Should we have 21st century workhouses?
Discussion
OK, Victorian workhouses weren't by all accounts particularly nice places to be, but when you're being supported by charity or other peoples' taxes, should you really be entitled to luxury?
My thought is not to plunge single mothers and other elements of the population into humiliation, but rather to get the best balance for society. How would I do this?
1. Provision of social housing - If you can afford to pay the rent on a council house, then fine, you can have access to a council house. If you can't, then you get benefits for 6 months, but after that the burden on the taxpayer of keeping you in individual accomodation becomes too high, so you move into shared accomodation - the "workhouse". I am thinking halls or residence style here; private bedrooms, but shared communal areas.
2. You work for your money - You often hear "I can't get a job, because I can't afford the childcare". In a communal environment, childcare and work can be shared between the parents. It would in fact also provide a perfect environment for people to become qualified nursery nurses etc. Include a nursery service offered to the public at discounted rates (to reflect the taxpayers' money already funding the scheme) and everybody wins.
3. Balanced diets all round - Communal accomodation means you can provide cost-effective communal meals which ensure good nutrition for the kids.
4. Controlled spending - Few things make my hackles rise faster than a smoker on benefits! This is not an anti-smoking thing (although I am anti-smoking in general) but merely utter rage at the fact that anyone who is the recipient of my money, that I have paid through taxes, can be so selfish as to spend it on something so completely wasteful to society as smoking. By providing communal services for accomodation, eating, laundry etc, you can massively reduce the need for, and abuse of, actual cash to be paid out to people.
Of course, nobody would be forced to enter such an establishment. All you need to do to avoid it is to be able to pay your own way in the wider world. Is there anything so wrong with that?
My thought is not to plunge single mothers and other elements of the population into humiliation, but rather to get the best balance for society. How would I do this?
1. Provision of social housing - If you can afford to pay the rent on a council house, then fine, you can have access to a council house. If you can't, then you get benefits for 6 months, but after that the burden on the taxpayer of keeping you in individual accomodation becomes too high, so you move into shared accomodation - the "workhouse". I am thinking halls or residence style here; private bedrooms, but shared communal areas.
2. You work for your money - You often hear "I can't get a job, because I can't afford the childcare". In a communal environment, childcare and work can be shared between the parents. It would in fact also provide a perfect environment for people to become qualified nursery nurses etc. Include a nursery service offered to the public at discounted rates (to reflect the taxpayers' money already funding the scheme) and everybody wins.
3. Balanced diets all round - Communal accomodation means you can provide cost-effective communal meals which ensure good nutrition for the kids.
4. Controlled spending - Few things make my hackles rise faster than a smoker on benefits! This is not an anti-smoking thing (although I am anti-smoking in general) but merely utter rage at the fact that anyone who is the recipient of my money, that I have paid through taxes, can be so selfish as to spend it on something so completely wasteful to society as smoking. By providing communal services for accomodation, eating, laundry etc, you can massively reduce the need for, and abuse of, actual cash to be paid out to people.
Of course, nobody would be forced to enter such an establishment. All you need to do to avoid it is to be able to pay your own way in the wider world. Is there anything so wrong with that?
I agree entirely.
Languishing at home on benefits should not be an option. Living a lifestyle on benefits equivalent or better than a worker should not be an option either.
The state's only obligation at a most fundamental level should be shelter, food and clothing. Not Plasma TV's, cars, holidays and nice houses.
(my god, look how right wing I have become...
)
Languishing at home on benefits should not be an option. Living a lifestyle on benefits equivalent or better than a worker should not be an option either.
The state's only obligation at a most fundamental level should be shelter, food and clothing. Not Plasma TV's, cars, holidays and nice houses.
(my god, look how right wing I have become...
)
I forgot to add point 5. - Giving back to the community. Those not involved in the communal childcare could be out cleaning the streets, delivering meals on wheels to housebound pensioners, helping to renovate public spaces, etc... I for one would feel far happier about the way my taxes are spent if I could walk around my nicer, cleaner local area and see little signs saying "this area refurbished by the Epsom & Ewell shared housing association" or something similar.
Kermit power said:
OK, Victorian workhouses weren't by all accounts particularly nice places to be, but when you're being supported by charity or other peoples' taxes, should you really be entitled to luxury?
My thought is not to plunge single mothers and other elements of the population into humiliation, but rather to get the best balance for society. How would I do this?
1. Provision of social housing - If you can afford to pay the rent on a council house, then fine, you can have access to a council house. If you can't, then you get benefits for 6 months, but after that the burden on the taxpayer of keeping you in individual accomodation becomes too high, so you move into shared accomodation - the "workhouse". I am thinking halls or residence style here; private bedrooms, but shared communal areas.
2. You work for your money - You often hear "I can't get a job, because I can't afford the childcare". In a communal environment, childcare and work can be shared between the parents. It would in fact also provide a perfect environment for people to become qualified nursery nurses etc. Include a nursery service offered to the public at discounted rates (to reflect the taxpayers' money already funding the scheme) and everybody wins.
3. Balanced diets all round - Communal accomodation means you can provide cost-effective communal meals which ensure good nutrition for the kids.
4. Controlled spending - Few things make my hackles rise faster than a smoker on benefits! This is not an anti-smoking thing (although I am anti-smoking in general) but merely utter rage at the fact that anyone who is the recipient of my money, that I have paid through taxes, can be so selfish as to spend it on something so completely wasteful to society as smoking. By providing communal services for accomodation, eating, laundry etc, you can massively reduce the need for, and abuse of, actual cash to be paid out to people.
Of course, nobody would be forced to enter such an establishment. All you need to do to avoid it is to be able to pay your own way in the wider world. Is there anything so wrong with that?
My thought is not to plunge single mothers and other elements of the population into humiliation, but rather to get the best balance for society. How would I do this?
1. Provision of social housing - If you can afford to pay the rent on a council house, then fine, you can have access to a council house. If you can't, then you get benefits for 6 months, but after that the burden on the taxpayer of keeping you in individual accomodation becomes too high, so you move into shared accomodation - the "workhouse". I am thinking halls or residence style here; private bedrooms, but shared communal areas.
2. You work for your money - You often hear "I can't get a job, because I can't afford the childcare". In a communal environment, childcare and work can be shared between the parents. It would in fact also provide a perfect environment for people to become qualified nursery nurses etc. Include a nursery service offered to the public at discounted rates (to reflect the taxpayers' money already funding the scheme) and everybody wins.
3. Balanced diets all round - Communal accomodation means you can provide cost-effective communal meals which ensure good nutrition for the kids.
4. Controlled spending - Few things make my hackles rise faster than a smoker on benefits! This is not an anti-smoking thing (although I am anti-smoking in general) but merely utter rage at the fact that anyone who is the recipient of my money, that I have paid through taxes, can be so selfish as to spend it on something so completely wasteful to society as smoking. By providing communal services for accomodation, eating, laundry etc, you can massively reduce the need for, and abuse of, actual cash to be paid out to people.
Of course, nobody would be forced to enter such an establishment. All you need to do to avoid it is to be able to pay your own way in the wider world. Is there anything so wrong with that?
You have my vote
As far as I'm aware they already have hostel-type places for people that don't score enough "points" for a proper house; on the whole these are pretty horrible places as you basically end up with the über-chavs running riot, smashing up the communal areas, being loud and obnoxious, kind of what you'd expect really.
Probably time for taxpayer rant about why anyone so antisocial should be provided free/subsidised housing, but let's assume it's necessary for purposes of crime reduction/human rights/whatever.
That's the problem, you're effectively setting up a socialist microsociety using a large proportion of individuals unsuitable for a socialist environment - lazy, selfish, grabby and with no concept of the common good. (Please nobody miss my point and start going on about model council tenants, you know what I'm trying to get at here.) You'd need some way to stop the people on childcare duty from bunking off, the vandals from wrecking everything, and so on.
Then again that might work. As the worst people make the poorhouse less pleasant, those who can get out by any means possible would do so. Kind of shafts the people who are there through no fault of their own though.
What we need is a society where benefits are available, but living on them needlessly for an extended period of time is a significantly worse option than a minimum wage job.
Probably time for taxpayer rant about why anyone so antisocial should be provided free/subsidised housing, but let's assume it's necessary for purposes of crime reduction/human rights/whatever.
That's the problem, you're effectively setting up a socialist microsociety using a large proportion of individuals unsuitable for a socialist environment - lazy, selfish, grabby and with no concept of the common good. (Please nobody miss my point and start going on about model council tenants, you know what I'm trying to get at here.) You'd need some way to stop the people on childcare duty from bunking off, the vandals from wrecking everything, and so on.
Then again that might work. As the worst people make the poorhouse less pleasant, those who can get out by any means possible would do so. Kind of shafts the people who are there through no fault of their own though.
