5 Million British children face poverty because of welfare reforms

[tzijlstra]

Re my bolds.

 

1.The definition of arbitrary is..."Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

2.Now that is arbitrary. I say that based on the fact that many people are not managing and the number of such people is increasing on a daily basis!

You can sit in your ivory tower and write this off as "people making bad decisions" as much as you like but the truth is out there!

 

Saying, "Without wanting to belittle them," in reference to your parents and then doing precisely that gets you no respect from me.

 

The government of the day has a moral duty to tend to the needs of society as a whole. What price "One Nation" and "We are all in it together" under your philosophy. Would you just be content to say devil take the hindmost and let the poorest suffer whilst you look the other way?

 

Re. Arbitrary - it is arbitrary, it is based on some statistician deciding that this is poverty (60% of median). How do you explain the stories that it is increasingly working people that rely on food banks?

 

Re, my parents - I grew up in a warm and loving household with the unfortunate factor that my parents were always rubbish with money and still are. They will be the first to admit to that (and have done to me in the past).

 

Re. the role of the government, that is a philosophical difference between you and me. In my opinion a government has the duty to enable opportunity for people to progress in life, not a duty to care for those who can but don't seek that progress. I'd much rather see a government that ensures those with low incomes are not encumbered in tax than that it maintains an elaborate system to compensate them with benefits taking away their responsibilities and choices.

[Lotusflower]

Re. Arbitrary - it is arbitrary, it is based on some statistician deciding that this is poverty (60% of median). How do you explain the stories that it is increasingly working people that rely on food banks?

 

Re, my parents - I grew up in a warm and loving household with the unfortunate factor that my parents were always rubbish with money and still are. They will be the first to admit to that (and have done to me in the past).

 

Re. the role of the government, that is a philosophical difference between you and me. In my opinion a government has the duty to enable opportunity for people to progress in life, not a duty to care for those who can but don't seek that progress. I'd much rather see a government that ensures those with low incomes are not encumbered in tax than that it maintains an elaborate system to compensate them with benefits taking away their responsibilities and choices.

 

Re my bolds.

 

1. You say arbitrary and I beg to differ. We can agree to differ I trust.

Whether it is or isn't I'd like to hear your take on the reports of it being increasingly working people relying on food banks. If true is it because they are bad at money management?

 

2. In a fairer society those with low incomes should not be encumbered with tax burdens or the greater burden of working for a wage so low they cannot afford the basics of being able to afford fuel, food, clothing etc. The policies of the government of the day have a massive bearing in determining that fairness.

 

I apologise for any offence I may have caused with my remarks about your relationship with your parents earlier, it was absolutely unintended. I was angered by your apparent hypocrisy but understand better now.

 

You're right on the nail about our respective philosophies. We are poles apart!

[tzijlstra]

Re my bolds.

 

1. You say arbitrary and I beg to differ. We can agree to differ I trust.

Whether it is or isn't I'd like to hear your take on the reports of it being increasingly working people relying on food banks. If true is it because they are bad at money management?

 

Yes, it is - a combination of bad money management and the increasing desire to want more all the time. People in the past lived within their means, these days they don't. Is that the fault of the state or that of those people that don't?

 

2. In a fairer society those with low incomes should not be encumbered with tax burdens or the greater burden of working for a wage so low they cannot afford the basics of being able to afford fuel, food, clothing etc. The policies of the government of the day have a massive bearing in determining that fairness.

 

In my opinion fairness is determined by access to means to improve ones' situation, the policies of the government have indeed got a massive bearing on that - as they do on taking away individual responsibilities. I don't think it is fair that kids are born to teenage mums who never even considered the possibility they might get pregnant, with fathers who don't understand that school is actually important. I don't think it is fair that these fathers are quite happy to continue faffing about on benefits (now augmented with child benefit if they at least stayed with the mum) rather than realising they should work their backsides off to give the kids the best chance in life.

 

Let them fail so they learn about responsibilities and duties as well as rights.

 

I apologise for any offence I may have caused with my remarks about your relationship with your parents earlier, it was absolutely unintended. I was angered by your apparent hypocrisy but understand better now.

 

Apologies accepted.

 

You're right on the nail about our respective philosophies. We are poles apart!

 

And isn't it great that we can be!

[Lotusflower]

Yes, it is - a combination of bad money management and the increasing desire to want more all the time. People in the past lived within their means, these days they don't. Is that the fault of the state or that of those people that don't?

 

 

 

In my opinion fairness is determined by access to means to improve ones' situation, the policies of the government have indeed got a massive bearing on that - as they do on taking away individual responsibilities. I don't think it is fair that kids are born to teenage mums who never even considered the possibility they might get pregnant, with fathers who don't understand that school is actually important. I don't think it is fair that these fathers are quite happy to continue faffing about on benefits (now augmented with child benefit if they at least stayed with the mum) rather than realising they should work their backsides off to give the kids the best chance in life.

