just stop all benefits.

System

N1AK wrote: »

The 2013 budget has £255 billion allocated for pensions and welfare..

Is that the entire cost of those departments, or just the direct costs of the benefits and administration?

Does it include central department costs, building repairs and maintenance, capital costs of the money tied up in central and local government offices?
I meant ditching the entire department, minister included, and selling off every single building.

Obviously it would be possible to tinker with the amount a bit for special cases, but that is really a side issue.

The_White_Horse

Ellejmorgan wrote: »

Complete rubbish

As someone said how can a paraplegic needing 24 hour care get the same rate..

It's immoral and illogical

but care doesn't have to be "paid for" in cash out of the handout. care could be free at the point of use, under the NHS couldn't it?

gerkin

Social security was designed to help those who suddenly lose their jobs or get injured seriously etc. It was a short term help from govt till they get a new job or recover from illness. But politicians, especially Labour, have really used this to gain votes and stay in power. Dont blame the people claiming benefits, blame the politicians using benefits as election fodder.

Gracchus_Babeuf

The_White_Horse wrote: »

that should be it. from Jan 1st, stop ALL benefits.

then, set up offices staffed by doctors, and people can queue up for handouts. If the doctors think they can last another few days, they should be told to go.

if not, they should be given a cereal bar.

the end.

Brilliant idea. Then you would have riots that would make the ones in 2011 look like a vicar's tea party and tens of thousands thrown in jail where it would cost the government £600 a week or so to keep each person.

Hardly the way to save money........

I have a better idea - a flat rate pension for all public sector workers regardless of grade or salary. And stop this 'free NHS' nonsense - we can't afford it. People should cough up a means tested amount when they need an operation.

RJP33

The_White_Horse wrote: »

My problem is not with terribly handicapped people. my problem is with the thousands of "bad backs" and "depressed people" that cannot prove their illness, and other layabouts.

I would happily double the benefits for real disabled people, if the others got nothing.

that said, i have (and do) worked with blind people, deaf people, people in wheelchairs - they have all gotten into work and worked. most people can work - but use their disability as an excuse not to bother.

Agree with all of this. We've created a culture of dependency and expecting the government to provide for you.

Was in India last week, no benefits, people get on with their lives by starting businesses or otherwise looking after themselves.

StevieJ

PaulF81 wrote: »

It's ok, we can shoot them now and not get jailed. Viva la revolution! :rotfl:

Or they could shoot you.

Gracchus_Babeuf

RJP33 wrote: »

Agree with all of this. We've created a culture of dependency and expecting the government to provide for you.

Was in India last week, no benefits, people get on with their lives by starting businesses or otherwise looking after themselves.

You are comparing apples with oranges - we are not a developing third world country (though a visit to Slough might convince you otherwise). We should not be competing to the lowest common denominator.

ILW

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

You are comparing apples with oranges - we are not a developing third world country (though a visit to Slough might convince you otherwise). We should not be competing to the lowest common denominator.

I think that is where the problem lies. We think we have a right to live better easier lives than those in third world countries for no better reason than we always (within memory) have. Trouble is we have got lazy and complacent and things are changing in "their" favour.

Gracchus_Babeuf

ILW wrote: »

I think that is where the problem lies. We think we have a right to live better easier lives than those in third world countries for no better reason than we always (within memory) have. Trouble is we have got lazy and complacent and things are changing in "their" favour.

In the world economy things tend to even out. The low cost markets of Asia will soon run out of steam as people get richer and demand more and more. They are going through the same process that the West did in the 19th century.

Jennifer_Jane

ILW wrote: »

I think that is where the problem lies. We think we have a right to live better easier lives than those in third world countries for no better reason than we always (within memory) have. Trouble is we have got lazy and complacent and things are changing in "their" favour.

ILW - look there is no way that I (and the rest of the British public) are going to live like they do in third world countries - no mud hut for me, or scavenging for food, or fetching water from a pump - so indeed we do justifiably feel we have a right not to live in that way. If third world countries come up to our standard of living, then that's to be applauded and encouraged.

So I don't really, for once, understand your point.

I do agree, however, that we have become lazy and complacent, though, and that, surely is the point the Prime Minister was making in his speech. We need to develop some energy as a group, in order to become competitive and build up the Country.