by Gill 136 Replies latest jw friends
It makes me sick that we give all these women cash for babies all the time! I should be given a bonus payment for not contributing the over population of this country.
Over-population? I thought the real problem was the declining birth rates, you'll be happy to have all those babies to pay for your pension after "baby-boomer" generation bankrupted it.
LT - Sorry! Brain has ceased to function! I've been battling the kids with my blaster and they've all got light sabres.
Could be I've got brain damage now!
Yes, I understand what you mean, now.
The fact that the self same rich are able to buy pensions etc and are out of touch with the poor, I believe would not want Britain to become like pre revolution France. It's possible that if the poor were not being thrown cash at by the government we could see real civil unrest and crime rates equivilant to South Africa. It would not be safe for them to park their flash cars in the street as they went shopping or to work.
The rich do not want to see the poor, 'that' poor!
Gill - of the also has no pension, society.
It sounds like the UK has a similar issues as Canada. The real issue isn't welfare though. The problem is that the working poor are taxed so high that for many people it makes more financial sense to be on welfare than it does to actually get a job.
Case in point, I know a widowed single mom who works at a job making $12 CND an hour. How would she stack up against a widowed single mom on welfare?
Welfare Mom
-Gets a cheque for $500-$700 a month untaxed
-gets rent paid by a shelter allowence (about $350 per person=$700 a month)
-Doesn't have to pay universal health care dues
-gets all generic perscription drugs for free
-is likely to qualify for government subsidized housing which will provide her a place much better than a typical $700 home
-Can get a government grant to go back to school
-Will get paid a daycare subsidy of up to $600 per month while she goes to school for job training
-can be on the system for up to 3 years out of every 10
Working Mom
-Will get rounghly $2112 a month. (roughly $1584 after taxes)
-Will not get a shelter allowence
-Will have to pay roughly $100 a month for healthcare dues
-Will have to pay for all perscriptions unless covered by employer (really sucks if her or her child have asthma or diabeties)
-Will make too much money for subsidized housing or daycare and thus will have to fork out another $600 or so a month. Her home still sucks
-Will have to pay for her own job training
-Also has to pay an extra $200-$300 to get to her job and back.
When all is said and done the difference is only about $100 a month extra for the working mom, depending on a few variables. Now ask yourself, "If I were in that situation would I rather work or watch jerry all day?" Before you answer that I should point out that under the new laws you have to wait for 30 days to get welfare which means that if working mom lost her job she would have absolutly no income for up to an entire month, unlike welfare who will get a steady check no matter what. All of a sudden it becomes less a matter of pride and more a matter of raw security.
Now though, supposed we reconfigured working mom's taxes so that she got to keep $400 more of her money every month. now all of a sudden she's coming up a little and welfare mom starts to see a real incentive of how getting an entry level job can benifit her. Before long she would join the workforce too and we'd have one more productive citizen. Welfare would be obliterated because everyone wants to keep up with the joneses.
It's clear that the UK, in general, is socially dysfunctional. Time to make things hard for lazy people. Put truants in gaol or put them to work. Reading this thread makes me think there are too many handouts in England; its a culture of dependence. Same thing is going to happen in Canada, and its all because of idiotically designed social experiments. I'm going off to start my own country...
Read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.
The producers of wealth go on strike and let the social workers try to keep society going. Chaos ensues and the world degenerates into barbarism.
Demolish all welfare states.
End every vestige of Socialism
The topic is always hot in the U.S. as well. The thing is EVERYONE agrees that the lazy or criminal should not be aided in their dependence upon social aid. That is not the issue folks. It's not like you are the only ones enlightened so as to recognize there are some who abuse the system and wish a solution. However the solution is more expensive than the problem. The social costs of not assisting the needy are too great to end the system of care yet the finacial costs involved in more personal oversight and reeducation of the dependent is beyond the budgets the public will alot for the cause. Then there are the issues of discrimination and arbitrary judgements. If I as the social sevice provider declare that 1 child out of wedlock is ucceptable but not two I have made more than a finacial decision, I've entered the realm of personal liberties. I also would then have to trump my pragmatically arrived at policy over the needs of the 2nd child. Additionally policies are not helpful when they disregard less tangible realities like emotional states and local social pressures not to mention local economies. It is my experience that for every abuser of the social system here there are 5 needy that are not served adaquately because of blanket policies that were designed to minimize depedency. The posters that saw the solution lies in a better though more expensive social system better understand the issues.
What-Truth - I agree with you completely. It is the case in the UK that the Family Tax Credit system has caused a lot of problems also, in that the government has tried to drag millions of children out of poverty by giving tax credits to families that have children, straight into the hand of the mother every week. Sadly, this system has left many thousands still struggling to survive as if there is only one person working in the family, she has to work and work and work and when does she look after her kids.
Point in case, the neighbour I started this thread with.
She must work every hour god sends starting at 4.30 in the morning. When does she get to look after her kids?
She didn't even notice that her fifteen year old daughter was pregnant until the child was rushed into hospital with a severe chest infection and the doctors informed the completely shocked mother that her child was 6 months pregnant!
This is a lady, who when not working has gone on holiday, leaving her kids at home on their own, with grandma and aunty poping in regularly to make sure they haven't killed eachother, been killed or burnt the house down.
She goes on holiday because she would probably go crazy if she didn't the hours she works. Which does not excuse her leaving the kids on their own.....but that's another story.
She remains poor, probably because of the taxes she pays and despite any tax credits she may receive. She cleans for a living.
In the 18 years I've known her she's been through more men friends than you can count.
She totally hates with a vengence the instituion of marriage.
So why are the poor poor? What will happen to this lady's children? As I said earlier, no education and already laden with children. Despite their mother's good example of working very hard, she has set a bad example in that she did not take care of them, enough. She was never there for them and now it's too late for the kids.
Society has forgotten that looking after children is also a full time job. Is it only a full time job when a stranger is doing it?
The problem in our area is that a great many very young girls are pregnant or have babys and they're not necessarily good mums either. In fact some of them are bloody rubbish.
Point in case, a little boy in my daughters class. His mum must be about twenty, and has a baby, unmarried, no obvious partner and very anorexic. She doesn't speak enough to the little boy for him to have developed good enough speech. He tries to talk to her and she just ignores him. Teachers discovered that the only meal this poor child receives is his free school dinner and he says his mum never gives him anything to eat when he goes home after school.
Should teenagers be encouraged to have children with free state handouts. Never! No money would soon cut the UKs teen pregnancy rate right down.
I think the problem is that benefit levels are not progressive because of the 'top up' nature of it. ie. at certain levels you don't gain anything by getting a job and working extra.
If people always gained by earning then it would be an incentive. Also, people get far too much and it's both a tax drain on those who do try and work and earn their way (55% of taxes are paid by 15% of middle earners).
The welfare state should be a safety net, not a long-term way of life.
Should teenagers be encouraged to have children with free state handouts. Never! No money would soon cut the UKs teen pregnancy rate right down.
Yes, it amazes me that people claim that the free handouts and houses don't affect people's lifestyle and decisions.
Anytime you pay £5bn into 'something' you will effect the way people behave.
The welfare state should be a safety net, not a long-term way of life
Good point Simon....and thats exactly what it should be...(safety net) instead of money for lazy freeloaders.
DB74
