We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Could people REALLY lose all their savings?
Comments
-
Glen_Clark wrote: »Forcing them creates a lot of problems. But I really don't think you would have to force many of them if there were enough real jobs available.
I must disagree with you there, there are a sizable minority of people on benefits who see it as a lifestyle "choice" I am not saying everybody but there are those who choose not to work because they are better off on benefits.0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »The deserving poor are those who are unreasonably disadvantaged through no fault of their own. Most people are presumably happy to support these through the welfare state. The undeserving "poor" are disadvantaged through their own ideleness, f e c klessness, and/or irresponsibility. The socialist notion is that the welfare state must support these just as generously, if not more so. This is on the premise that willingness and ability to hold down a job and be self-supporting represents an unfair advantage in life. Those so blessed have a moral obligation to chip in and ensure that the rest enjoy an equivalent standard of living, or preferably a better one.
(Read this quick before the moderator deletes it)
If you think those on benefits are doing so well you should read the benefits section of this website.
On a practical level, how would you separate the deserving, from the undeserving, to decide who gets paid benefits, and who doesn't?“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
longleggedhair wrote: »I must disagree with you there, there are a sizable minority of people on benefits who see it as a lifestyle "choice" I am not saying everybody but there are those who choose not to work because they are better off on benefits.
You may be right, but what can we do about it when there are not enough jobs, even for those who desperately want to work?“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
Here's an idea.
Charities might be able to find work for people to earn their benefits.
People in wheelchairs might be taught to unravel old jumpers from the recycling store, knit squares and sew them together as blankets. Old people would appreciate someone fit to dig their gardens.0 -
Glen_Clark wrote: »If you think those on benefits are doing so well you should read the benefits section of this website.
On a practical level, how would you separate the deserving, from the undeserving, to decide who gets paid benefits, and who doesn't?
As someone says above, a sector of society has made living off benefits a 'lifestyle choice". In other words they are totally workshy and have no qualms about being perpetual parasites on the rest of society. These are the undeserving.
How to flush them out. Well firstly a lot of people can be excluded from this group by virtue of having a clear and undisputed medical condition which prevents them from working. It may be reasonable to also include other people who care for such individuals, but only where verified. Then there are those who are actively and genuinely seeking work, turning up for interviews, making an effort and showing willingness to accept work if offered. For the remainder it comes down to making a life on benefits so financially unattractive that few would want to willingly undergo it. Forget about 'social exclusion' and trying to given them the standard of living they would get if working. Of course there is a shortage of jobs, so compulsory work organised by the state would have to be introduced, in return for which they would get more. This would begin to build a work ethic and a sense of contribution rather than entitlement. For those who did not respond a life at minimum subsistence level would beckon.
There are longer term issues to be addressed too. Notably making the state education system fully supportive of producing individuals fit to join the workforce, in terms of both abilities and skills and also attitude.
The battalions of the left would of course scream blue murder about the "inhumanity" of such an approach. But their way has failed, and we now have a growing underclass with no work ethic whatsoever which is unsustainable. The resultant social consequences will have to be dealt with too. As we saw this year, if the underclass doesn't get all that it feels entitled to then some of it comes out and just takes it. This would have to be dealt with in a draconian fashion.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »a sector of society has made living off benefits a 'lifestyle choice". In other words they are totally workshy and have no qualms about being perpetual parasites on the rest of society. These are the undeserving.
I quite agree.:T
I have no objection to the unemployable claiming reasonable benefits, but the Royal Family are just taking the p!ss“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
Glen_Clark wrote: »I quite agree.:T
I have no objection to the unemployable claiming reasonable benefits, but the Royal Family are just taking the p!ss
Some members of the Royal Family might fit into that criterion, but I dare say the Queen and her husband do a lot of work and benefit Britain immensely in terms of tourism revenue and goodwill generated from other countries.
They hardly sit on their !!!! and watch X Factor.Said Aristippus, “If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.”
Said Diogenes, “Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.”[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][/FONT]0 -
but I dare say the Queen and her husband do a lot of work and benefit Britain immensely in terms of tourism revenue and goodwill generated from other countries.
.
If they generate so much money could we send them back to Greece as our contribution to the bailout fund
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
Glen_Clark wrote: »If they generate so much money could we send them back to Greece as our contribution to the bailout fund
What a terrible thing to say. The Queen has worked tirelessly for decades for this country, and she continues to well into her 80's. She is one of the last aspects of Britishness I feel proud of. You have no business even putting her in the same sentence as some of the parasites that exist on the welfare state. Long live the Queen!0 -
Glen_Clark wrote: »If they generate so much money could we send them back to Greece as our contribution to the bailout fund
Perhaps we could send you Glen, you might give them some tips on how to revive their economy....cough cough.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards