Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Dirty Spongers?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Should people recieve generous unemployment benefits, how should the system be administered, is the current system working?
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It all depends on why they are unemployed in the first place. Obviously there are going to be people who do abuse the system, but then there are people who do genuinely need the money to help them get by i.e. single parents, disabled. I do think benefits are needed to a certain extent, of course it can be argued it's creating a culture of depenency. To solve unemployment and poverty maybe the benefit system does need tighter restrictions and more help, money and education into getting people jobs.

    Let me revise welfare for sociology first, then I'll know more. (Actually this thread will help my revision. Ahh the message boards do have a purpose.)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In the US, big entitlement programs are associated with the Democrats, the Republicans talk about lower taxes and smaller government. When considering to expand their business or add to their workforce is unemployment an expense business must consider?

    To me the real waste right now is CEO salaries.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well unemployment should be considered by a lot of industries because if there are a lot of unemployed people then less people are spending money and businesses lose out and the economy goes into recession........

    I agree that there seems to be very little perspective on what executives are worth compared to what most people would consider to be a reasonable salary, it is quite disgusting really..
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Dirty Spongers?
    Originally posted by Toadborg
    Should people recieve generous unemployment benefits, how should the system be administered, is the current system working?

    I don't really believe in benefits of any kind. Welfare generally creates dependency and the welfare state is based on fraud and theft.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Economics dictates that it is okay and just that unemployed people get nothing and company directors get fat cat salaries, all a case of demand and supply - no-one wants unemployed people and anyone can be an umeployed person therefore high supply, low demand = no wages, whereas a company director usually has a university education and experience which few people have therefore low supply and the number of posts on company boards is limited therefore high demand relative to the number of posts = fat cat wages.

    Does that make it right? No. Yet another product of the Thatcher revolution!

    The case of cutting off benefits actually makes bad economic sense - in a recession with benefits cut off after a few months as in America can lead to someone with a degree flipping burgers in McDonalds wasting their economic potential. Therefore I wouldn't stop unemployment benefit after a certain time period. As for the level of benefits part of me says we should make it so that people can have a reasonable living standard but the other part says it should be low to avoid dependency issues. So I don't know on that one.

    But I have thought about what to do about fat cat pay and I think I've come up with a pretty good solution. Limit the amount of shares an individual can have in a company to an initial 2% and then for all new share issues sell 40% to the workforce, 10% to existing members of the board (unless they are over the 2% threshold) and put the rest on the open market. Then have the shareholders vote on directors pay increases starting with a basic cut, hold, increase option and then working out the level of the cut or increase. Thus directors are on performance related pay, as shareholders are not averse to rewarding their directors when things go well, you increase the involvement of the workforce in firms by making them shareholders and increasing their long term wealth by share ownership.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Mono: as Kevlar mentions benefits of some kind make sound economic sense, i thought that was what you were interested in?

    I have also mentioned before that I have seen the idea that unemployment in the Great Depression was a result of benefits dependency torn apart, there is little proof of it.

    Basically the benefits and tax system has to be worked so that it is always beneficial to go back into work when you are unemployed, that incentive alone should allow the economy to function.

    In what way are benefits based on 'fraud and theft'?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That does look bad but you have to think that that corporate money may benefit most people through lower prices, higher wages, more employment etc.

    It isn't clear that it is all going to 'the rich' but it wouldn't suprise me if they were the ones to profit the most........
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In the Western societies, especially America, the multi-nationals have way too much freedom to maximize profits - by any method. For instance, in the US, ruthless CEO's who want this year's profits to look even better, will layoff people as business slows during the holiday season.

    So in thinking about this question again. Whether it's a Western government that isn't keeping controls on its multi-nationals or the multi-nationals that are always firing people or changing directions and laying people off...let them pay unemployment benefits. Maybe the cost of that will keep them in line a bit.

    Oh, my God I'm a liberal. :shocking:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The way the benefit system has changed with regards to Working Families Tax Credits is actually a lot better now. what used to happen is people would work 16/20 hrs per week for about 8 weeks just basically doing them hours and would not do overtime, then apply for the benefit. Once you got this benefit you then could work as many hours as you liked and you would not loose that benefit. So obviously people cottoned on and realised this was a brilliant way to get extra cash so for 8 weeks prior to completing the forms they only worked minimum hours.

    Now thats all changed, but I think people will come up with a way to fiddle the system.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I also beleive that some people are better off not working. they get rent rebates, council tax rebates, free school meals, free prescriptions etc.
    A friend of mine has actually worked out quite recently that if she went back to work by the time she paid all her bills she would be at least £5.00 a week down, compared to the benefits that she receives now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    always the people at the bottom of the pile what gets the blame aye! some things never change. most fraud and fiddling goes on at the top. the agricultural policy of western europe poors billions of pounds into farming families so they can do as little as possible whilst still driving a twenty grand four by four. but thats ok. company directors get millions for failing to do they're job propperly. tax breaks for the rich. tax havens for the rich so they don't have to put fuck all back into the system that they actualy get fat off. if benefits to those at the bottom were stopped where would the money go instead? to people who have plenty or even more than enough as it is.
    your streets would become ever more dangerous and desperate.
    shops, garages market traders etc would be closing down as those billions were taken out of the lower end of the economy.
    how much fucking more do some of you people want? you are already living better than the kings and princes of all previous generations before you ...and still you want more ...still you want to grind those at the bottom ever further down. shove em all in jail for stealing food. shove the more enterprising single parents in jail and their children into care because they dared to do a bit of cleaning on the side for an extra fifty quid a week. you make me fucking angry!
    if you stopped the benefits i'll bet you wouldn't dream of pouring the saved money into decent housing for those at the bottom would you? well , wouldn't be much point as they wouldn't be able to afford to live there.
    of course some fiddling goes on. get fucking real.
    man is a social animal by nature. time to join the HUMAN race
    ...bunch of selfish bastards!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by BeckyBoo
    I also beleive that some people are better off not working. they get rent rebates, council tax rebates, free school meals, free prescriptions etc.
    A friend of mine has actually worked out quite recently that if she went back to work by the time she paid all her bills she would be at least £5.00 a week down, compared to the benefits that she receives now.

    Which is one reason why benefits are bad.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Re: Dirty Spongers?
    Originally posted by monocrat
    I don't really believe in benefits of any kind. Welfare generally creates dependency and the welfare state is based on fraud and theft.

    Another one of your sweeping statements.

    Can you back this up?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by BeckyBoo
    I also beleive that some people are better off not working. they get rent rebates, council tax rebates, free school meals, free prescriptions etc.
    A friend of mine has actually worked out quite recently that if she went back to work by the time she paid all her bills she would be at least £5.00 a week down, compared to the benefits that she receives now.

    Certainly, I found myself in this position a few years ago.

    Basically when you start work you lose benefit entitlement immediately. However it could be six weeks before you recieve your first pay cheque so you are living without funds for a while...

    It is this problem that the Govt needs to overcome, rather looking for more scapegoats
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree that this unemployment trap situation should be avoided and it can be, thus it is not an argument against benefits mono....

    M.Roll I agree with a lot of what you said, who was it aimed at? (society i guess :confused: :rolleyes: )
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Re: Re: Dirty Spongers?
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    Another one of your sweeping statements.

    Can you back this up?

    No need to.

    All I'll say is that funding for the welfare state is based on taxation (stealing money from people to fund the state).

    If you want to aid the poor, why not form charities or other voluntary organisations?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Interesting point I have just done this recently.

    A private system of contributions for the poor would suffer form free-riding and would be insufficient, that is why the welfare system was created, donations were not enough.

    Mono: Why do you see taxation as theft?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Stealing eh? Many people might argue than those who earn more than others are stealing the extra money they receive from the pockets of the rest of the workforce.

    Give me a reason why taxation qualifies as 'stealing' and the CEO of Ford Motor Company earning 25 times more than a floor worker does not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    He cant, he just reads libertarian.org and spouts what they write on there. I don't think I've ever seen him justify one of those sweeping statements he tends to make.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Mono some things have to be paid with taxes, this is a fact, get over it.........
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    Stealing eh? Many people might argue than those who earn more than others are stealing the extra money they receive from the pockets of the rest of the workforce.

    Give me a reason why taxation qualifies as 'stealing' and the CEO of Ford Motor Company earning 25 times more than a floor worker does not.

    First you have to define stealing. In a simplistic sense, it's taking something that does not belong to you. The state takes money from people in the form of taxation by force, as if you don't pay the government punishes you.

    The CEO of Ford earns a wage as everybody else in the workforce. He gets paid more as his responsibilities to Ford are greater than others in the organisation. From whom (if we assume that his salary is set at a specific figure) has he stolen from?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I would imagine that if anything, the bloke at the line checking that the components are installed safely and the car has no faults has a million times more responsibility than the CEO, who basically sits his fat arse at board meetings and dictates letters all day long. Yet this man earns not 25 times but probably 30 or 40 times more than the bloke checking at the line.

    So who is he stealing from? Well the other workers, since every single penny of profit (or money destined for wages anyway) should we divided equally between all employees of Ford from the top down.

    Now, I don't actually believe in this communist/socialist ideal. But I don't believe in savage free-market capitalism either. And frankly, saying taxation is stealing is as ludicrous as saying my boss is stealing from me because he earns more than I do (although it certainly makes a little more sense than the taxation bit).

    Not to mention than inequality, poverty and unemployment are often the cause of capitalism. So the very least the rich can do is put part of their massive earnings back into society.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg
    M.Roll I agree with a lot of what you said, who was it aimed at? (society i guess :confused: :rolleyes: )
    it was aimed at the right wing attitude of 'i'm all right jack fuck you lot at the bottom'.
    we all pay tax. everytime we spend money. those with the most get to keep the most and SHOULD ...also put the most in. that to me is like some kind of 'natural' law. it is 'unatural' to not want to share out some of the excess produced by a highly productive society. having a few wealthy people and a bazillion struggling ones doesn't make sense. surely those who are better off materialy don't want to live in an ever increasingly run down and dangerous country. surely progress is measured by a societies entire structure. good housing. fresh and plentiful food and water.
    good comunications and transport systems, health ,education etc etc. i have no problem with some having lots more than others, that is also natural. but when those who already live very good lives ...most of us ...start planning how to make life less easy for those below them i have problems getting my head round that. so a few people actualy like living off the state on fifty quid a week ...whats the big deal? these people aren't exactly going to cause society to collapse or you to go short now are they. they must live frugal lives. so some of them hand that money over to the brewers and bottlers ...the money is moving around.
    if they commit crime ...catch them, punish them.
    those who intentionaly defraud ...catch them, punish them.
    sadly it would seem, that those with lots, see it as 'natural' ...
    to opress and blame all those below them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree M.Roll

    Mono: I think you will find that most people choose to pay taxes, contract liberalism and all that.......

    Basically we gain from being part of society, the govt administers many of the functions necessary for society to work and these need to be paid for by the members of society, simple really........

    Surely using your logic the Ford worker could take all the cars he helped make for his own?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    People only 'choose' to pay taxes as they fear the consequences of not paying, i.e. imprisonment. By definition, taxation is involuntary.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So? Still doesn't make taxation 'stealing' or even wrong.

    Respect for the law can also be involuntary. But under your 'total freedom' ideal no one should stop me from murdering a rich person and stealing their money. Which would be of much worse consequences for the rich person than paying tax.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't think unemployment benefits should be "generous", they should cover the necessities and no more to encourage people to work.

    In some cases at the moment people are barely a few pounds better off by going to work, so no wonder they choose to remain on benefits.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    you may well be able to prove me wrong here but this is what i imagine an anthropologist would say; a primitive society who kill the children born into it ,with some kind of defect or difference, don't care for their old folk and sick, would be more likely to eat each other and care very little for other creatures. this kind of primitive society would not advance very far technologicaly or socialy. to animalistic.
    where a primitive society which nursed and nurtured it's young with great care and attention, gave their elders rest and comfort, cared for their domestic animals, would advance in leaps and bounds.
    right wing thinking is animalistic self serving survival of the fittest kind of thinking. the fittest, usualy translating more correctly as the meanest. society stagnates. conservative, afraid of change.
    liberal thinking is far more advanced. finding ways to change just about anything and everything. caring, sharing, teaching, nurturing, growing, diversifying.
    i'm sure someone will tell me i'm wrong. but can you show me i'm wrong?
Sign In or Register to comment.