What we need is a society where benefits are available, but living on them needlessly for an extended period of time is a significantly worse option than a minimum wage job.
becca_viola said:
As an idea for people who are choosing to be dependant on the state, I think it's a great proposal.
To impose that kind of life on disabled or elderly people would IMO be obscene, though. Out of order to degrade people for something they cannot help.
To impose that kind of life on disabled or elderly people would IMO be obscene, though. Out of order to degrade people for something they cannot help.
Absolutely - the genuinely needy should be fully supported! Better than perhaps they are today.
I have absolutely no problem with that at all.
I was discussing a similar scheme to one of your points with my friends. Instead of unemployment benefits, why not issue "food stamps". You'd get a certain value of food tokens, a certain amount for toiletries etc. If you had a child you would additionally get tokens for baby products (nappies or whatever else babies eat). That way even the poorest would get what they need, but wouldn'tbe able to pick up their dole money then put it on the horses on the way home, maybe some fags, perhaps a couple of bottles of buckfast, and hey why not just feed the baby rice and spend the extra money to look after it on some scratchcards?
"But no!" cried my leftie friends, "that's humiliating for them!".
Get a
ing job then.
"But no!" cried my leftie friends, "that's humiliating for them!".
Get a
ing job then.anonymous said:
[redacted]
One of the things that does make me angry about the current status quo is that you have perfectly able-bodied people kicking back with taxpayer-supplied fags, booze and Sky TV, and utter idiots campaigning that it's not good enough, they should be able to afford new trainers, widescreen televisions and luxury cars - while pensioners can't even afford to heat their homes.
Graeme H said:
I was discussing a similar scheme to one of your points with my friends. Instead of unemployment benefits, why not issue "food stamps". You'd get a certain value of food tokens, a certain amount for toiletries etc. If you had a child you would additionally get tokens for baby products (nappies or whatever else babies eat). That way even the poorest would get what they need, but wouldn'tbe able to pick up their dole money then put it on the horses on the way home, maybe some fags, perhaps a couple of bottles of buckfast, and hey why not just feed the baby rice and spend the extra money to look after it on some scratchcards?
"But no!" cried my leftie friends, "that's humiliating for them!".
Get aing job then.
"But no!" cried my leftie friends, "that's humiliating for them!".
Get a
ing job then.It was tried with asylum seekers/refugees at some point and turned out to be pretty much unworkable, I think... abused by shops so much that people had difficulty getting food etc.
Timberwolf said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
One of the things that does make me angry about the current status quo is that you have perfectly able-bodied people kicking back with taxpayer-supplied fags, booze and Sky TV, and utter idiots campaigning that it's not good enough, they should be able to afford new trainers, widescreen televisions and luxury cars - while pensioners can't even afford to heat their homes.
Exactly. Similarly the charging rules on care support for disabled adults are such that if you are, say, quadriplegic and need 24 hour personal support, you'd currently need to be earning upwards of £45K to have more disposable income than you would on benefits and therefore not charged at all for a contribution to the support costs. It's terribly unfair and it's stopping a lot of people from working. Needs to be free IMO.
becca_viola said:
As an idea for people who are choosing to be dependant on the state, I think it's a great proposal.
To impose that kind of life on disabled or elderly people would IMO be obscene, though. Out of order to degrade people for something they cannot help.
To impose that kind of life on disabled or elderly people would IMO be obscene, though. Out of order to degrade people for something they cannot help.
I thought I had made an exception for those genuinely too ill or disabled to work in my original post. It seems I didn't. I agree with you completely on that. With regards to the elderly, I also agree so long as they have contributed sufficiently during their working life. Some of the current generation who look set to go through life scrounging off the state, well tough! Why should they get a pleasant state-funded retirement?
timmy33 said:
rich1231 said:
good idea.
On the isle of wight if poss.
so we can bomb the place when it kicks off.
On the isle of wight if poss.
so we can bomb the place when it kicks off.
Hmmmm sort of like "Escape from New York", yes I like the idea. With a large wall around it. And televised highlights.
as long as there is no snake pilsen Im all for the idea of work houses, i would be quite in favour of something similar for prisoners too so they could pay their way. I never really worked out what task they could do though. So a workhouse could cater for everyone it would have to be reasonably unskilled work like a factory environment. The trouble being that chineese subcontracting and low wages makes all their products alot cheaper so anything we made would be vastly overpriced which i cant help but think would be a bad thing. All that would happen is we would make piles of items that no one would buy. Maybe it would ned to work with tax breaks so we could counteract the high price of labour? or maybe im taking the thread too seriously.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff