Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2012
- Posts
- 6,592
- Location
- Tamworth, UK
housing association apologies to 'horrified' residents
- Thread starter cm1179
- Start date
Fair enough.
Then increase the minimum wage, let's make the difference between benefits bigger.
Add up the costs of those things & the amount received in benefits & you will most likely find a flaw in your calculations.
You also don't mention the frequency of these events, or what they sacrifice in order to do it.
OK, think of it like this (in theory)
If a person is assigned £20 a month for clothes (by the government) but they don't buy new clothes & instead buy a bottle of Vodka - should people who spend the money as it's intended have their money slashed to pay for the minority of those on benefits who fritter the money away?
As with all things in life we have a trade off, the price we pay for having a system which takes care of the vulnerable is that a minority can abuse it - exactly the same as the price we pay for free speech or anything else which has a net social gain.
Call me a "lefty-softy" but I don't think increasing the amount of homeless people in the UK is something particularly desirable.
Besides, from a purely economic perspective - it's cheaper to "ply the poorest in society with cheap cider & sky TV" than pay for the associated crime & prison costs if they had to break the law to survive.
I agree we should be trying to prevent this behaviour, but to do this maybe we should listen to the expert opinion of psychologists & behaviourists instead of joe public with his "common sense solutions".
Lolshoes.
Last edited:
And some are very corrupt and they often make sure their paths are lined with gold.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,177
plus, if they are buying fags then then 80-90% of the costs will come back to the government anyway.
i cant see how people on benefits can afford sky anyway. i dont know anyone on benefits with sky.
I added a few extra comments to this post you have quoted here, probably whilst you were writing this response, I would be genuinely interested to hear your response to the (admittedly inflammatory) additional comments.
Just for the record though, I do actually take quite an active interest in the state of social science on this issue and have attended a few local lectures on the subject (I work at a university) when time allows.
The problem with psychological approaches to things is that they tend to be based in the simple premise of find a solution that does no harm. When in fact realistic and practical solutions never fit with the idealistic bases of the theories.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,177
because frozen chips and burgers etc are a lot more expensive that healthier foods.
for example for the price of 4 organic chicken breasts i can buy about 20 processed chicken things from tesco. i can buy a 10 pack of choc bars for the price of 2 apples and cho bars dont go off after a couple of days.
our shopping bill has gone up loads lately as we dont buy processed food at all, whereas i used to live on that crap before. i wasnt overweight though. i was actually a little bit underweight.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,177
i agree. they tend to mention the ones that cost us a bomb and not the people who cannot afford to eat due to ever increasing bills etc.
i am always surprised by how many daily mail readers we have on here
Today the House Of Commons will vote to pass legislation denying compensation to people the Westminster government was found guilty in a court of law of mistreating by forcing them onto unpaid-labour schemes. The measure, brought forward by the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition administration, is expected to be tacitly backed by Labour MPs who will, under a party whip, abstain rather than oppose it.
With no major party opposed to it in the Commons, workfare is unquestionably the future for the United Kingdom’s poor. Labour introduced it – and has made it explicitly clear that the party doesn’t represent those who aren’t in work – while the Tories have naturally embraced it with alacrity as part of their drive to return Britain to a feudal age by turning the disadvantaged into serfs.
Successive right-wing governments in Westminster, urged on by even more right-wing newspapers have succeeded in creating an atmosphere whereby the unfortunate, ill and disadvantaged are seen by the British public as parasitic, workshy scroungers undeserving of state assistance.
The “workfare” programmes involved order the unemployed, sick and disabled to work for both charities and large commercial corporations without pay for varying periods of time, effectively as punishment for continuing to be unemployed. (Regardless of the fact that there are millions more sick, disabled and unemployed people than there are job vacancies available.)
For the disabled in particular, that period can be indefinite, and refusal for any category of “offender” can be – and is – met with the removal of all state benefits, leaving the subject with no means of paying for food or shelter. A public outcry over the inhumane policy has seen many charities withdraw from the scheme, but a remarkable statement from the Salvation Army this month took a different view.
“At The Salvation Army, we have a history of believing in emancipation through employment”
“Emancipation through employment”? Or, put another way, freedom through work. In the eyes of the Salvation Army – and also of the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour – it seems that citizens of the UK (sometimes known as “subjects of the Queen”) no longer have the unalienable right to freedom, though we don’t recall the passage of such a law. Liberty apparently must be earned, by stacking shelves in Poundland or sorting old jumpers in charity shops for nothing, against your will.
Only collective action has any hope of preventing this draconian punishment being inflicted on society, the Labour party has no alternative.
With no major party opposed to it in the Commons, workfare is unquestionably the future for the United Kingdom’s poor. Labour introduced it – and has made it explicitly clear that the party doesn’t represent those who aren’t in work – while the Tories have naturally embraced it with alacrity as part of their drive to return Britain to a feudal age by turning the disadvantaged into serfs.
Successive right-wing governments in Westminster, urged on by even more right-wing newspapers have succeeded in creating an atmosphere whereby the unfortunate, ill and disadvantaged are seen by the British public as parasitic, workshy scroungers undeserving of state assistance.
The “workfare” programmes involved order the unemployed, sick and disabled to work for both charities and large commercial corporations without pay for varying periods of time, effectively as punishment for continuing to be unemployed. (Regardless of the fact that there are millions more sick, disabled and unemployed people than there are job vacancies available.)
For the disabled in particular, that period can be indefinite, and refusal for any category of “offender” can be – and is – met with the removal of all state benefits, leaving the subject with no means of paying for food or shelter. A public outcry over the inhumane policy has seen many charities withdraw from the scheme, but a remarkable statement from the Salvation Army this month took a different view.
“At The Salvation Army, we have a history of believing in emancipation through employment”
“Emancipation through employment”? Or, put another way, freedom through work. In the eyes of the Salvation Army – and also of the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour – it seems that citizens of the UK (sometimes known as “subjects of the Queen”) no longer have the unalienable right to freedom, though we don’t recall the passage of such a law. Liberty apparently must be earned, by stacking shelves in Poundland or sorting old jumpers in charity shops for nothing, against your will.
Only collective action has any hope of preventing this draconian punishment being inflicted on society, the Labour party has no alternative.
My experience of people on benefits.
No sky/cable.
No car
No holidays
Old clothes
Home not been decorated to any reasonable standard or within years.
Very low quality food/drinks (own brand economy stuff)
Cold homes (due to heating costs)
Rough place to live/regular anti-social behaviour
Constant worry about money/bills
Poor health (physical & mental)
It's hardly rocking up a party life-style - it's a miserable existence which they should be helped out of, not beaten further down the same path.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 5,365
- Location
- West Sussex
More clap trap that assumes everyone in Social housing or receiving a benefit is a lazy, scrounging, work shy low life that is living the life of Reilly off the state.
I recently had to go back on JSA as yet again work has run dry. After the CSA, I am left with £60.62 a week. My electric costs me £20 a week with no heating, Southern water demand £15 so I am left with £25 a week for food, clothing, travel to and from the Jobcentre. I live out in the sticks and the bus fair is £2.60 each way to the nearest shop.
Out of that I am still suppose to pay out £16 a fortnight for my prescriptions as I am on Contribution based support.
If they think I have Sky TV they must be joking. Without my partner helping me out I would be sunk. She runs the car, pays the TV Licence, and my phone along with running her own place.
This kick somebody whilst they are down attitude being encourage by the press is getting me down.
I recently had to go back on JSA as yet again work has run dry. After the CSA, I am left with £60.62 a week. My electric costs me £20 a week with no heating, Southern water demand £15 so I am left with £25 a week for food, clothing, travel to and from the Jobcentre. I live out in the sticks and the bus fair is £2.60 each way to the nearest shop.
Out of that I am still suppose to pay out £16 a fortnight for my prescriptions as I am on Contribution based support.
If they think I have Sky TV they must be joking. Without my partner helping me out I would be sunk. She runs the car, pays the TV Licence, and my phone along with running her own place.
This kick somebody whilst they are down attitude being encourage by the press is getting me down.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
Increasing minimum wage is a terrible idea, it will only increase unemployment. On already struggling retail sector, if they put up minimum wage they (employers) would fire staff to pay for their current employees, not hire more staff. :? What they should do is the opposite, abolish minimum wage. This will create jobs that never existed previously due to the wage cap and allow people to get the essential experience that is required to be a productive member of society.
The idea that if only the minimum wage was higher it would solve the problem is realy a good example of the problems in economic understanding that is at the root of the problems we face as a society. This lack of incentive is caused by the welfare state, it is not caused by wages being too low. The idea that cutting people's benefits will increase social problems is also not realy looking at the problem from a long term perspective. Long term people get trapped in the welfare state and this leads to increases in crime and poverty and other social problems. The welfare state is like a band aid to a larger problem of poverty and although might alleviate some short term social problems, long term it has a much more negative effect on society than the initial social problems that it was attempting to resolve.
Watch this part of the video series free to choose on the economic implications of government welfare.
I think the government should just cut a larger portion of the welfare state and kick these people who have free houses on to the street. The only way they will learn is if they are in a position where they have work to survive. Without that incentive they will just continue to do nothing.
The idea that if only the minimum wage was higher it would solve the problem is realy a good example of the problems in economic understanding that is at the root of the problems we face as a society. This lack of incentive is caused by the welfare state, it is not caused by wages being too low. The idea that cutting people's benefits will increase social problems is also not realy looking at the problem from a long term perspective. Long term people get trapped in the welfare state and this leads to increases in crime and poverty and other social problems. The welfare state is like a band aid to a larger problem of poverty and although might alleviate some short term social problems, long term it has a much more negative effect on society than the initial social problems that it was attempting to resolve.
Watch this part of the video series free to choose on the economic implications of government welfare.
I think the government should just cut a larger portion of the welfare state and kick these people who have free houses on to the street. The only way they will learn is if they are in a position where they have work to survive. Without that incentive they will just continue to do nothing.
It is a struggle for anyone who has any aspirations of living a half decent life (ie eating reasonably healthy, travelling and dressing suitably for job interviews, keeping themselves and their house clean, etc).
The problem is that some people choose to forgo these 'basic' things and instead choose to sit in their house all day and spend their money on 'luxuries' (Sky, fags, booze what ever).
The 'disgusting' thing about the link in the OP, is that they assume the people they've sent it to, buy 'luxuries' that they can give up. Whereas for most 'normal' people, living on benefits is a total struggle just to buy the 'basics'.
Without having a very draconian system, you cannot prevent a situation where some people choose to forgo 'basics' in favour of 'luxuries'. If someone values Sky TV over a decent meal and a clean house, then that's their choice. Now you could argue that there's a reason to try and educate these people about making such choices, but to group all people on benefits in the same 'poor choice' basket is offensive.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,177
Regarding your comment about the carrot approach I agree in part, we don't offer enough of a reward for low paid work (causing the benefit/welfare trap) - to go from hardly anything - to very little isn't worth the 37 hours.
What we need to do is ensure that people who do work get a reasonable reward, so they are always significantly better off working.
If we push people in who are already in poverty further into in by using punitive economic measures don't you think it will increase the very behaviour you are trying to prevent?.
The social impact of poverty is already well documented, the methods which cause no harm are not just on a personal level - but on a social level.
If we cut benefits & drive 5% of them into work, but 10% of them into crime (for sustenance) it's a net loss (economically & socially)
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,177
+1
its a trade off. i have often been jokingly envious of my mates who have been on the dole while i was getting up at 6am to work. but when i go see them and their crappy flats eating beans on toast again i dont mind working and going home to watch movies on a £5k system, sitting on a leather couch in my nice 4 bed detached house.
i think the grass always appear greener until you investigate more. i certainly wouldnt want to go back to benefits (14 years constant employment for me now) and now i have a son there is no way we could cope on those meagre benefits.
i know it must be hard for some as with the recession our family is around £25k a year worse off and we are struggling even though bringing in well above national average. i really dont know how people on min wage cope.
So you expect the tax-payer to subsidise big business profit by topping up wages which are to low for survival in our society?.
Socialism for business, capitalism for the population
.Well, in isolation yes - the problem is the difference between the highest & lowest earners.
Then pray I ask is unemployment not really high in socialist nations & still high in nations with hardly any welfare state or no minimum wage?.
I await an evidence based & well structured reply.
To solve the problems of poverty you think we should increase poverty.
Hmm, I believe that's called "Insanity" - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
That isn't how human behaviour works - have you even looked at other societies without a welfare state to see if that solves the problem?.
I'll give you a clue (*it doesn't)
Or do you think having slums & masses of home-less starving people is the solution?.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,177
or the CEOs taking home millions of pounds should maybe reduce their income a little?
if we removed min wage then the gov would force people into £1 an hour jobs or remove benefits.
what about those people who cannot find work - there are not enough jobs to give every unemployed person one. last week it was said that on average 10 people are applying for every vacant position (with better jobs having many more applicants). so this implies 1 vacancy for every 10 unemployed people.
you also have to realise that many hard working people in the recession lost their jobs due to inept governments and banks. banks their tax money (and ours) was used to bale out. these banks are now screwing people left right and centre
my bank (natwest), owned by US. is charging 18% on overdrafts. this is 36x the actual bank of england rate. and they are lending money that was given to them by the tax payer, to help the tax payers.
i recently transferred all my savings (£30k) to natwest for when we bought the new house. i had that £30k in there a few months and was earning around £30 a month in interest. contrast that with a year ago when i was £4k overdrawn and paying around £60 a month for that. something is very wrong and the banks are ****ing us all over whilst we pay them for the privilege
The above is not my experience of those on benefits. Almost the direct opposite.
Sky and 42" TV minimum
At least 1 car - probably motability if they have a bad back so less than 3 years old.
Holidays a few times a year. We used to joke that my wifes parents spent more time abroad than in the UK
Clothes not a problem but usually cheap or chav brand.
Home refurbished by the state (new bathroom, new kitchen, new windows etc etc)
I'll give you the low quality food - more money for fags and booze and bingo
Heating on flat out - for the baby ?!
Rough place - well yes, you wouldn't want to live on a council estate if you had the choice
Constant worry "They" will come up with a way to cut benefits
Poor health - with any luck. Benefits and a brand new car here we come.
Least that is my experience of those on benefits.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
But there is an alternative to being forced to work for money. Stop receiving the government handouts. As anyone knows if you accept money from someone you are indebted to them and essentially their "slave". If someone accepts money from the state then they are a dependant and they are at the will and mercy of the government. The alternative is to not accept the government money, simple.
So you expect the tax-payer to subsidise big business profit by topping up wages which are to low for survival in our society?.
Socialism for business, capitalism for the population
What made you think i expect tax payers to subsidise business profit? Which by the way, makes no sense what so ever.
I want capitalism for everyone. Unfortunately what we have at the moment is the reverse of what you say (socialism for population, capitalism for business) but yet you complain about the opposite as if it is something that i advocate, twisted.
You expect a well structured reply? I don't think you deserve one, your comments are barely coherent.
The problem is that people on welfare do not offer skills to a high enough level within the productive half of the economy that would make going to work a better option than receiving government welfare. The difference between highest and lowest earners is not relevant to the context.
Unemployment is caused by a varied reasons and not solely a result of a welfare state or lack of a welfare state. But the welfare state contributes to unemployment by distorting incentives as i already explained.
I never said anything about solving poverty. But in terms of long prosperity the ideal approach from an economic perspective would be to get people in to the productive half of the economy. Welfare does not reduce poverty it just puts a band-aid over it and hides it from view. The people on welfare do not generate any wealth for themselves their community or anyone else in society.
I think forcing people in to a situation where they have to work is better than just paying them money and claiming to have solved the problem of poverty.
Last edited: