Benefits for the poor are spent on drugs and gambling

[Margaret Pilkington]

Glad to hear he is on the mend. Thanks for the info.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by garinda

'MILLIONS of benefit claimants are better off living on handouts than getting a job, a Government report confirmed yesterday.'
Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: You are better off on benefits

'Peter Davey, 35, a father of seven, gave up work in administration nine years ago because he realised he would be better off on state handouts.'
Family on £42,000 a year benefits because they are 'better off unemployed' - Telegraph

'An unemployed 22-year-old who featured in a BBC news report as a victim of benefits cuts has admitted he doesn’t work because he’s better off on the dole.'
Man portrayed as 'victim' of the cuts by BBC says 'I'm better off on benefits' | Mail Online


A system, that makes it more financially rewarding to live on welfare benefits, than to work for an income, is wrong.


Period.

And yet, there is an argument to be made that it is not benefits that are too high, but wages that are too low. Or, that too many of the well-paid industrial jobs have been exported ... or full time jobs with benefits have been turned into part time jobs. A common tactic of corporations. It doesn't make any economic sense. In a consumer economy, cosumers have to consume ... sorry for being a tad tautological; and in order to consume, they need money. If you take away most of the well-paid jobs, you have to make credit easier. This is how we got the NINJA loans in the states ... the ones that were a leading cause of the last recession. Or you have to pay large for benefits.


The growing inequality of incomes is what is at the root of riots and protests all over the world. CNN and Hilary Clinton would love us to believe that Egypt rose in revolution because they wanted freedom ... bs, they had enough of seeing Mubarak and his cronies stashing away billions, while many of the ordinary people could hardly make ends meet. Govenrments like the one in the UK will continue to give out billions in benefits in order to keep the poor quiet. There's no more Colosseum ... but there are 60" flat screens ... and cheap booze.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Eric

And yet, there is an argument to be made that it is not benefits that are too high, but wages that are too low. Or, that too many of the well-paid industrial jobs have been exported ... or full time jobs with benefits have been turned into part time jobs. A common tactic of corporations. It doesn't make any economic sense. In a consumer economy, cosumers have to consume ... sorry for being a tad tautological; and in order to consume, they need money. If you take away most of the well-paid jobs, you have to make credit easier. This is how we got the NINJA loans in the states ... the ones that were a leading cause of the last recession. Or you have to pay large for benefits.


The growing inequality of incomes is what is at the root of riots and protests all over the world. CNN and Hilary Clinton would love us to believe that Egypt rose in revolution because they wanted freedom ... bs, they had enough of seeing Mubarak and his cronies stashing away billions, while many of the ordinary people could hardly make ends meet. Govenrments like the one in the UK will continue to give out billions in benefits in order to keep the poor quiet. There's no more Colosseum ... but there are 60" flat screens ... and cheap booze.

Whether benefits are too generous, or wages too low, is an irrelevance.

What we've seen happen over recent years is a broken, flawed system

The welfare state was a ground breaking concept.

It was created to help those, who through no fault of their own, were in genuine need.

To be able to chose to live on benefits, because it's better paid than working for a living, is wrong, and it was wrong for successive governments to allow this to happen.

I'm with Marg P, on what constitutes the definition of poverty.

To me that's not having enough food to give your children, no money to heat your home, and not having enough money to see a doctor, and buy medicine.

In my opinion you don't live in poverty if you have a house full of the latest 'must have' gadgets, many working families would struggle to afford to buy.

Why work when I can get £42,000 in benefits a year AND drive a Mercedes?

Peter Davey gets £42,000 in benefits a year and drives a Mercedes | Mail Online

If everyone decided they weren't going to work, there'd be no welfare state.

It's funded by peoples' hard earned taxes.

The money that pays for it doesn't grow on some magical tree.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by garinda

Whether benefits are too generous, or wages too low, is an irrelevance.

What we've seen happen over recent years is a broken, flawed system

The welfare state was a ground breaking concept.

It was created to help those, who through no fault of their own, were in genuine need.

To be able to chose to live on benefits, because it's better paid than working for a living, is wrong, and it was wrong for successive governments to allow this to happen.

I'm with Marg P, on what constitutes the definition of poverty.

To me that's not having enough food to give your children, no money to heat your home, and not having enough money to see a doctor, and buy medicine.

In my opinion you don't live in poverty if you have a house full of the latest 'must have' gadgets, many working families would struggle to afford to buy.

Why work when I can get £42,000 in benefits a year AND drive a Mercedes?

Peter Davey gets £42,000 in benefits a year and drives a Mercedes | Mail Online

If everyone decided they weren't going to work, there'd be no welfare state.

It's funded by peoples' hard earned taxes.

The money that pays for it doesn't grow on some magical tree.

