"I've paid into the system!"

[ubermaus]

The idea that the state should be there as a safety net has long gone, with too many people seeing it as a provider of entitlement.

With a growing and aging population that is simply not sustainable so at some point someone is going to have to make difficult decisions about who gets what. And who goes without.

 

With 60bn of cuts to come. That sounds about right. Cost cutting not helping people will be the mantra of this govt.

 

---------- Post added 11-05-2015 at 14:09 ----------

 

How many people are long term claimants with little/no intention of ever working?

 

For sure some. How do you filter out the needy from the idle tho?

 

---------- Post added 11-05-2015 at 14:10 ----------

 

Surely one system for all is more practical and easier/ cheaper to administrate.

Edited May 11, 2015 by ubermaus

[Obelix]

Picked this up in another thread and thought it was worthy making a new thread about:

 

"I paid into the system, so I should get something back".

 

I've noticed it ever since I moved here, people really do feel entitled to public money, whether it is the NHS, benefits or pensions, but if that is the case, shouldn't people who paid more into the system be getting more out of it?

 

Certainly the case with pensions, if you dont have enough years of contributions you will get a reduced pension. I don't see that as being unreasonable.

[Cyclone]

Numbers are lower than most people will estimate though when asked. It's a tiny problem, which is being addressed at the expense of ignoring much more important problems.

[tzijlstra]

Well, this took off a bit whilst I was out

 

In my view the only entitlement a person has is that to themselves and their loved ones. A system whereby one can be entitled to whatever the state is willing to provide has to be a bad system: Speak to a Greek person.

 

And again I pose the question, if paying into the system entitles you to anything, should those that pay most into the system be entitled to more? It's an interesting political philosophy debate I suppose with those adhering to socialist principles feeling that entitlement and reliance on state should be encouraged and those with liberalist principles the opposite.

[Cyclone]

Entitlement just means that you qualify for it (whatever IT is) under the rules that are set.

 

I don't think "You have an entitlement to yourself" actually makes any sense...

 

I wouldn't expect socialists to encourage reliance on the state, they just expect the state to be there when it's needed. And I'm not sure that being liberal (or libertarian) would alter that perception tbh.

[ubermaus]

Well, this took off a bit whilst I was out

 

In my view the only entitlement a person has is that to themselves and their loved ones. A system whereby one can be entitled to whatever the state is willing to provide has to be a bad system: Speak to a Greek person.

 

And again I pose the question, if paying into the system entitles you to anything, should those that pay most into the system be entitled to more? It's an interesting political philosophy debate I suppose with those adhering to socialist principles feeling that entitlement and reliance on state should be encouraged and those with liberalist principles the opposite.

 

That's a libertarian view. Unfortunately or fortunately we are not America. Seems what you are essentially arguing for is paid healthcare and paid education. A reduction to a 'small state' with little interference.

With this government you may more or less, get your wish..

[Chris_Sleeps]

A system whereby one can be entitled to whatever the state is willing to provide has to be a bad system: Speak to a Greek person.

A legal entitlement is very different to a moral one. Not all welfare systems are equal to the Greek model.

 

The most generous welfare systems seem to be built on a concept of "unemployment insurance" - a level of contribution brings in return a proportion of your salary during unemployment. In Germany this can be around 60%, in Scandinavian countries it can be much higher than this. Following a year, this drops to a lower amount.

 

Contrast that to Britain, where no matter how long you have worked, or paid in, you receive the same measly sum of around £73 a week. If you have any savings, this ends after 6 months.

 

Britain is still in need of a decent welfare reform.

[ubermaus]

Entitlement just means that you qualify for it (whatever IT is) under the rules that are set.

 

I don't think "You have an entitlement to yourself" actually makes any sense...

 

I wouldn't expect socialists to encourage reliance on the state, they just expect the state to be there when it's needed. And I'm not sure that being liberal (or libertarian) would alter that perception tbh.

 

Firstly all these left / right ideologies, are just man made constructs..not absolutes, there is always a new way to approach how we do things now and in the future.

 

Agreed on what you say. I don't think many people consider themselves as pushing hard the socialist agenda or accepting a reliance on the state, rather we vote somewhere in the middle ground, understand what the entitlements are and then just get on with it.

 

To that extent, 'getting what you are entitled to' does not exist in the moral sphere. e.g. You are fully within your rights to not accept benefits on moral grounds (or whatever reason) but you are not entitled to tell other people what they should or shouldnt claim or what they are entitled to, on moral grounds, unless of course they are fiddling welfare or doing something immoral.

 

Of course everybody has an opinion. Some might think 16 kids on welfare is wrong, but they are still entitled to benefits under the current system. There's a line somewhere. And that's why we need effective welfare reform which protects welfare funds for those who need it most.

Edited May 11, 2015 by ubermaus
....

[L00b]

There's a line somewhere. And that's why we need effective welfare reform which protects welfare funds for those who need it most.

The problem is that 'those who need it the most' can vary quite dramatically in terms of requirements, so much in £s as in infrastructure, so much in direct £s as in indirect £s, and over time.

 

At the scale of the country, and the scale of variety in the above within the country, there simply can't be any magic bullet.

 

There is little doubt that 'those who need it most' can be categorised, with prioritisation based on e.g. capacity to sustain oneself (which would make the severely disabled (from birth/later on) and kids (orphans/placed into care/etc.) top of the list, and as well they should)...but sooner or later, as you do down the ramifications and sub-sub-sub categories, the exercise is going to turn into a labyrinthine oil refinery-alike system riddled with exceptions-by-case, and result in the same confusing and wasting mess as currently.

[ubermaus]

The problem is that 'those who need it the most' can vary quite dramatically in terms of requirements, so much in £s as in infrastructure, so much in direct £s as in indirect £s, and over time.

 

At the scale of the country, and the scale of variety in the above within the country, there simply can't be any magic bullet.

 

There is little doubt that 'those who need it most' can be categorised, with prioritisation based on e.g. capacity to sustain oneself (which would make the severely disabled (from birth/later on) and kids (orphans/placed into care/etc.) top of the list, and as well they should)...but sooner or later, as you do down the ramifications and sub-sub-sub categories, the exercise is going to turn into a labyrinthine oil refinery-alike system riddled with exceptions-by-case, and result in the same confusing and wasting mess as currently.

 

All the more case to ring fence disabled benefits and the like and unify all other benefits.

In theory this IDS type universal benefit might work. Don't know too much about the ins and outs, but in 'theory' it sounds much easier to navigate and administer.