Jump to content

"Future of the Welfare State" with John Humphrys


Recommended Posts

The bit that really annoyed me was the woman complaining about "why should she work all day at minimum wage".

Answer; because that's all you're going to be worth love and you'd get less than that if it were allowed.

 

She went on to say she'd be worse off. Translation - she gets paid more now to do nothing than a working person. She then complained about not getting enough Child Benefit.

 

It gets me so mad :rant:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Benefits should be a security blanket and help for the genuinely needy. You shouldn't have to pay tax till you earn say 12k to make working pay better then benefits.

 

 

Unemployment benefits should be paid in stamps to ensure it is spent on necessities such as food, housing, clothing etc. and should not be able to be used on alcohol/cigarettes/drugs.

 

Child benefits should be paid for first 2 children, the rest after that should not count towards any increase in benefits. It's a lifestyle choice these days, and if you can't afford to have children then I am not happy to support them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would the US model work here; it may well be around the corner in one form or another.

 

Is the US economy a roaring success at the moment? Didn't it cause a global recession because homes were mis-sold to low-paid people who couldn't really afford them? Why would it be a good idea for it to work here? So we could cause the next global recession?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unemployment benefits should be paid in stamps to ensure it is spent on necessities such as food, housing, clothing etc. and should not be able to be used on alcohol/cigarettes/drugs.

 

Look at the mess caused by housing benefit. That guy was getting £2300 a month to be paid unto his landlord. His landlord was profiting massively at the expense of everyone else.

 

The working man is priced out of renting and buying, ends up claiming himself.

 

Far better to give a man £2300 a month cash, and let him choose how much he wants to spend upon housing.

 

When you start earmarking it for certain things you distort the price of those things for everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the US economy a roaring success at the moment? Didn't it cause a global recession because homes were mis-sold to low-paid people who couldn't really afford them? Why would it be a good idea for it to work here? So we could cause the next global recession?
I believe you'll find this particular problem, or issue, wasn't confined to the US at all, which is why the recession went global so quickly ;)

 

EDIT...as for the recession, it wasn't caused so much by this particular problem, but by the fact that financial organisations started trading such mortgages like barrels of oils and ounces of gold, to the point where they couldn't tell what was what and who owed what to whom. Same symptoms and outcome as 1929, really.

 

What SHOULD have been done as early as 2008, was a concerted "tabula rasa" by the G20. Consolidate the balance sheets of everyone to know exactly what the state of things was, then wipe the slates clean, and maybe cut some financiers' heads for PR (those who started the whole toxic trading thing). And on we'd have continued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the US economy a roaring success at the moment? Didn't it cause a global recession because homes were mis-sold to low-paid people who couldn't really afford them? Why would it be a good idea for it to work here? So we could cause the next global recession?

 

They have homeless people and are demolishing decent houses due to them being 'too cheap'.

 

It's a complete joke.

 

They demolish them to force up the price. Complete lunancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the mess caused by housing benefit. That guy was getting £2300 a month to be paid unto his landlord. His landlord was profiting massively at the expense of everyone else.

 

The working man is priced out of renting and buying, ends up claiming himself.

 

Far better to give a man £2300 a month cash, and let him choose how much he wants to spend upon housing.

 

When you start earmarking it for certain things you distort the price of those things for everyone else.

 

What incentive would someone have to rent out a property at a loss?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.