John Humphrys - Future State of Welfare BBC 2/HD

[MartyPubes]

otolith said:

Perhaps people ought to be able to opt out of paying into the state unemployment insurance system if they can demonstrate that they have taken out adequate private cover - I reckon what I pay in tax towards the benefit safety net would get me a much better return than the state system offers, should I ever need to claim on it...

That's not fair. You don't NEED that money.

[otolith]

MartyPubes said:

otolith said:

Perhaps people ought to be able to opt out of paying into the state unemployment insurance system if they can demonstrate that they have taken out adequate private cover - I reckon what I pay in tax towards the benefit safety net would get me a much better return than the state system offers, should I ever need to claim on it...

That's not fair. You don't NEED that money.

That's OK, it wouldn't be The State's money, it would be from a private insurance scheme and therefore nobody's business but my own and perfectly fair

[MartyPubes]

otolith said:

MartyPubes said:

otolith said:

Perhaps people ought to be able to opt out of paying into the state unemployment insurance system if they can demonstrate that they have taken out adequate private cover - I reckon what I pay in tax towards the benefit safety net would get me a much better return than the state system offers, should I ever need to claim on it...

That's not fair. You don't NEED that money.

That's OK, it wouldn't be The State's money, it would be from a private insurance scheme and therefore nobody's business but my own and perfectly fair

That's not fair either. Owning your own home and having utility bills should come with the risk that if you're unemployed for a period of more than a month or two you should have to lose it all- regardless of any contributions you may have made to a scheme to provide assistance to those out of work...

[martin84]

Sticks said:

Got fed up with reasoning then?

I didnt see what else i was meant to say which i hadnt already said about 12 times. It says a lot that one off the cuff remark now prompts the PH sillyfarm to come out in force purposely missing the point with bizarre comments.

RHY64E said:

If it makes you feel any better, your highest wage will be about half my 2011 tax bill, but I'm not bitter.

I cant see how anybody on that sort of money has the right to feel bitter about anything. I wouldnt know what to do with it all (in fact i didnt really know what to do with 36 tbh). Rich people moaning about paying tax really does get on my nerves. Maybe we value money differently but anything over 25k is just mere numbers to me.

MartyPubes said:

I'm sure the OP appreciates your contribution, and doesn't resent the fact that you are able to provide a lifestyle for yourself and any family you may have which he is incapable of providing for himself.

We cant all be rich toffs and pay £72,000 a year tax you know (quite how the state could afford to give it back if you lost your job i have no idea). I suppose you view everybody in a lower paid position as you as being 'incapable' of anything better.

MartyPubes said:

That's not fair either. Owning your own home and having utility bills should come with the risk that if you're unemployed for a period of more than a month or two you should have to lose it all- regardless of any contributions you may have made to a scheme to provide assistance to those out of work...

I never said that, i said its not the states job to bail you out. If you were paying it into a private scheme which was there for the sole purpose of protecting your income and lifestyle in such a situation then its only right that you should receive that. It wouldnt be state funds and private organisations can put their money where they wish.

This is where you're being silly (and you know it) you know full well i was saying its not the state's job to subsidise middle income earners, i did not say someone who's earned a lot of money should be forced to lose everything in some bitter vindictive attack.

What has been a well reasoned, informed, interesting debate has now been dragged down into the inevitable PH class and earnings war. How fun.

[cymtriks]

martin84 said:

cymtriks said:

Expensive, time consuming, wasteful, bureaucratic and probably saving less than if it was abolished.

The poverty trap and all the anomalies created by means testing are far more damaging to society than a tiny number of well off people claiming a bit more for a short time.

If we're going to start putting a price on doing the right thing and adjust accordingly we'll decide its too expensive to send people to Prison for murder so we just wont bother.

Another irrelevant comment, another straw man argument.

The right thing to do is to have a benefit system that actually aims to produce some benefits, for both individuals and for society.

Means testing has problems that seriously limit its ability to do this.

I would therefore argue that less means testing is the right thing to do and that wasting money on excessive bureaucracy just to make the point that person A is more or less needy than person B is actually putting a very big price on doing the right thing.

martin84 said:

cymtriks said:

Pay more in, get more out if you need it. Why is this so abhorent?

Again we come back to our definitions of need which appear to be in contrast to each other.

It isn't just need. It is also fairness, which seems to be where we actually have a clear difference. Also pragmatism, efficiency and reducing beauraucracy.

martin84 said:

cymtriks said:

Surely it is best for everyone if contributors keep contributing.

Not if in times of non-contributions we throw extra money back at them. Net result = no change.

Hardly anyone would claim for long enough to completely negate their contributions given the levels of likely payouts and assuming current levels of tax.

Keeping contributors contributing is the sensible thing to do for everyone.

martin84 said:

cymtriks said:

Directly proportional to contributions for duration of JSA
Afterwards as everyone else

Still no numbers in there so i'll do some for you. What about a system where (savings permitted, perhaps a higher threshold) if made unemployed you would receive 50% of your contributions back in installments over 6 months before dropping down to base rate JSA for 6 months and then nothing after that. Is that the kind of thing you're on about?

