Benefits to be a human right?

Rofflay said:
Plus they have to be taxed to support other people who could easily support themselves given the right resources.Creating even more hatred between us.I agree on what you say though it works for the 1% and screws the 99% unless the state does intervene with a heavy handed and fair for all policy.I have always held the view that the state needs to take control as left to our own devices we naturally tend to screw each other over.


Greed is something we just have not managed to evolve out of yet.
Click to expand...
I tend to think we screw each other over simply because that kind of mentally is rewarded in society - if altruism & co-operation was rewarded in society those would be the values which the population expressed.

We are an adaptable species above all, able to mould & fit into whatever social structure or system life chucks at us, capitalism is about personal gain & material greed, it promotes competition & exploitation (As much as possible within the law) & the externalisation of social problems.

It should hardly be surprised that our society reflects the social systems it lives under, it's adaptation.

Hatter The Mad said:
No surprise from The Sun there. It's a shame though, a standard citizens payment type welfare and a negative income tax would be quite a positive thing.
Click to expand...
Indeed, for one it would reduce the need for means testing & ensure nobody ends up left out/worse off working (reducing administration costs/self esteem social problems related to the shame associated with being on benefits) - which I'd wager has quite a large pound value across the population (in crime, mental health etc).
 
Last edited:
StriderX said:
Meh, at least i have an idea...one that i thought up on the spot as well, it is after all a serious issue that our society WILL have to deal with.
Click to expand...

Thank god you only thought that up on the spot - I was worried there you had actually given it some thought.

So have you discovered this abundance of foster care you would require?
Have you considered the ethical connotations of punishing individual members of society for the actions of others?
Have you considered the consequences of splitting families up and the bad effects this would have?
 
elmarko said:
Indeed, for one it would reduce the need for means testing & ensure nobody ends up left out/worse off working (reducing administration costs/self esteem social problems related to the shame associated with being on benefits) - which I'd wager has quite a large pound value across the population (in crime, mental health etc).
Click to expand...
Exactly. As a society we should make sure that no one falls into destitute.

Sure that means that some people would take advantage of the subsistence-level living, but they will be by far in the minority. On paper, a no-questions-asked citizens payment of thousands per year seems 'mad!', 'shocking!' and 'will be taken advantage of!'

However, we can always rely on peoples' greed to drive them to want and go out and earn more. The instrument just needs to make sense in that regard (i.e. no big earnings hurdle to jump before working 'starts to make sense').
 
Rofflay said:
Sorry but at least being a Hippy is the decent thing to do.I would rather be a Hippy than a greedy slave supporting right winger thanks.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with hippies (in fact would call myself a little hippiesque, I'm suggesting you aren't a hippy just someone ranting incoherently.

Rofflay said:
And its called Fracking.And thats the problem i talked about it certain people who got lucky owning land which is due to be fracked will become really rich when in reality those resources should be shared by everyone.The benefit system does go some way in helping to share those resources but people are now looking to stop this and cut benefits.What kind of system are we going to move towards then with benefit cuts?Throw the poor out on the street to starve? Some people really need to sit down and look into the topic in depth both present and future and see how it will pan out.
Click to expand...
Actually no, it's called fraccing... Several parts of the media seem to persist in spelling it wrong... ;)

Most of the money will go to the community as a whole, not the landowners... Things like building/repairing roads, providing more social housing and maybe bus services where it wasn't affordable before. Not a huge amount will go to land/homeowners directly (although the one and outs haven't been worked out yet afaik).



Rofflay said:
So i have to move to where exactly to buy this cheap land for a few thousand? The last time i checked land cost a hell of a lot more than a few thousand.And where do you get this money from? Yea you have to go and do some slave labour for some rich folk who will hand you down some pennies so you can save up to buy what in reality should be your god given right.You should not need any money to have somewhere to live off that is the whole point of this thread!
Click to expand...

Probably not far away from where you live at the moment... There is a big difference between land types, for example rich agricultural land will cost more than forested land, will cost more than moorland. All of which will cost substantially more than land with planning permission or a building on already. As for getting the money, do what lots of people do, save it and earn it. Be that working for someone, working for yourself or just collecting things (say fruits) from publically owned land and selling them. If there is a will there is a way (legally). If you can't get the money through selling/trading services etc then you're probably not going to be able live subsistantly anyway...
 
StriderX said:
I assume it is the final part that is the issue?

I do see it and concede that it is likely a social detriment.
Click to expand...


No, it's all a disgusting because you are punishing children for acts carried out by their parents. Acts which aren't illegal, and which you merely have a moral objection to. Every one of your suggested way of dealing with this non-existent problem will make life worse for the children, and make no difference whatsoever to the behaviour of the parents.
 
StriderX said:
For the first child, you get given your benefits, as you do now, but at the second child, your tax is cut.

For the third child, the tax cut is removed and the fourth a caution, fifth...fostering both the fourth and fifth child and a final warning before they are all removed.
Click to expand...

Im with you on this !
 
Hatter The Mad said:
Exactly. As a society we should make sure that no one falls into destitute.

Sure that means that some people would take advantage of the subsistence-level living, but they will be by far in the minority. On paper, a no-questions-asked citizens payment of thousands per year seems 'mad!', 'shocking!' and 'will be taken advantage of!'

However, we can always rely on peoples' greed to drive them to want and go out and earn more. The instrument just needs to make sense in that regard (i.e. no big earnings hurdle to jump before working 'starts to make sense').
Click to expand...
Yup.

People also forget that giving the poor nothing, also costs money.

While it may not come out of the benefits bill, it will most certainly come out of our law & order or health bill (with most likely a larger price tag attached to it) - sadly most people don't consider this because they posses a short sighted reductionist view of reality.

Simply pulling the rug from under the desperate has it's own set of economic consequences, which should all be examined & weighed up (along with the human cost if the individual is so inclined).

I most certainly agree on your point regarding making work pay - even part time work should yield a significant benefit for the individual & removing any potential poverty trap (while maintaining a reasonable safety net) is a good move for society.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom