For all the benefit frothers out there

ninky_2

Kohoutek wrote: »

If taxpayers don't have a right to influence where their money is spent, who does? Who determines 'society's interest' or the 'greater good'?

the elected government.

ILW

From my experience (and I believe official figures), the long term unemployed have some of the highest rates of smoking of all social groups.

Kohoutek

ninky wrote: »

the elected government.

So they can do anything they like as long as they determine it's in the 'greater good'?

silvercar

mardatha wrote: »

Second thing - the company directors, MPs, high earners, mega rich executives.. all these types of people - commit far far more fraud than you would ever believe . A lot of it is "legal" because they have accountants to find tax breaks, tax dodges, etc. But you never hear a WORD against these people in the papers, or on here. Its sickening that people will all jump into a thread on here condemning people on benefits and yet say nothing about the far more serious goings-ons in higher places.

"legal" fraud - an oxymoron.

Isn't claiming all the tax breaks you can the same as claiming all the benefits you can and rigging your situation to maximise the benefits you get?

Exactly the same as moving home to get a place at a decent state school. But its fraud to use a false address so people move to live on top of a decent school, at least until they have secured a place.

tax breaks, maxing benefit claims, jumping school waiting lists - all playing the system to improve your lot, all legal until you step over a line in the sand and then its fraud.

carolt wrote: »

I would really like to see a system where benefits reduced over time so that someone who'd been paying in for years but had just lost their job received a far greater amount to keep them going whilst they looked (temporarily) for work; but that after that time (a year, maybe, or 2?), that amount was drastically reduced.

Because there has to be some incentive to work. For all of us on this forum, we have an incentive to work that is not purely financial, as SingleSue has said many times, very eloquently, it's about self-respect, too; also about using your brain, setting an example for your kids, etc.

We need to remove incentives to just not bother - if long-term, you have enough to cover all your leisure activities, on top of your essentials, with a secure home paid for by LHA, what incentive is there to work?

Whether or not you think this is a moral question, it is clear that the economy at the moment cannot sustain supporting these people.

I agree. When people say they will be on less money if they were working, maybe if their benefit was likely to reduce they would be incencitised to work.

ninky_2

Kohoutek wrote: »

So they can do anything they like as long as they determine it's in the 'greater good'?

well that's generally how it seems to work yes...and also whether they will be re-elected or not.

what's the alternative?

Kohoutek

ninky wrote: »

well that's generally how it seems to work yes...and also whether they will be re-elected or not.

what's the alternative?

The alternative would be to have a more democratic, less centralised system of government with more representation and less power in the hands of a few politicians at the top.

The UK basically has a system where we elect a dictatorship every five years - the executive controls the legislature, there is no elected second chamber, local government (in England at least) has next to no real power.

Some states even go as far as having some elements of direct democracy, like Switzerland or California, where important decisions can be put to referendum.

vaporate

moggylover wrote: »

I'm afraid that it isn't rubbish ninky! There are plenty of people on benefits who do spend their money on exactly those sort of things. They don't usually manage to pay their bills so quickly, nor feed their families decent food, but they do manage to spend on the wrong things and I often wonder how (and also why:o).

None of your business though is it?

ILW

vaporate wrote: »

None of your business though is it?

It is if you are one of the ones paying it.

ninky_2

Kohoutek wrote: »

The alternative would be to have a more democratic, less centralised system of government with more representation and less power in the hands of a few politicians at the top.

i agree we could definitely improve the electoral system. that still doesn't get away from the fact not everyone's views will be reflected in policy.

personally i'd like to see techology used so that each of us could vote on policy being passed. even if it was still left to mps to vote, you could at least have a national poll to see if the electorate agreed with the decision. of course you'd need some online id system which no doubt people would moan about.

vaporate

ILW wrote: »

It is if you are one of the ones paying it.

Not really. You have no choice in the matter either way.

You might as well argue about the Iraqi war as that is funded by tax money, same for bank bailouts and so on. (as well as being charged bank charges for the pleasure)

Take your pick.