L00b Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 This is where it is going wrong for the chancellor.No wronger or righter than before, as... 'Where is the fairness, we ask, for the shift-worker, leaving home in the dark hours of the early morning, who looks up at the closed blinds of their next door neighbour sleeping off a life on benefits? When we say we're all in this together, we speak for that worker. We speak for all those who want to work hard and get on.'...that's just the usual, this-conference-time-of-year, divisive piece - which is not the topic of this thread, is it? There is nothing inherently wrong with proposing to curtail certain benefits, which demonstrably engage some recipients into a vicious circle of state subsidy dependancy (breed more = get more, breed some more = get still more, rinse-repeat, with ever-diminishing returns for the kids-for-cash). Call it social reverse-engineering, as it's effectively returning 'society' to statu quo ante (don't breed them if you can't feed them)...with which there was nothing wrong (IMHO). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 No wronger or righter than before, as... ...that's just the usual, this-conference-time-of-year, divisive piece - which is not the topic of this thread, is it? There is nothing inherently wrong with proposing to curtail certain benefits, which demonstrably engage some recipients into a vicious circle of state subsidy dependancy (breed more = get more, breed some more = get still more, rinse-repeat, with ever-diminishing returns for the kids-for-cash). Call it social reverse-engineering, as it's effectively returning 'society' to statu quo ante (don't breed them if you can't feed them)...with which there was nothing wrong (IMHO). Nobody would disagree that certain groups need to be helped more than others. But while we are talking about getting rid of this cycle of dependency what exactly is Osborne doing to break it? I mean what is he really doing rather than talking? Explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Nobody would disagree that certain groups need to be helped more than others. But while we are talking about getting rid of this cycle of dependency what exactly is Osborne doing to break it? I mean what is he really doing rather than talking? Explain. Making a life on benefits less attractive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Making a life on benefits less attractive. Remember that for many people they have no option but to be on benefits, some long-term and some long-term. For the others I doubt it's the lifestyle that is attractive but more the lack of other rational options. It would be better if the chancellor had been pushing the idea of creating other options rather than using the language of the playground to demonise sections of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Nobody would disagree that certain groups need to be helped more than others. But while we are talking about getting rid of this cycle of dependency what exactly is Osborne doing to break it? I mean what is he really doing rather than talking? Explain. There's little point in creating options if people have the choice not to take the option. Capping benefits won't stop the "professional" claimers,and people with valid reasons to be on benefits or those trying to get off benefits won't be the once popping kids out,so it won't affect them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 There's little point in creating options if people have the choice not to take the option. Capping benefits won't stop the "professional" claimers,and people with valid reasons to be on benefits or those trying to get off benefits won't be the once popping kids out,so it won't affect them It depends whether you buy into the idea that most claimants are scroungers and whether you believe that most people when given a better option would refuse to take it. I would rather see us focus on making a better range of options rather than making the option that already sees millions of people living in crushing poverty even worse worse for them without providing alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Making a life on benefits less attractive. How about making working life look more attractive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 It depends whether you buy into the idea that most claimants are scroungers and whether you believe that most people when given a better option would refuse to take it. I would rather see us focus on making a better range of options rather than making the option that already sees millions of people living in crushing poverty even worse worse for them without providing alternatives. I don't buy into it - i'm intelligent enough to know that some people elect to be unemployed and have no ambition to work, they also know the state will support them procreating. Some of these people aren't in poverty - i probably have as little disposable income than they do but i don't have more kids 'cos i cant afford them based on my salary cap,the same should be true for the unemployed. Support is fair and just, endless top ups aren't imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Call it social reverse-engineering, as it's effectively returning 'society' to statu quo ante (don't breed them if you can't feed them)...with which there was nothing wrong (IMHO). but what if, at the point you breed them you can feed them and then a few years later you lose your job or your hours get cut and can no longer feed them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 but what if, at the point you breed them you can feed them and then a few years later you lose your job or your hours get cut and can no longer feed them? That isn't the point of the capping - the cap is to limit the resources of those out of work. The ones who get allegedly a "payrise" when they have kids whilst unemployed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.