Welfare state costs £473 BILLION!!!!

sjaypink

golden_eagle wrote: »

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.

Kind of yes, but not because of the reason you state- too black & white.

Point 1: Big (presumably middle class etc) headline grabbing, vote-winning cuts will cause further problems that those voting will not welcome....

Point 2: You are wrong to think the only people reliant on a government generous to those on low (ish) wages with children are lowlifes unable to read. The tax credit system has quite cleverly & quietly created a huge % of population reliant on such handouts eg. tax credits are even counted as incoe for the purposes of gaining credit- even on mortgage applications up until recently!

edgex

Andy_L wrote: »

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

i wouldnt pay their bill though
i would just have an automatic basic amount paid to their utility suppliers, to ensure that the basic usage is paid for*
or that would be required is the name of their supplier, & their customer reference number
then the government would just make one payment a month to each supplier for all their customers that are receiving the benefit
(might even arrange a bulk-payment discount!)

not everyone would still be receiving cash, it would all depend on what benefits & the amounts being claimed



*if your on benefits & want to leave every light on 24/7, tough, were not paying for it

HammerSmashedFace

The_White_Horse wrote: »

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.

Bloody 'ell dude, I think that's going a little far:D, there are a lot people that require benefits, or perhaps some kind of leg up, especially those who find themselves there through no fault of their own.

My targeting would be specifically incapacity cheats (there must be hundreds of thousands) and those having children as a way of getting a free meal ticket from the state, those people need to be squeezed out of existance.

nearlynew

Above all else, you first have to remember that politicians are lying f*cking thieves.

Despite what they say, the government actually wants more people on benefits, not less.

You see, the more people are reliant on the government, the more control the government has over their lives and the more tax they have to take off everyone else.

Isuuing food vouchers and paying people's bills directly is a politician's wet dream.

A government with the power to provide everything you need is the same government with the power to take it all away.

All we need is smaller government and sound money.

golden_eagle

sjaypink wrote: »

Kind of yes, but not because of the reason you state- too black & white.

Point 1: Big (presumably middle class etc) headline grabbing, vote-winning cuts will cause further problems that those voting will not welcome....

Point 2: You are wrong to think the only people reliant on a government generous to those on low (ish) wages with children are lowlifes unable to read. The tax credit system has quite cleverly & quietly created a huge % of population reliant on such handouts eg. tax credits are even counted as incoe for the purposes of gaining credit- even on mortgage applications up until recently!

You misunderstood. I have no objections to people receiving some form of financial support if they are working or genuinly trying hard to find employment. what I object to is to have generation after generation being brought up on benefits without any intention to work and to just milk the system for what they can by having lots of children without having any regard for their wellbeing only using them as a mealticket. That's what I am objecting to.

HammerSmashedFace

nearlynew wrote: »

Above all else, you first have to remember that politicians are lying f*cking thieves.

Absolutely.

ninky_2

the poor have always had lots of children. i don't think you can blame benefits. some of the poorest countries with no welfare state whatsoever have the highest birth rates.

lostinrates

golden_eagle wrote: »

In other European countries, eg Italy there is no welfare system.

Er, yes there is. Including social housing, rent act, reviewed in the late 90s (when AIUI it needed to be) unemployment (I think this is time limited and possibly related to previous wge, not sure on that), and pretty sure it has a maximum. Its referred to as unemployment insurance IIRC) there is financial support for disabilty and I think a small family llowance, but a gain, not sure) there is a tax allowance for a non working spouse and there are state places for the elderly and disabled (all be it from the VERY limited outside view I've seen, not what I would want) Further more state education is superb (at least Dh's was) and the national heath service is brilliant, though not always free at point of use. I had an emergency home visit once which remains the very model of how it should be over every country I have lived in that was free at point of use.

ETA: it is my understanding Italy is heding for a more extreme pension crisis than ours too, though have made efforts to address this.

mbga9pgf

ninky wrote: »

the poor have always had lots of children. i don't think you can blame benefits. some of the poorest countries with no welfare state whatsoever have the highest birth rates.

Well give the poor 10K to get spade. Problem solved. They are a little bit richer, and we dont have to bring up trogolodyte chav scum. Solved. Higher birth rates in foreign countries- look what animals do in nature in difficult enviroments. Breed. Its no different.

Wookster

The real problem is that Labour had a good (actually great) chance to reform the welfare state while the times were good.

Instead they sat on their bums and let the number of benefit and disability claimants rise to a silly level (i.e. 1M disability benefit claimants - we must be a country of infirmed).

Now the cycle has turned and it is almost impossible to make any meaningful and constructive change until economic circumstances allow, though benefits may have to be slashed to prevent a gilt strike.

It suits Labour to have an entire class of unemployable people dependent on the government for their financial needs - they will simply vote for the party that promises them the most.