Yes, something similar to that.

Though to be honest, given a blank slate, I'd be thinking more along the lines of a basic income for everyone, some contribution related benefits and some workfare or compulsory 9-5 job club.

[MartyPubes]

martin84 said:

I never said that, i said its not the states job to bail you out.

But you do think that. You think the state should give you enough money to live a 'working class' lifestyle, just not a middle class one. As I said previously it all depends on what you think unemployment benefits should be for. I wouldn't morally object to a higher earner, who paid more in, receiving more out should they need to, if it means their life wouldn't collapse whilst they found another job.

In this sense the current JSA is not fit for the purpose, it doesn't provide a crutch for people until they get back on their feet. The current system provides a working class level of income for everyone, seemingly indefinitely.

It's going to change, and I have no doubt we can't afford to make it change into the scheme I feel is appropriate, but that doesn't mean that I morally object to it in the way you seem to.


Edit: OP, I just can't get this image out of my head of you keying your neighbour's new car which he 'doesn't need'.

Edited by MartyPubes on Sunday 30th October 22:01

[martin84]

cymtrik said:

The right thing to do is to have a benefit system that actually aims to produce some benefits, for both individuals and for society.

Means testing has problems that seriously limit its ability to do this.

I'd agree the current setup costs a lot to impliment the means testing but i dont agree that means testing as a principle is a bad thing.

cymtrik said:

I would therefore argue that less means testing is the right thing to do and that wasting money on excessive bureaucracy just to make the point that person A is more or less needy than person B is actually putting a very big price on doing the right thing.

I dont feel we should resort to doing the wrong thing just because its cheap.

cymtrik said:

Hardly anyone would claim for long enough to completely negate their contributions given the levels of likely payouts and assuming current levels of tax.

Hardly anyone isnt good enough. It needs to be nobody. You're still working on the assumption that the State has the will (and the money) to essentially use each persons taxes as a piggy bank for when the individual needs it back.

MartyPubes said:

But you do think that. You think the state should give you enough money to live a 'working class' lifestyle, just not a middle class one.

But you're saying the benefit system should enable people to live a middle class lifestyle? The Daily Mail believes it already does.

MartyPubes said:

As I said previously it all depends on what you think unemployment benefits should be for.

And as ive said previously the benefits should be there to help people who cant help themselves. To provide the basic core level of very basic living to prevent them having to live in a forest in a tent and go through bins for food. If we have to abolish national insurance, merge it with a new tax system and rename unemployment benefits as something else to stamp out arguments of 'entitlement' then so be it.

MartyPubes said:

I wouldn't morally object to a higher earner, who paid more in, receiving more out should they need to, if it means their life wouldn't collapse whilst they found another job.

Again we come back to that critical word 'need.' When it sounds more like 'want' and have 'sense of entitlement to' rather than need.

There's a critical point you've missed. You say the system should 'give people a crutch to get back on their feet' but the balancing act comes into play when you realise you dont want to pay these people too much because that disencourages them to go back to work (and to therefore contribute). You pay middle income earners a healthy chunk of their former salary for 12 months then where is their incentive to go to work in that 12 months? If you think the human brain and nature takes on a different form in the middle class and that same sense of opportunism which infests the feckless underclass doesnt exist in the middle class you're sadly mistaken.

How do we 'provide people with a crutch to get back on their feet' while also pushing them to get off the welfare bill as soon as possible when you're paying them close to what they used to have to work for? In other words its the same issue we're talking about already, when people say 'why should i bother working?' when the state pays them a comparible income anyway. You're just advocating moving the same problem up a class.

MartyPubes said:

OP, I just can't get this image out of my head of you keying your neighbour's new car which he 'doesn't need'.

What image you choose to have in your head is up to you but i have no objection to people buying rubbish they dont need if they can afford it. I would key it if the state had to fund his shiny new car fresh from the Audi dealership so as he didnt have to change his lifestyle.

It seems because i dont support people with money getting extra benefits or middle classes being subsidised to protect them that im some sort of resentful, evil socialist with a vendetta against rich people

Edited by martin84 on Sunday 30th October 22:40

[MartyPubes]

martin84 said:

I would key it if the state had to fund his shiny new car fresh from the Audi dealership so as he didnt have to change his lifestyle.

Am I morally ok to damage things that working class/unemployed people have got through unemployment/other benefits that I've paid for?

Edited by MartyPubes on Sunday 30th October 22:49

[martin84]

MartyPubes said:

Am I morally ok to damage things that working class/unemployed people have got through unemployment/other benefits that I've paid for?

No, i was trying to be funny. Obviously didnt work.

Although middle class people absailing up council flat walls to vandalise Sky dishes is something i think we'd all be interested in seeing! Polo stick rather than baseball bat etc...

[greygoose]

martin84 said:

Although middle class people absailing up council flat walls to vandalise Sky dishes is something i think we'd all be interested in seeing! Polo stick rather than baseball bat etc...

I'd be interested to see any class of person abseiling up.