Work or be homeless!

lynzpower

Ruggedtoast,

You have put the issue exactly as I would have liked to , could not agree more :T

glossgal

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The thing is in most cases those people dont exist, theyre cliches manufactured from our prejudices.

Sorry, but these people do exist. I have gone to school with them, lived in the same street as them, dealt with them in my work, even been related to them! Of course not all benefit claimants are Kyle style cartoon characters, nobody has said this, but I truly believe that to say they are an exaggeration or a 'small' minority is to have lived in a world far removed from people like this. Its too easy to say they are a borne of right wing fantasy because this is easier to deal with than the truth, especially for people of a different generation or those tucked away in middle class surburbia living off outdated ideals of fairness and class inequality.


Signing on is a soul sucking experience that affords you a pittance of an income - and if you rely on the state for housing you have virtually no control over where you live or why. Its a tragedy that we still produce people with such poverty of expectation that this is the best that they want for themselves.

I would agree with this. What I don't understand is why people on this thread refuse to accept that the state is encouraging and therefore perpetuating this behaviour beyond reason.

Generali

glossgal wrote: »

I would agree with this. What I don't understand is why people on this thread refuse to accept that the state is encouraging and therefore perpetuating this behaviour beyond reason.

The fact is that the state encourages people to be dependant on welfare to perpetuate itself.

5 million adult Britons of working age receive welfare for not working. 10.5 million pensioners receive money from the state. [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=27]

In addition, as of June 2002 there were 5.2 million employed by local or national Golvernment [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/economic_trends/ETSep03_Black-Herbert.pdf].

Thus 20.7 million people receive most or all of their income from the state.

10 million are recipients of tax credits. If we take an optimistic view that all state employees get tax credits then that's still another 4.8 million recipients.

So 25.5 million adults depend on the state for some or all of their income.

According to the 2001 census, the population of the UK over the age of 19 was 44 million [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pop2001/united_kingdom.asp]. The socialists have a built in majority for their wasteful crackpot schemes - at least 60% of the UK adult population are forced into their arms.

Phirefly

Generali wrote: »

So 25.5 million adults depend on the state for some or all of their income.

In the words of Charlie Brown, Good Grief.

lynzpower

Generali wrote: »

The fact is that the state encourages people to be dependant on welfare to perpetuate itself.

5 million adult Britons of working age receive welfare for not working. 10.5 million pensioners receive money from the state. [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=27]

In addition, as of June 2002 there were 5.2 million employed by local or national Golvernment [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/economic_trends/ETSep03_Black-Herbert.pdf].

Thus 20.7 million people receive most or all of their income from the state.

10 million are recipients of tax credits. If we take an optimistic view that all state employees get tax credits then that's still another 4.8 million recipients.

So 25.5 million adults depend on the state for some or all of their income.

According to the 2001 census, the population of the UK over the age of 19 was 44 million [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pop2001/united_kingdom.asp]. The socialists have a built in majority for their wasteful crackpot schemes - at least 60% of the UK adult population are forced into their arms.

Unfortunately, and the state knows this totally, is that for every person that succeeds in getting work and off the dole queue, theres enough older people taking retirement and living on state benefits.

Yes, you need those people earning, to pay the tax, to support the pensioners but alas, an idea which is ALWAYS going to fail - support people to the grave. I will probably be retired for longer than I work, which clearly illustrates the problem....

On top of that, I would take issue with the socialists having a built in majority. After all, aside from pensioners, most people who are in sole recipt of benefits as a rule tend not to vote at all.

red_bertie

And of the 10.5 million pensioners, what % have been contributing to the pot for years with tax, ni and pension contribs. You make it sound as if they are just taking money from the state, the majority are only getting back some of the money they have put in :mad: . It's bad enough to get some of these folk to take what they are due - and that quoted statement projects a certain mindset of a society that should do better by it's old folk.

Thank god I'm not there yet.

lynzpower

No Im not bertie, Im just saying thats the way it is, ridiculous thinking, from right back then.

Think about it. they were setting up the welfare state.

The view was , right, the NHS with its inocoluations will sve X amount of babies dying. And it will keep people in good health thier whole lives. Great, im not knocking that - of course that is A GOOD THING.

But those people will live longer, nowadays its not even that rare people live to 100. it isnt exactly viewed with amazement nowadays is it? I mean, my grandparents are in thier mid 80s and still mountain biking, golfing, yoga classes etc. and they do these activities with scores of freinds thier own age. So they are not 'unusual'. Their health is not deteriorating at all.

They also dont need the money that they get from their state pension at all.
They have a private pension that brings in plenty along with other investments,savings etc. But still they get it. As do all thier freinds who they holiday and cruise with! Do they need it? No they tell me, but they get given it so of course they are not going to turn it down. The craziness of it is, now they give me 100 quid a year instead of an easter egg! now theres inflation!

Just as there is a good case for Child Benefit being restricted, there certainly is for pensions too.

I've paid into the NHS for years as well, but it doesnt mean they are paying it out what i need when I need it does it?! No, which is why I have private cover, I might as well pay and get myself out of the system, and my contributions can go to those more needy than me.

You simply cannot afford for everyone to live as long as they do, not earning.
Or you cant pay everyone what they are getting.

I wouldnt like to preside over this, but I think there has to be some difficult decisions made.

I dont think withdrawing all benefits from the 'workshy' will work, purely on the basis of human rights and the EU treaties. I think JSA ( when it was changed to JSA) was supposed to combat the 'dole bludgers' by having that contact at the job centre who checks up on you and what you are doing to become economically active. I signed on in early 07 for 5 weeks, what an absolute joke, the staff didnt give a toss what I was doing, simply telling me to 'look at the jobs papers such as evening standard' :rolleyes: Very poor experience really, lucky for me im educated and confident and had the wherewithall and WANTED to be working, so I got off my !!!! and did it.

I think we also need to bear in mind that if you have hit 35 years of age and you have never worked, employers generally arnt interested. Its OK say if you have kids you can say rightly you were 'home raising them, now they are at school age etc, I can now get back to work.' and employers generally are fairly accepting of that. Now if you are a 35 year old MAN whos never worked....

MissMoneypenny

Generali wrote: »

In addition, as of June 2002 there were 5.2 million employed by local or national Golvernment [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/economic_trends/ETSep03_Black-Herbert.pdf].

Do those statistics also take into account our state workers that have gone off on a sick pension? I know of teachers that have done this, plus a council worker and policeman. All with either a bad back or stress. None seem to suffering from these ailments in their (early) retirement.

The burden on the tax payers in the private sections to cater for all our sick, unemployed and the growing number of state workers, is becoming too heavy.

Generali

Some interesting responses to what was a fairly facile piece of research (10 mins using google and Govt data).

The problem with state pensions is that they should be a state liability (added to the national debt) but aren't accounted for like that. Future state pensioners pay towards the pensions of current pensioners, not towards their own as state pensions aren't funded out of an investment pool but instead out of current spending.

The figures include all recipients of taxpayers money excluding child benefit (is it still called that?). I excluded that as I have tried in this 'analysis' to keep the number of people derriving their income from their state as low as possible. I have also excluded people using the NHS and state education for their children.

Most people are perfectly capable of provding for themselves throughout their working life and beyond. That 40% of a rich persons income goes in tax (and closer to 60% of a poor person's) prevents them from doing that.

lynzpower

Its a very unusual day when I disagree with you my love but do you REALLY think

Most people are perfectly capable of provding for themselves throughout their working life and beyond. That 40% of a rich persons income goes in tax (and closer to 60% of a poor person's) prevents them from doing that.

I would look at the repo figures, the people drowning in debt, inflationary pressures etc etc that suggest the total opposite of what you suggest. Most people cannot even manage to support themselves WHILE THEY ARE FULLY WORKING, let alone when they are not.

People cannot - or choose not- for whatever reason to stay at break even.

Most people cannot provide for themselves throughout thier working life and beyond. I suggest that maternity benefits, tax credits, JSA, incapacity and DLA ( ie ALL the means tested bens) show that there IS a safety net there for people who need it when they need it (operational deficiencies ignored for the sake of clarity!) Im sure most of us at some point in our lives will have to rely on some sort of benefit, OR rely on family/ partners/ freinds/ savings to see them through. Indeed it was the fact that people could not provide for themselves throughout life that created the welfare state in the first place! It was not uncommon for the elderly and disabled to be begging on the streets, they were not self insuring then were they!