 

Let them fail so they learn about responsibilities and duties as well as rights.

 

 

 

Apologies accepted.

 

 

 

And isn't it great that we can be!

 

Re my bold.

 

It's what I most like about some members of the forum. Conducting oneself with integrity and honour during any discussion happens rarely these days on here and when it does my faith is restored.

 

Having said that just a couple of things I don't see us ever agreeing on. Firstly, I will never accept that those sections of society you have mentioned are in any way to blame for the austerity now put into place by a government who place the blame on the poor...as you do above.

The greedy bankers and speculators who gave credit to people who could never afford credit were to blame. Who bailed them out?...The taxpayer!

They lost nothing...it's a joke...and I am not laughing!

 

Secondly, People in the past did not live within their means...not all of them. To greater or lesser degrees there have always been poor people. Capitalism could not exist without poor people!

[tzijlstra]

Re my bold.

 

It's what I most like about some members of the forum. Conducting oneself with integrity and honour during any discussion happens rarely these days on here and when it does my faith is restored.

 

Having said that just a couple of things I don't see us ever agreeing on. Firstly, I will never accept that those sections of society you have mentioned are in any way to blame for the austerity now put into place by a government who place the blame on the poor...as you do above.

The greedy bankers and speculators who gave credit to people who could never afford credit were to blame. Who bailed them out?...The taxpayer!

They lost nothing...it's a joke...and I am not laughing!

 

Secondly, People in the past did not live within their means...not all of them. To greater or lesser degrees there have always been poor people. Capitalism could not exist without poor people!

 

Re. the blue part, I am not putting any blame on poor people for the austerity measures, you are quite wide of the mark there in fact. What I am saying is that we need to stop mollycoddling people because it makes them dependent on the state and dependency on the state, in my opinion and befitting my political philosophy, is useless and leaves people vulnerable once the state is in trouble financially, as it is now.

 

Regarding your second point: Yes, there always have been and always will be poor people and before the state looked after them, they did themselves and at least that way they had a sense of purpose and fulfilment in life - if they screwed up, they were the ones carrying the consequences, not the folk that finished their education and work hard just to see 40% of their income (UK tax pressure in 2014) disappear down the governments' deep pockets.

 

Again, we have rather different philosophies!

[Lotusflower]

Re. the blue part, I am not putting any blame on poor people for the austerity measures, you are quite wide of the mark there in fact. What I am saying is that we need to stop mollycoddling people because it makes them dependent on the state and dependency on the state, in my opinion and befitting my political philosophy, is useless and leaves people vulnerable once the state is in trouble financially, as it is now.

 

Regarding your second point: Yes, there always have been and always will be poor people and before the state looked after them, they did themselves and at least that way they had a sense of purpose and fulfilment in life - if they screwed up, they were the ones carrying the consequences, not the folk that finished their education and work hard just to see 40% of their income (UK tax pressure in 2014) disappear down the governments' deep pockets.

 

Again, we have rather different philosophies!

 

This is very much a moot point! The squeezed middle class and those at the bottom end of society's echelons are certainly in trouble. The people at the top just keep getting richer, a fact which is practically undeniable.

I will add that I cringe when I hear the suggestion...even the merest hint of it...that offering a helping hand to someone in need engenders a culture of dependency. I find it sordid in the extreme!

 

As we have both agreed our political philosophies resemble chalk and cheese.

I think we've reached the point where we've both made our views known to the extent that there is nothing more to say.

[SportsTrophy]

I have been in contact with a friend who is unemployed and through no fault of their own ever likely to get a job. They have received benefit sanctions by not finding enough jobs with a supposed average application of 20 per day.

 

Now that the sanction is in place they are no longer in a position to look for work, I have let them use my computers for job search but I had to ask if they have cut your money for not looking, what are you looking for now, you are not getting anything for it?

 

Sanctions are creating an invisible undercurrent of petty crime and needless suffering. Is this from the same think tank that created the bedroom tax? Some ministers have finally clicked that council tenants have suffered needlessly when they are in no position to be able to move to single bedroom property.

[Se7enhills]

Thats two very good points!

 

Both Sanctions and the bedroom thingy (its not a tax) are particularly harsh and vindictive measures. There just isnt the number of sinlge bedroom properties avaialable, and the DWP seem to insist that the only "correct" way to find a job is through their idiotic Universal Jobsearch attempt at a website.

[Mecky]

Thats two very good points!

 

Both Sanctions and the bedroom thingy (its not a tax) are particularly harsh and vindictive measures. There just isnt the number of sinlge bedroom properties avaialable, and the DWP seem to insist that the only "correct" way to find a job is through their idiotic Universal Jobsearch attempt at a website.

 

The government knows that and that's why they implemented the Bedroom Tax - They know most people had no chance of meeting the criteria and attempted to justify the measure by saying it saves money and houses more people.

[gluedtopc]

All a load of stupid Leftie drivel