Benefits Britain 1949
- Thread starter Stretch
- Start date
That it was better than 1849?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 May 2006
- Posts
- 4,107
- Location
- London
This was a good program and nice seeing someone getting a job out of it who has never worked in his life, and not a bad job.....
I bet it costs the taxpayer a lot more to house Victor in that residential home than it does paying him the current state pension rate. I have to wonder how that disabled lad hadn't managed to get himself until now - I mean he got the job following a day's work experience. I thought that happened now also. The woman will be disappointed with her performance though, made herself look really thick and lazy.
Looks more interesting next week when the benefits office staff go into homes and tell the claimant how they should live their lives i.e. tidy your crap up. As I understand this is a feature of the excellent Scandinavian welfare system - "sure we'll give you lots in benefits, but we're buying the right to interfere in your life". It all costs money though, the problem with this country is our obsession with running important public services as cheaply as possible - if you buy at the lowest price you can expect to end up with crap.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,506
That's rather interesting.
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,316
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
Obviously leaving disabled people without support is something most would disagree with, but they only cut his benifit if he refused training which can only be a good thing IMO.
If you look beyond some of the more extreme diffrences I thought there were many positives. Not least the amount of support and encouragement people were offered. Like you say, they were buying the right to interfere in people's life. But this was for the benifit of society (not just the claimant), which is the ultimate aim of a wealfare system.
You say the care home is more expensive, and you're probably right if you look at today's care home costs. But it's hard to see how the system as a whole wouldn't be far cheaper, a lot fairer and also give people a better chance of gaining employment.
If you look beyond some of the more extreme diffrences I thought there were many positives. Not least the amount of support and encouragement people were offered. Like you say, they were buying the right to interfere in people's life. But this was for the benifit of society (not just the claimant), which is the ultimate aim of a wealfare system.
You say the care home is more expensive, and you're probably right if you look at today's care home costs. But it's hard to see how the system as a whole wouldn't be far cheaper, a lot fairer and also give people a better chance of gaining employment.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,316
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
Yeah, I've seen that too. Was trying to watch tv at the time. It's actually "Benefits Britain"
This shows just how things have changed and how we have forgotten the detailed work of beveridge on the subject. Those who defend what we have now are doing the opposite of what the system was supposed to achieve.
Unfortunately, the idea of a client state of voters was too tempting for some parties, and the idea that people are entitled to the money earnt by other taxpayers without obligation has become too ingrained.
there is nothing liberal about creating a dependency culture.
Unfortunately, the idea of a client state of voters was too tempting for some parties, and the idea that people are entitled to the money earnt by other taxpayers without obligation has become too ingrained.
there is nothing liberal about creating a dependency culture.
I thought it was really interesting.
I didn't think the woman came across very well. Stating she had done her time so she has a right to put her feet up and live off others. When in reality she has only worked for 22 years which is a lot less than many people. However lets not forget this is 'reality' TV so there is a certain amount of editing which may have been done in a way to make her the bad guy.
Good to see the disabled bloke got a job. That seems to have been his aim all along. It's interesting. He's claimed to have had 100s of interviews but has never been offered a job. Yet when he finally gets some work experience and proves he is capable he finds employment. Something to be said about his condition automatically putting his at a disadvantage at the interview stage as people can't see the man for the condition.
I didn't think the woman came across very well. Stating she had done her time so she has a right to put her feet up and live off others. When in reality she has only worked for 22 years which is a lot less than many people. However lets not forget this is 'reality' TV so there is a certain amount of editing which may have been done in a way to make her the bad guy.
Good to see the disabled bloke got a job. That seems to have been his aim all along. It's interesting. He's claimed to have had 100s of interviews but has never been offered a job. Yet when he finally gets some work experience and proves he is capable he finds employment. Something to be said about his condition automatically putting his at a disadvantage at the interview stage as people can't see the man for the condition.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,175
Reduce cost of housing = more attractive to work.
Why work a minimum wage job when your full month's wages won't even cover the rent of a family home down south? 3 Bedroom houses where I live cost 1300 a month to rent, just absolutely mental. Even a two bedroom flat starts at 900, which is pretty close to a full time minimum wage job. No wonder the welfare bill is so high, goes into the pockets of landlords.
If I wasn't earning over the national average and I had to live on minimum wage, I would certainly consider if it was even worth getting up out of bed to go to work.
Why work a minimum wage job when your full month's wages won't even cover the rent of a family home down south? 3 Bedroom houses where I live cost 1300 a month to rent, just absolutely mental. Even a two bedroom flat starts at 900, which is pretty close to a full time minimum wage job. No wonder the welfare bill is so high, goes into the pockets of landlords.
If I wasn't earning over the national average and I had to live on minimum wage, I would certainly consider if it was even worth getting up out of bed to go to work.
After tax/NI deductions a min wage job is only around 800 a month if you're doing a solid 40 hour week.
I live up north and the average rental charge is around 400 a month for a 2-bed property. Chuck on Council Tax @ around 125/month and it leaves a person with 275 to pay utilities, travel expenses and food for a month.
But we're stuck in a vicious circle with housing. Banks won't lend for mortgages because people can't afford to save for a large deposit so it forces people to rent, landlords whack up the prices because of the demand for rental properties, which means people can't afford to save the deposit for a mortgage - return to start.
The irony is that most mortgages for properties in the area would be cheaper each month than renting.
Social housing stock up here is at an all time low too, the councils have either sold it off to private developers or demolished it. Plus in my opinion the Right-to-buy & Buy-to-let schemes have taken a lot of the housing stock which leads to higher house prices.
Yup, we've just bought a house in the last 3 months, our mortgage for a nicer house in a nicer area is half what we were paying in rent.
I watched this last night too, and while I felt a bit bad for the pensioner when he ended up kicked out of his house and put in a home, it did actually appear that he was better off/happier there and enjoyed the company/being looked after.
It may be more expensive to run the home than pay the pensions, but this does then free up council houses/bungalows/flats - which is actually very relevant at present with the whole "bedroom tax", and penalising people for not moving into smaller homes, when these smaller homes don't actually exist!
In terms of the disabled, guy, I think they did exactly what was needed - just because you're disabled, doesn't mean you automatically can't do anything, and I think one of the major failings of today's benefit system is that the "jobcentre" has absolutely nothing to do with finding a job, and almost no support is given to the genuine claimants who are actually trying to get into work.
The "sick" woman... well, how much of her "sickness" was just for show? Anyone can say "oh yes, it hurts to do that" or "no, I can't do that" - but was she really that incapable of doing anything? If she was so sick and incapacitated, what on earth was she doing behind the wheel of a car?! I realise a lot of it was probably edited and dramatised, but her entitlement attitude absolutely stank!
Self reliance should always be encouraged I agree, but it's a shame that those opposed to the current system usually suggest changes which would exasperate the situation further.
On the point about entitled to the money earned by others, I see no moral difference between the state reallocating the money (via taxation & benefits) than the initial slanted distribution for the rewards of the labour done in the first place via wages.
You can't argue one is fine on moral grounds but not the other, it's just one entity stealing the rewards of the labour initially, then another stealing a percentage back & reallocating it to ensure society functions & continues.
As I've said before, I'd be in favour of a flat tax system & fair taxation in a system in which wages were also evenly distributed across the population.
If we want to improve self reliance/independence from the state then we should invest in early child development, early nutrition, literacy & reduce child poverty (as these are all highly linked to growing up dependent on the state).
We also need to create an environment in which sufficient jobs are available for the population at either a local level, or a national level coupled with increased social mobility (without this the entire debate about resolving dependency is somewhat mooted, as if if our current system it's akin to playing musical chairs & blaming somebody for not getting one once a chair is removed).
As a society we create the benefit dependency & if we want to solve it we should look at the data & research & act accordingly - not parrot ideological nonsense.
Last edited: