Taxpayer funds familys £1,600 per week rent - The Times

moggylover

lostinrates wrote: »

Grr, for the first time in ages I wish I didn't have to step away from the screen. Thanks moggy, for a much appreciate different opinion, eloquant portryal of it and reasonable, friendly and thought provoking discussion.

I've got to go as well so you won't miss anything:D.

The "class divide" is manufactured LIR - it perpetuates the divide and rule that has successfully worked in this Nation since the freeing of certain "serfs" many moons ago. If, like you and I, we respect the people who do not necessarily see or share our view and respect human life in general then the problems ARE surmountable and solutions can be found.

That, for me, is the difference between an intelligent debate and an uneducated "slanging match". The first of which can move mountains and the second of which is a total waste of energy!

Enjoyed this immensely! Many thanks and enjoy the rest of your day!

the_ash_and_the_oak

zygurat789 wrote: »

In any society there has to be rich, middle (income) and poor (you've seen the TW3 sketch). Poverty is defined in percentage terms and, therefore, will always be with us.)

This isn't totally true imo (although it will always be true to an extent of capitalist societies). If you look at many pre-capitalist societies (esp smaller societies - eg Polynesian islands) there wasn't really poverty or unemployment (both of which are necessary in capitalism imo). Of course these kind of societies tended to me much more integrated and cohesive (as will usually be true of smaller societies because 'everything' is everyone's problem and visible as such - and also where there is visible finite limits on harvest/resource).

This goes back really to asking the questions of what we want - and imo most people would prefer there to be (at least relative) poverty but this does require a feeling that people in that situation 'deserve' it (so if 5% of a society is in poverty then 5% of people are scum - if 20% of a society is in poverty then 20% of people must be scum)

lostinrates

moggylover wrote: »

I agree entirely with that post: but what my job teaches me time and time again is that there is little alternative to the state support since the jobs market is seriously contracted (not everywhere but in many areas) and the opportunities to even experience any sort of work are far too low to service the numbers wanting them. I agree, this is a massive problem. It is NOT going to get any better with continued state support. Not in medium-longterm. In fact....it has the potential to get very, very much worse. What you describe, really, is very simple and the source of all ''suffering'' at route IMO.

I have nothing but admiration for those who do well in this life by hard work (Jamie Oliver comes to mind) but who do not loose sight of the fact that they may have had one or two instances of sheer good luck in their beginnings that made the difference between them being a success and not. These sort of people always seem to be the ones that want desperately to put something back (and usually get quite a bit of nasty flack from the press when they do as well) and if there were more of us willing to do so then I think we might get on track.

Exactly. So how do we get poeple to give back....I think my way is more palateable than yours, you thin yur way is more palatable than mine: that there is this difference only reinfores my fear of lack of choice!

What stands out for me with Jamie is that despite the fact that he gets irritated at some of those who apparently "resist" his help in the first instance he is usually willing to step back, calm down, try to see where that person is coming from and the feelings they might be feeling and then he gets back in there and shows them just how good they can be!:T
This is a perfect example of my PoV. There is a reason Jamie can do this, a reason he is the right person to and a reason he is successful on one to one basis with the peope he enables. That he is able to depends on him being able to have that income to support his ideas. Hoever, for the young people who do not ''fit right'' with him...we need to encourage MORE Jamies, with varied approach, ideal and skills ...not fewer. There are many reasons, social, financial, human and well as ideaological I feel this is better done like this, NOT through a countrywide oppertunity for all, standardise approach,.....you argued my pov more clearly than I could with your explanation of uncomfortbly formalised education, which I interpret as NVQ and similar....it cannot suit all and is more alienating than enabling when it doesn't work, and leaves few other non standard options....so the sptrial is down, the divide is less breachable.
That is often all it takes! I have had some smashing success with one or two of the "difficult case" kids that I have been "mentoring"! But for many there is never one single person who is going to point out what your "skill" or "gift" is in this life and praise is so precious little that it is scary to receive. Imagine that, coupled with a family who may well feel totally angry and let down and cheated upon by a society that failed them (and we have failed several generations) and then couple in the fact that these young people will have seen themselves repeatedly referred to as scum and worse in the press! Where will the self-esteem necessary to try to improve ones lot ever come from in that mess?!!!

I'm afraid I see much of that as the harsh reality of life. It, like academic ability, is a divider that is neither wholly natural or resolvable. It starts long before we can reach people with any state involvement, and is reinforcable day in and day out by family and social circumstance. Society fails different people in different ways....this is one ugly way. It too, is not confined to situations of poverty. But I tink it can be reinforced by poverty, but more so, immeasurably more so by poverty of ideal and ambition.....and by those very attempts to minimise it.

Again that we have a different approach to the same ill, and are two relatively reasconable poele makes me feel that the variety of different, persoanal lead approach is more important to foster, (fiscally, and through....intelligent comprimise and social pressure/positive reinforcement ).

lostinrates

moggylover wrote: »

[/COLOR]


I so much see where you are coming from and I quite agree with most of the sentiments.

With regard to the latter though, I think I would prefer that to be done on the basis of us actually making those things that need to be done into paying jobs and probably more importantly that we respect those doing those jobs and stop putting them down!

If you continually kick your dog he will either slink away and hide himself away coming out only to eat and dissapear again: or he will bite your ankle:D Humans do just as badly with kickings and abuse as animals do - the psychology is not difficult!

AHA, an animal analogy! And I agree. So, why are rich/acheiving dogs different to poor ones?

If I teach, for example,sit I shape the movement and reward. One of the skills of a fair animal trainer is to accept some dogs are not cut out for advanced obediane, and some are not cut out for non working roles. In forcing all dogs to show, obedience train and be family pets we place incredible pressure on those that can't do one role well....it suits those who are all purpose dogs, but not those who excell at one thing. Even if that thing is being a pet.The lives, the roles, and the rewards are different for each role, but as valuable to society. But the method of training, in my world is mainly positive reinforcment, whether thats getting my families rather obtuse dog to sit, or my own dog to passage..positve reinforcement, all the way!

(sadly dogs have little choice. _

lostinrates

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

y but this does require a feeling that people in that situation 'deserve' it (so if 5% of a society is in poverty then 5% of people are scum - if 20% of a society is in poverty then 20% of people must be scum)

This is a huge leap in logic :eek:

zygurat789

moggylover wrote: »

[/COLOR]




With regard to the latter though, I think I would prefer that to be done on the basis of us actually making those things that need to be done into paying jobs and probably more importantly that we respect those doing those jobs and stop putting them down!

Yes if you are not paying benefit then the money is there for wages for these jobs.
BUT when a recession ends and the wealth creating sector picks up there has to be a mechanism to move them from the public to the private sector ie a low wage.
It all comes down to the balance between the public and private sectors,
this is actually very difficult to control once it has been decided where the balance is, as a result we vere from one side to the other.

BTW you two girls are having a fine debate.

The_White_Horse

these third generation wasters should be sold into slavery. at least they will be of some use to someone then. perhaps a gentle beating may whip them into shape.

chucky

The_White_Horse wrote: »

these third generation wasters should be sold into slavery. at least they will be of some use to someone then. perhaps a gentle beating may whip them into shape.

why only a gentle beating - i'm sure they'd much prefer a brutal beating

SingleSue

lostinrates wrote: »

Why is it better to have NHS care than parental care? Parental care is likely to be better value for the same money spent by tax payer.

Just for clarity, I was speaking not of my own situation (parent having to care) but also the other situations where care may be given by a relative - to an elderly parent, a sibling, a spouse.

The_White_Horse wrote:

fine, as long as they don't expect more pay/benefit than the NHS carer.

personally, if i was a high earner, I would want to work to get the best for the child, and let the carer care for them.

Do you know how much 24 hour care is? It wouldn't just be one carer to cover the time, it would be a minimum of 3 covering 3 shifts of 8 hours each, plus some may need to be specialised depending on the medical issue, costing even more money.

I once looked into getting a carer come in so I could go out for the evening...it would have cost me over £100, an overnight carer even worse!

Edit - Quick back of the envelope workings - at minimum wage, care would cost £974.40 per week....and NHS care would certainly not be done at minimum wage.

carolt

Thanks lir and moggylover for a most interesting debate - sorry I missed this as I was busy till now.

Sue, I agree with you about the cost of care - the costs of replacing family-based care with paid-for care would be astronomical, so, that being the case, it is truly shocking that the important work carers do is so undervalued.