill myself before I did any more irresponsible damage to the profits of your company.
What about the profits made by big multi-national companies aren't they too excessive! And aren't rents too excessive? And house prices!
Why do you think there are people who have to claim benefits because the capitalists kick out thousands of people from their jobs when it is in the interests of the capitalists to do so, such as the 500 Liverpool dockers sacked by Mersey Docks and Harbour company for refusing new working conditions, the thousands of print workers sacked by Rupert Murdoch in 1986! And the thousands of miners thrown out of their jobs by the pit closure plan by the Tories of the 1980s.
The same people who complain about millions being spent on welfare never complain about millions being spent on the military and the vast amount of money this coming war with Iraq will cost!
The government are about to waste billion and billions of pounds on a pointless war against Iraq which will only benefit the rich capitalist owners of the oil companies and the arms manufacturers! Everyone should be angry about that! :mad:
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk
Nothing to do with you at all.
So, are you happy to work for any organisation, or are there limits?
Tell me another thing, how do you justify selling the Big Issue, to yourself. Surely this doesn't fit your "production for need" criteria - I can't think of a single person who needs the Big Issue...
Here's an idea: get off the computer and go get yourself a job! There are plenty of opportunities open to you, you just have to make a bit of effort. Or does that conflict with your political 'values'?
Heres a suggestion for you! Instead of supporting the coming mass slaughter of people in Iraq and the destruction of their country you join the anti-war movement and do something for world peace!
http://www.stopwar.org.uk
Which is a job that, as MoK rightly pointed out, conflicts with your ideals of producing on the basis of consumer needs. Nobody needs to buy the Big Issue from you, as nobody needs to read the Big Issue.
And here's suggestion for you: Provide for yourself, instead of taking handouts. The food that you take from the handouts in London could be sent to the people of Iraq, who clearly need it a lot more than you do.
By your reckoning should he receive nothing? Despite the fact he has paid tax and NI contributions for four years. He even paid NI contributions when he was 16, which is too young to receive unemployment benefit. :rolleyes: