George Osborne,does he have a point ?

[GreersElbow]

Clear opportunity to promote IDS's welfare reform and cuts (although I'm in favour of such cuts). But I find it disgusting that they link the death of these children to that of welfarism.


Welfarism is, in my opinion, not entirely helpful. However, if welfarism is the cause of all these social problems. We'd see more of similar circumstances.

 

[GreersElbow]

It all depends on the cost of living, wouldn't you say? You can't just pluck a figure out of thin air, and you can't say such-and-such an amount is too much, just because it looks like it is. You seem not to take it into account that billions are paid in benefits to people who have jobs. This MUST be an acknowledgement that wages are too low, but instead of making employers pay a living wage, politicians have passed the buck to the taxpayer.

Wages are too low? What about taxes too high....

 

[BigGully]

It all depends on the cost of living, wouldn't you say? You can't just pluck a figure out of thin air, and you can't say such-and-such an amount is too much, just because it looks like it is. You seem not to take it into account that billions are paid in benefits to people who have jobs. This MUST be an acknowledgement that wages are too low, but instead of making employers pay a living wage, politicians have passed the buck to the taxpayer.

If businesses are paying their staff less than say £5.00 an hour, I tend to agree that if this is necessary for them to turn a profit then I think the workers are subsidising an otherwise loss making business.

I personally think the other way though, I think the welfare expectation for those not working has risen too high, making for many a working wage an unattractive option.

I guess a working economy must have a minimum life standard starting point.

Unemployed offers that point, where our working expectations might start.

If that includes access to a house big enough to house comfortably any number of children, a living wage including extras such as free benefits ( school meals, prescriptions, school trips etc ) it dictates that work must offer more than this, for many it doesnt.

You cannot have a workforce undermined by a guaranteed benefit system offering more to those out of work than those in it.

Its simply unsustainable.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

If it wasn't for 4 years of low interest rates the welfare system would have collapsed, lots of people on housing benefit and if businesses had gone bust I can't see how it would have coped.

I suspect as soon as the BOE think the system can cope they will rise then and it will be another set of problems

 

[GreersElbow]

If businesses are paying their staff less than say £5.00 an hour, I tend to agree that if this is necessary for them to turn a profit then I think the workers are subsidising an otherwise loss making business.

I personally think the other way though, I think the welfare expectation for those not working has risen too high, making for many a working wage an unattractive option.

I guess a working economy must have a minimum life standard starting point.

Unemployed offers that point, where our working expectations might start.

If that includes access to a house big enough to house comfortably any number of children, a living wage including extras such as free benefits ( school meals, prescriptions, school trips etc ) it dictates that work must offer more than this, for many it doesnt.

You cannot have a workforce undermined by a guaranteed benefit system offering more to those out of work than those in it.

Its simply unsustainable.

Nailed.

There is no real incentive to work if you're not that skilled. Which begs the question; why isn't our education system empowering pupils? I genuinely think a lot of our subjects are incredibly boring and not vocational enough. We should listen to the teachers, but instead a bureaucrat in government advises the ministers what to do.

You'd think in government, your greatest asset would be professional bodies...

 

[Silk]

If businesses are paying their staff less than say £5.00 an hour, I tend to agree that if this is necessary for them to turn a profit then I think the workers are subsidising an otherwise loss making business.

I personally think the other way though, I think the welfare expectation for those not working has risen too high, making for many a working wage an unattractive option.

I guess a working economy must have a minimum life standard starting point.

Unemployed offers that point, where our working expectations might start.

If that includes access to a house big enough to house comfortably any number of children, a living wage including extras such as free benefits ( school meals, prescriptions, school trips etc ) it dictates that work must offer more than this, for many it doesnt.

You cannot have a workforce undermined by a guaranteed benefit system offering more to those out of work than those in it.

Its simply unsustainable.

So many problems with this I don't know where to start. Unemployment isn't a starting point, it is a point to which anyone can fall at any time, but especially in times of recession. You have to give people enough benefits to actually survive, or you have an increase in crime and homelessness. Yes, work should pay better than that minimum level, but it doesn't. That's NOT the fault of the unemployed. Whose fault is it? There are far more unemployed people than available jobs. Whose fault is that?

Unless you advocate starving the unemployed to death and killing their children, I don't see that a civilised society run in a capitalist system has any escape from this.

 

[BigGully]

So many problems with this I don't know where to start. Unemployment isn't a starting point, it is a point to which anyone can fall at any time, but especially in times of recession. You have to give people enough benefits to actually survive, or you have an increase in crime and homelessness. Yes, work should pay better than that minimum level, but it doesn't. That's NOT the fault of the unemployed. Whose fault is it? There are far more unemployed people than available jobs. Whose fault is that?

Unless you advocate starving the unemployed to death and killing their children, I don't see that a civilised society run in a capitalist system has any escape from this.

Firstly most fair minded people accept a modern welfare system is a necessary and valuable asset.

But I think it has become far too generous, far above the level of 'survive' as you have stated.

If it is reasonable to be rewarded for work as opposed to not working your starting point is what does unemployment pay ??

In many circumstances this includes housing, weekly pay and subsidy in many other forms, offering a life style beyond that of those working.

It then follows that those in employment become angry whilst those uneducated and unqualified families can never find work that might offer the same rewards as their benefits do.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

So many problems with this I don't know where to start. Unemployment isn't a starting point, it is a point to which anyone can fall at any time, but especially in times of recession. You have to give people enough benefits to actually survive, or you have an increase in crime and homelessness. Yes, work should pay better than that minimum level, but it doesn't. That's NOT the fault of the unemployed. Whose fault is it? There are far more unemployed people than available jobs. Whose fault is that?

Unless you advocate starving the unemployed to death and killing their children, I don't see that a civilised society run in a capitalist system has any escape from this.

I think we have about 15-20 years more of varied employment but after that Robots will be doing most work from stacking shelves to surgery.

What will we do then? Apart from highly intelligent skilled inventors, programmers or scientists most workers will not be required.

Apart from investing or gambling or maybe sportsmen or artists most people are going to have the same income because they will have the same skillsets. When we reach that point people will have to be paid or receive vouchers for doing very little or nothing, there maybe no point of money by then so effectively most people will be on benefits!

 

[Nibble]

I wonder how many condemning benefit scroungers collect their child benefit money each month ?

Very much agree with this. Lots of Range Rover driving, Waitrose rats who are happy to scoop up a handful of my tax money to pay for their holiday's and Imogen's riding lessons.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

Very much agree with this. Lots of Range Rover driving, Waitrose rats who are happy to scoop up a handful of my tax money to pay for their holiday's and Imogen's riding lessons.

Yes but you will get it back with interest when they pay your pension and you live to 120

 

[Nibble]

Yes but you will get it back with interest when they pay your pension and you live to 120

This is such a redundant argument. There will likely be no pension system from government by then. Plus, I'm the one that's payiing into my pension now, with my taxes, that's how it works. People will have kids, lots and lots of them without the handouts. Just like they have done since time immemorial with or without my money in their holiday jar.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

This is such a redundant argument. There will likely be no pension system from government by then. Plus, I'm the one that's payiing into my pension now, with my taxes, that's how it works. People will have kids, lots and lots of them without the handouts. Just like they have done since time immemorial with or without my money in their holiday jar.

I take the point but pension will be called income support, As much as they like us to think so I don't think the government keep all the pension money, vat, road tax, NI etc etc in separate jars in the BOE.
If they did there would be a shed load in the vat section

 

[beorhthelm]

This is such a redundant argument. There will likely be no pension system from government by then. Plus, I'm the one that's payiing into my pension now, with my taxes, that's how it works.

you do know thats precisely how it doesnt work, your current taxes pay for today's pensioners and those in work when you're old will pay for yours then. you're right though, there probably wont be much of a government backed pension 20-30 years from now, those not paying into private, funded pension will be buggered.

 

[Nibble]

you do know thats precisely how it doesnt work, and your current taxes pay for today's pensioners. you're right there probably wont be much of a government backed pension 20-30 years from now, those not paying into private, funded pension will be buggered.

Yes, so we all pay our own in reality. I don't think it appropriate for well to do parents to take money from taxpayers when they have no need for it.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Yes but you will get it back with interest when they pay your pension and you live to 120

Really?

 

[Nibble]

Not a day goes by when I don't think of some chubby, Augustus Gloop type, millionairre child sitting down to his Chicken Kievs and Sunny Delight THAT I HAVE PAID FOR!!!

 

[Chicken Runner61]

you do know thats precisely how it doesnt work, your current taxes pay for today's pensioners and those in work when you're old will pay for yours then. you're right though, there probably wont be much of a government backed pension 20-30 years from now, those not paying into private, funded pension will be buggered.

Yes they will let anyone who hasn't paid into a private pension starve to death or of cold through homelessness

 

[Chicken Runner61]

Really?

I'm not sure HT, I think it depends if we are still all in this together.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

Not a day goes by when I don't think of some chubby, Augustus Gloop type, millionairre child sitting down to his Chicken Kievs and Sunny Delight THAT I HAVE PAID FOR!!!

Who said child poverty was dead?

 

[Dandyman]

Firstly most fair minded people accept a modern welfare system is a necessary and valuable asset.

But I think it has become far too generous, far above the level of 'survive' as you have stated.

If it is reasonable to be rewarded for work as opposed to not working your starting point is what does unemployment pay ??

In many circumstances this includes housing, weekly pay and subsidy in many other forms, offering a life style beyond that of those working.

It then follows that those in employment become angry whilst those uneducated and unqualified families can never find work that might offer the same rewards as their benefits do.

https://www.dwpe-services.direct.gov.uk/portal/page/portal/ba/lp?_piref301_66309_301_66308_66308.__ora_navig=action%3DgettingStarted%26pageno%3D2
Check this and see if you still think it is far too generous. Millions of working people are forced to claim social security because of low wages and exorbitant rents, not because they are lazy or other myths.