The system that is flawed is not the welfare system ... it is the tax system ... you mention that the welfare system is "funded by peoples' hard earned taxes" ... but it is not the taxes of all the people; missing are those who have a magical tax avoidance tree in the Caymans. The government is supporting the poor on the backs of the not quite, but almost poor.

And I can't agree with you and MargP on the definition of poverty. What you guys see as poverty closely resembles what I see when I watch late nite tv, and someone wants me to adopt a kid in Africa ... so you are saying that a First World Nation should adopt definitions of poverty more fitted to the Third World I prefer the Canadian, much more lenient, definition: A family in poverty is one which spends more than half its income in basic food and shelter.

Though the shelter could be an igloo

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Eric

... so you are saying that a First World Nation should adopt definitions of poverty more fitted to the Third World

No. I was actually refering to Britain pre-1945, before the creation of the welfare state, that we recognise today.

When people in this country did go hungry, cold, and even die, because of the lack of money.

If my nan, widowed at twenty, hadn't gone to work at the mill every morning, this being one of two jobs she had then, there wouldn't have been any food to give her child. The luxury of having anything new, clothes, toys, furniture etc, was unhead of.

Being able to work brings an independence of spirit.

My nan might have had nothing much materially back then, but she had bucket loads of that.

I'm not getting into a long drawn argument.

Mainly because nothing you can say will convince me that chosing to live off social benefits should be more profitable than working for a living.

The welfare state was created as a safety net for those who needed it.

Not as a hammock to laze away your days swinging in.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by garinda

No. I was actually refering to Britain pre-1945, before the creation of the welfare state, that we recognise today.

When people in this country did go hungry, cold, and even die, because of the lack of money.

If my nan, widowed at twenty, hadn't gone to work at the mill every morning, this being one of two jobs she had then, there wouldn't have been any food to give her child. The luxury of having anything new, clothes, toys, furniture etc, was unhead of.

Being able to work brings an independence of spirit.

My nan might have had nothing much materially back then, but she had bucket loads of that.

I'm not getting into a long drawn argument.

Mainly because nothing you can say will convince me that chosing to live off social benefits should be more profitable than working for a living.

The welfare state was created as a safety net for those who needed it.

Not as a hammock to laze away your days swinging in.

Yup ... don't think we are ever going to agree on this one ... oh well, there'll be other times

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Eric

And yet, there is an argument to be made that it is not benefits that are too high, but wages that are too low. Or, that too many of the well-paid industrial jobs have been exported ... or full time jobs with benefits have been turned into part time jobs. A common tactic of corporations. It doesn't make any economic sense. In a consumer economy, consumers have to consume ... sorry for being a tad tautological; and in order to consume, they need money. If you take away most of the well-paid jobs, you have to make credit easier. This is how we got the NINJA loans in the states ... the ones that were a leading cause of the last recession. Or you have to pay large for benefits.


The growing inequality of incomes is what is at the root of riots and protests all over the world. CNN and Hilary Clinton would love us to believe that Egypt rose in revolution because they wanted freedom ... vs, they had enough of seeing Mubarak and his cronies stashing away billions, while many of the ordinary people could hardly make ends meet. Governments like the one in the UK will continue to give out billions in benefits in order to keep the poor quiet. There's no more Colosseum ... but there are 60" flat screens ... and cheap booze.

You mention well paid industrial jobs being exported, ya I can remember when we had a thriving car industry, ship building too, what happened, well we had the closed shop, where if the wrong person changed a light bulb the all shooting match were out on strike, so eventually companies got sick to the back teeth of the likes of Red Robbo, hold them to ransom and instead of investing in British industry they went elsewhere.

[cmonstanley]

your from a dinosaur age of politics blaming the unions just dont wash.lets have a look miners strike justified trying to save your community and well being is bad i dont think so, it was the greedy shareholder who thought globalisation would make them a packet there is only one reason why britain and europe are in a mess and thats greed.if they never got greedy we would have had real money to spend and greater taxes to collect.the multi nationals cut their nose to spite their face they are idiots do they not know people need money to buy their products.as tristun hunt said on wuestion time he hit the nail on the head .in the eighties the tories put thousands of workers on incapacity,now we have full generations of people who dont know what work is they started the rot by helping create mass unemployment in communities with their first round of cuts in the eighties i just keep getting a feeling of de ja vu cuts ,europe, union bashing,propoganda in the papers. the tories are out of their depth we are in for a very very bumpy ride.

[MargaretR]

History repeats itself.
There are many reasons leading to the fall of the Roman empire, but one in particular seems very relevant to this thread.

