Welfare state costs £473 BILLION!!!!

edgex

sjaypink wrote: »

Sorry, I'm rushing this, but quick points: If you reduce benefit bill then you have probably either: created more jobs, or reduced benefits allowances.

Created more jobs: problem: obvious!
Cut benefit payments: problem: less money circulating

I think part of the reason the government prefers handouts (particularly tax credits) rather than increased tax free earnings limits etc is the change in psychology that comes with responsibility of income iykwim. The less responsibility yo have over the earning of your income the more frivilous you are likely to be (We have seen this with the boom of credit cards too- you wouldnt spend 75% of your months wages on a plasma, nor would you make sacrifices to save for one, because the one you have works fine, but hey, f*ck it, i want one- put it on the card!)

What I'm trying to say is that those in recepit of government assistance are useful (in the short term) to a country where the ever increasing focus is on retail & service etc. There would be very signigicant economic damage (again, possibly just short-term, but who knows) if there were cuts to handouts- the government knows this, it is not just a case of being scared of leftie-handwringers outcrys etc

it wouldnt & couldnt be an overnight cut in benefits & cut in taxes

probably looking at 5+ years at the minimum, as you wean people & the system off the idea of massive amounts of benefits


its ~£40bn per year
lets say its to be cut to £30bn a year
just do a £2bn cut each year, with the same cut in tax
or £1bn a year, so then over 10 years


we dont have a choice as to whether it should be cut or not
the only choice is how its done

we can either start now, & do it gradually, or do nothing, & let it spiral out of control until it bankrupts us (which it will do)

Graham_Devon

sjaypink wrote: »

So, thats why the benefit bill is so huge, not just because chavs like sh@gging- they need to be sown up etc, but thinking about what really has turned the countries morals, responsibilities & expectations upside down in approx 50 years turns up more questions than answers, so I can see how its probably easier to just rant on about giving the scum minimum amounts of vouchers etc

I got to be honest here, and blame our culture now on the do gooders.

These are the very people who take something and make it acceptable by finding a reason for it. I..e "its not her fault, its her emotional state" etc etc.

We never used to have the amount of emotional states a few decades ago, people just got on with it. Now, there seems to be an excuse for everything, and you can't argue those excuses, as obviously then you lack compassion.

The_White_Horse

Andy_L wrote: »

is it disgusting or a sensible way of teaching them a skill that can get them a job on release?

hahahahahahahahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA a job on release. good one.

The_White_Horse

SingleSue wrote: »

Re voucher system

What about the trips to the hospital, the washing machine breaking down, birthdays, Christmas (even people on benefits have these).

I think they have gone into this on the DT board and have discovered it would actually cost far more to administer and create more stigma than the current system.

people on benefits should not have a washing machine, and if they do and it breaks they go to the launderette. if they have no money at xmas, then they buiy nothing. they have NO RIGHT to a nice xmas. If they want a turkey, go to work and then buy one.

WE NEED TO CREATE A STIGMA.

sjaypink

edgex wrote: »

we can either start now, & do it gradually, or do nothing, & let it spiral out of control until it bankrupts us (which it will do)

I think this is the purpose of the current sick benefit reforms and lowering ages of kids before lone parents are reqired to return to work (from 16 to 12, and down to 7 by the end of next year, I think). There was a lot of opposition to it originally, but now its in place the transition appears to be doing well overall, considering the scale and nature etc

Andy_L

edgex wrote: »

they could still receive some cash payments
but a lot of the 'core' items could still be directly paid for/funded


if the state gives someone £100 a month in cash, & they have gas bill of £50 to pay, that leaves them with £50 cash
or
the state could pay that £50 bill directly, & give the claimant £50 cash

the 2nd option is better:
the state knows that the essentials are paid for (to a specific amount)
theres less cash to be gained (reduce fraud)
its cheaper to operate (cheaper to pay 10 (?) utility suppliers than millions of people)

It's as expensive in admin to give someone £50 as £100. You've then got the extra admin cost of getting all claimants bills so you know how much to pay the company

sjaypink

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I got to be honest here, and blame our culture now on the do gooders.

These are the very people who take something and make it acceptable by finding a reason for it. I..e "its not her fault, its her emotional state" etc etc.

We never used to have the amount of emotional states a few decades ago, people just got on with it. Now, there seems to be an excuse for everything, and you can't argue those excuses, as obviously then you lack compassion.

Difficult because when you create the opening of doors for those with genuine problems, in difficult circumstances etc you lift the taboos. In all parts of life when you shift the 'norm' slightly more and more becomes acceptable- (to the point where extremes of everything are the pursuit- often subconciously of course).

When you think it was not so long ago women and children had no rights- now we hear of young kids that reel off their rights if you ask them to stop swearing etc you can think its all gone too far and do the pros really outweigh the cons, but then hear a young muslim girl has thrown herself and her kids in front of train because of forced marriage, violence, rape etc you have the perspective to think that liberation is and was beneficial mostly

Rights and responsibilites have to be equal though- it is to some extent the governments responsibilty to enforce this

golden_eagle

Problem is that no government is brave enough to tackle the issue for fear of losing voters. What they don't seem to realise is that a) this would actually be a vote winner with all the hard working population and b) these lowlife that's milking the benefit system are unlikely to be able to drag themselves out of their sofas to vote and even if they did, they'd be unable to read the candidates names in order to vote.

In other European countries, eg Italy there is no welfare system. Or in Czech you only get 6months and that is it. Then it's up to your your family to support you. Why cant the UK adopt a similar system?

zygurat789

The_White_Horse wrote: »

WE NEED TO CREATE A STIGMA.

I nominate the_white_horse

ninky_2

let's not forget that a large proportion of this benefit budget goes on housing benefit which is basically subsidizing private landlords. benefit money also goes on goods and services and therefore gets ploughed back into the economy. it's unlikely for example to end up in such things as 'investment land parcels' which i think are actually a far greater cost to the economy / country.

btw a sad not very typical daily mail story today about a young mother who killed herself and child by jumping from her window after her benefits were stopped and all avenues of support exhausted.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232911/Mother-leaps-death-baby-arms-benefits-stopped.html