How many ways to fix a broken economy?

[AJS-]

Don said:

You can't scrap "benefits".

The system is supposed to be there to help people when they lose their job to "manage" and to get another job. I actually WANT to pay tax so that this system is in place - maybe one day I will need it.

The long term unemployed are a different problem. We pay them benefits so they don't become desperate and sink into criminality...which is a problem none of us want.

Yes there are those who abuse the system and enjoy a "benefits lifestyle". Lets deal with that problem - not a valuable system that is in place for good reasons.

That was the idea. But it's the ability to have income (though not much) wihtout working that is actually leading people to criminality.

If you're happy to pay tax, why not insurance or a charity to help the genuinely needy?

From personal experience (I and both of my brothers have had spells of dossing at my parents place basically because it was comfortable) but what always shoved us out of the door to work was my mother's nagging insistence, rising after a few weeks to totalitarian bullying to make me go and get a job. A mother can do taht, family can do that, friends can do that but for a government to do that requires the government to be nagging and ultimately totalitarian. I'd say we're at the tail end of nagging now, and you don't need to talk to many people left or right to hear ideas that are truly totalitarian.

Frankly I'd rather rely on my friends and family for support, and take my chances with starving should they withold it, than live under a government that has the powers my mother has!

I know not everyone has the luxury of indulgent family, or friends who are in a position to help, however I really don't believe anyone need starve or be truly destitute in the UK if we were to simply scrap benefits entirely, and the positive results of doing so would be immense in terms of lower taxes, lower crime and a society where people's decent impulse to support those who are down on their luck is expressed at an individual level as opposed to via a remote and self serving bureaucracy that ultimately leads to resentment and hostility from both sides.

[theaxe]

raf_gti said:

Would you say that those on benefits for a certain amount of time should be forced to live a 'prescribed' life by the Govt?

ie food from Farmfoods, clothing from Primark and an allocation of 20 cigs a month and a 6 pack of Super.

It would give them everything they need for living and at the same time encourage them to better themselves without actually punishing them.

Maybe but I'd rather approach it from the angle of getting those on long-term benefits to contribute in some way for the money they get.

Edit to add: Thanks to the FT (registration required) you can play with the budget yourself. Here's a work in progress:

Edited by theaxe on Wednesday 28th April 13:20

[Futuo]

jules_s said:

I posted that because I'm getting fed up with people on here posting scatter gun style that the UK debt is due to the government public spending whilst glibly ignoring the bank buy out.

We'll get the bank money back with profit, tax payer's money wasted on non jobs within the public sector is just that, money wasted.

fbrs said:

so anyone think jules will actually reply or just keep repeating the same drivel on the next thread?

Why break a habit of a lifetime?

Don said:

You can't scrap "benefits".

The system is supposed to be there to help people when they lose their job to "manage" and to get another job. I actually WANT to pay tax so that this system is in place - maybe one day I will need it.

The long term unemployed are a different problem. We pay them benefits so they don't become desperate and sink into criminality...which is a problem none of us want.

Yes there are those who abuse the system and enjoy a "benefits lifestyle". Lets deal with that problem - not a valuable system that is in place for good reasons.

What's wrong with vouchers instead of cash, vouchers that can be exchanged for food, clothes and not fags, trainers, booze and the like.

But of course the do-gooders would moan it's against their human rights, but that's the general idea as an incentive to actually work for a living rather than expect hand outs.

[rypt]

theaxe said:

raf_gti said:

Would you say that those on benefits for a certain amount of time should be forced to live a 'prescribed' life by the Govt?

ie food from Farmfoods, clothing from Primark and an allocation of 20 cigs a month and a 6 pack of Super.

It would give them everything they need for living and at the same time encourage them to better themselves without actually punishing them.

Maybe but I'd rather approach it from the angle of getting those on long-term benefits to contribute in some way for the money they get.

Edit to add: Thanks to the FT (registration required) you can play with the budget yourself. Here's a work in progress:

Edited by theaxe on Wednesday 28th April 13:20

Why is the target 51bn, our deficit is 150bn...