Reason why the Roman Empire fell
extract -
"Reason why the Roman Empire fell - Unemployment of the Working Classes (The Plebs)
Cheap slave labor (eastern europeans?) in turn resulted in the unemployment of the the people of Rome who became dependent on hand-outs from the state. The Romans attempted a policy of unrestricted trade (EU?) but this led to working class Romans being unable to compete with foreign trade. The government were therefore forced to subsidize the working class Romans to make up the differences in prices. This resulted in thousands of Romans choosing just to live on the subsides sacrificing their standard of living with an idle life of ease. The massive divide between the rich and the poor increased still further. "

[Alan Varrechia]

I think Jay will know this for definite, but i think you'll find that when the Roman Empire fell they had just had 13 years of a labour senate and Julius Brownius had just sold off all their gold.

[mobertol]

Originally Posted by garinda

The welfare state was a ground breaking concept.

It was created to help those, who through no fault of their own, were in genuine need.

To be able to chose to live on benefits, because it's better paid than working for a living, is wrong, and it was wrong for successive governments to allow this to happen.

I'm with Marg P, on what constitutes the definition of poverty.

To me that's not having enough food to give your children, no money to heat your home, and not having enough money to see a doctor, and buy medicine.

In my opinion you don't live in poverty if you have a house full of the latest 'must have' gadgets, many working families would struggle to afford to buy.

Why work when I can get £42,000 in benefits a year AND drive a Mercedes?

Peter Davey gets £42,000 in benefits a year and drives a Mercedes | Mail Online

Agreed on all counts.

But how can these people be eligible for benefits if they voluntarily leave paid employment? It should NOT be possible...

How they also have the nerve to tell their story in the papers is beyond me...presumably they receive a pretty big cheque. In this case the wife even had the brazen courage to lament a lack of holidays - unbelievable.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

your from a dinosaur age of politics blaming the unions just dont wash.lets have a look miners strike justified trying to save your community and well being is bad i dont think so, it was the greedy shareholder who thought globalisation would make them a packet there is only one reason why britain and europe are in a mess and thats greed.if they never got greedy we would have had real money to spend and greater taxes to collect.the multi nationals cut their nose to spite their face they are idiots do they not know people need money to buy their products.as tristun hunt said on wuestion time he hit the nail on the head .in the eighties the tories put thousands of workers on incapacity,now we have full generations of people who dont know what work is they started the rot by helping create mass unemployment in communities with their first round of cuts in the eighties i just keep getting a feeling of de ja vu cuts ,europe, union bashing,propoganda in the papers. the tories are out of their depth we are in for a very very bumpy ride.

I have read this and it makes no sense to me...nothing much new there then........maybe if it was punctuated properly it might have some sense in it...but do I want to be bothered?.....nah!

[mobertol]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

History repeats itself.
There are many reasons leading to the fall of the Roman empire, but one in particular seems very relevant to this thread.

Reason why the Roman Empire fell
extract -
"Reason why the Roman Empire fell - Unemployment of the Working Classes (The Plebs)
Cheap slave labor (eastern europeans?) in turn resulted in the unemployment of the the people of Rome who became dependent on hand-outs from the state. The Romans attempted a policy of unrestricted trade (EU?) but this led to working class Romans being unable to compete with foreign trade. The government were therefore forced to subsidize the working class Romans to make up the differences in prices. This resulted in thousands of Romans choosing just to live on the subsides sacrificing their standard of living with an idle life of ease. The massive divide between the rich and the poor increased still further. "

It does tend to repeat itself doesn't it - interesting paragon Margaret.

The over-extension of the Empire is perhaps similar to what is happening in the EU too. I wonder if that is destined to fall.

[mobertol]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I have read this and it makes no sense to me...nothing much new there then........maybe if it was punctuated properly it might have some sense in it...but do I want to be bothered?.....nah!

You'd think he might re-read when posted and edit a bit - comes over as a bit of a thoughtless rant....sorry

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

your from a dinosaur age of politics blaming the unions just dont wash.lets have a look miners strike justified trying to save your community and well being is bad i dont think so, it was the greedy shareholder who thought globalisation would make them a packet there is only one reason why britain and europe are in a mess and thats greed.if they never got greedy we would have had real money to spend and greater taxes to collect.the multi nationals cut their nose to spite their face they are idiots do they not know people need money to buy their products.as tristun hunt said on wuestion time he hit the nail on the head .in the eighties the tories put thousands of workers on incapacity,now we have full generations of people who dont know what work is they started the rot by helping create mass unemployment in communities with their first round of cuts in the eighties i just keep getting a feeling of de ja vu cuts ,europe, union bashing,propoganda in the papers. the tories are out of their depth we are in for a very very bumpy ride.

Well if the Tories are out of their depth, Labour have drowned long ago, you just can't see can you, you plank, Labour have never in our history made a success of running this country, they've always made a pigs ear of it, if ever anybody was out of their depth it was the one eyed Jock and his little Darling the Burk and Hare of British politics. As for the Tories putting people on incapacity in the eighties incapacity claimants went from around 200,000 in 1997 to 550,000 in 2010, ever though of being a stand up comic C'mon, try the Edinburgh fringe