Politics and personal responsibility
Discussion
Should people be responsible for themselves? To strive in education, find work, eat healthily, excercise, not commit crimes and raise/feed their children?
It seems to me like a large portion of politics is advocating for the government to be responsible for people's life choices.
Examples:
1) Somebody has chosen to take drugs or drink alcohol. They are now homeless. Governments fault or poor life choices?
2) A woman has chosen to have 5 children yet did not make provision for adequately feeding or clothing them. Governments fault or poor life choices?
3) A large number of people have chosen to eat too much or not excercise enough. They are obese and have multiple complex health conditions, underpinned by their choices. Governments fault?
In a nutshell - why do we live in a society where people aren't berated for their poor life choices? Why do we not hold them up as examples of how "not to do things" for future generations?
It seems to me like a large portion of politics is advocating for the government to be responsible for people's life choices.
Examples:
1) Somebody has chosen to take drugs or drink alcohol. They are now homeless. Governments fault or poor life choices?
2) A woman has chosen to have 5 children yet did not make provision for adequately feeding or clothing them. Governments fault or poor life choices?
3) A large number of people have chosen to eat too much or not excercise enough. They are obese and have multiple complex health conditions, underpinned by their choices. Governments fault?
In a nutshell - why do we live in a society where people aren't berated for their poor life choices? Why do we not hold them up as examples of how "not to do things" for future generations?
Trackdayer said:
....
In a nutshell - why do we live in a society where people aren't berated for their poor life choices? Why do we not hold them up as examples of how "not to do things" for future generations?
We used to.In a nutshell - why do we live in a society where people aren't berated for their poor life choices? Why do we not hold them up as examples of how "not to do things" for future generations?
Parents should be taking ultimate responsibility for this, bu the problem has "crept" up on us over a couple of decades to the point where too many parents don't get it either. "Big govt" (IMO broadly "Labour") has a habit of doing this. And it has the advantage (if you're a politician) of making the proles feel they *need* you and your handouts.
Indeed, prompted by the link on the Rashford thread (to the Spectator article showing that two people in London, one earning 70k and one existing solely from benefits, are only separated by £140) I just tried a benefits calculator and the amount I could get is shocking. Why would anyone bother to work?
I don’t think it’s the states role to feed our kids, unless it’s an absolute last resort. I see the states role as one of generating an economy where one can find well paid work and provide for ones own existence.
I don’t think it’s the states role to feed our kids, unless it’s an absolute last resort. I see the states role as one of generating an economy where one can find well paid work and provide for ones own existence.
Randy Winkman said:
The OP said "people's life choices".
Yes - people should be responsible for those.
But loads of things that affect people aren't due to their choices. The government should do it's best to help with that.
This, it's not a binary choice.Yes - people should be responsible for those.
But loads of things that affect people aren't due to their choices. The government should do it's best to help with that.
People should be responsible for themselves but that doesn't mean that people who have hit hard times should be left to sink.
Also the idea that things like addiction are purely down to personal choice is embarrassingly ill informed.
valiant said:
Circumstances can change.
Your woman with 5 kids on benefits might have been married and bringing in a good income when something happens like the husband doing a runner or dying or experience a life changing disability where they can no longer support themselves.
This is a possibility that the system should cater for.Your woman with 5 kids on benefits might have been married and bringing in a good income when something happens like the husband doing a runner or dying or experience a life changing disability where they can no longer support themselves.
There is also the possibility that the woman has calculated the correct number of kids to maximise benefits income and is sitting on a sofa, smoking with 5 kids running wild who will never have a possibility or even interest in holding a job. The system should also cater for this.
Liokault said:
I just tried a benefits calculator and the amount I could get is shocking. Why would anyone bother to work?
I just tried, and as a couple we'd be getting £605 a month.That's if we had no savings - in reality we'd get nothing.
Not sure I'll be giving up work for that anytime soon.
How much do you consider 'shocking'?
ZedLeg said:
This, it's not a binary choice.
People should be responsible for themselves but that doesn't mean that people who have hit hard times should be left to sink.
Also the idea that things like addiction are purely down to personal choice is embarrassingly ill informed.
Exactly. The positioning of these as "lifestyle choices" is to misrepresent the truth on a massive scale.People should be responsible for themselves but that doesn't mean that people who have hit hard times should be left to sink.
Also the idea that things like addiction are purely down to personal choice is embarrassingly ill informed.
There will always be edge cases. But almost nobody chooses to be unemployed and live on benefits, whatever the Daily Mail tells you. Almost nobody chooses to be addicted to drugs (including alcohol). Almost nobody chooses to be fat, or to go to an underperforming school in a deprived area, or be born to parents who have no idea how to bring up kids - or, indeed, to be that parent who suddenly finds themselves responsible for a small child when they really didn't appreciate what that actually means.
Yes, of course, personal responsibility needs to be thing. But the mark of a civilised society is not how well-off the rich people are; it is how the underprivileged and those who need help are treated. And leaving them sink, as above, is the exact opposite of what needs to happen.
monthou said:
Liokault said:
I just tried a benefits calculator and the amount I could get is shocking. Why would anyone bother to work?
I just tried, and as a couple we'd be getting £605 a month.That's if we had no savings - in reality we'd get nothing.
Not sure I'll be giving up work for that anytime soon.
How much do you consider 'shocking'?
Liokault said:
monthou said:
Liokault said:
I just tried a benefits calculator and the amount I could get is shocking. Why would anyone bother to work?
I just tried, and as a couple we'd be getting £605 a month.That's if we had no savings - in reality we'd get nothing.
Not sure I'll be giving up work for that anytime soon.
How much do you consider 'shocking'?
Even if I was renting though we'd be living on £118 a week. That's for 2 of us.
£17 per day does not fund a champagne lifestyle.
Edited by monthou on Friday 8th October 11:18
While I am firmly in the camp of of you cant afford stuff work harder smarter the reality is there are not binary answers to these questions.
Take Mrs 5 kids, one hand it could be her and Mr 5 kids were doing fine then he dies suddenly she never worked and now cant be at work and afford care for 3 of the kids who are under 6 but prior to that all was fine as Mr 5 kids has a successful business that covered all their needs.
Or Mrs 5 kids could have had 5 Mr's who have all left, she herself never bothered to work in school or outside was more than happy to just take the social and get a big house paid for by the council and the next baby daddy.
And between those two there is a wholeoad of combinations.
If you want to change society then it needs to be a generational program and our governments are not geared for that so we end up with. Lower class who take an give nothing, an elite who keep there wealth with little trickle down and a wide middle who have to fund it but get f all in return.
We are not able to undo that in 5 years so if you hate it so much sadly you have to leave the UK
Take Mrs 5 kids, one hand it could be her and Mr 5 kids were doing fine then he dies suddenly she never worked and now cant be at work and afford care for 3 of the kids who are under 6 but prior to that all was fine as Mr 5 kids has a successful business that covered all their needs.
Or Mrs 5 kids could have had 5 Mr's who have all left, she herself never bothered to work in school or outside was more than happy to just take the social and get a big house paid for by the council and the next baby daddy.
And between those two there is a wholeoad of combinations.
If you want to change society then it needs to be a generational program and our governments are not geared for that so we end up with. Lower class who take an give nothing, an elite who keep there wealth with little trickle down and a wide middle who have to fund it but get f all in return.
We are not able to undo that in 5 years so if you hate it so much sadly you have to leave the UK
monthou said:
Liokault said:
I just tried a benefits calculator and the amount I could get is shocking. Why would anyone bother to work?
I just tried, and as a couple we'd be getting £605 a month.That's if we had no savings - in reality we'd get nothing.
Not sure I'll be giving up work for that anytime soon.
How much do you consider 'shocking'?
wfw14b said:
monthou said:
Liokault said:
I just tried a benefits calculator and the amount I could get is shocking. Why would anyone bother to work?
I just tried, and as a couple we'd be getting £605 a month.That's if we had no savings - in reality we'd get nothing.
Not sure I'll be giving up work for that anytime soon.
How much do you consider 'shocking'?
If you think £17 per day for a couple to live on is enticing then I'm genuinely sorry, your circumstances must be awful.
valiant said:
Circumstances can change.
Your woman with 5 kids on benefits might have been married and bringing in a good income when something happens like the husband doing a runner or dying or experience a life changing disability where they can no longer support themselves.
Two of these are valid.Your woman with 5 kids on benefits might have been married and bringing in a good income when something happens like the husband doing a runner or dying or experience a life changing disability where they can no longer support themselves.
The father doing a runner should not be a factor as he should still be covering his duties.
monthou said:
It isn't. It's £509 cash plus a council tax reduction.
If you think £17 per day for a couple to live on is enticing then I'm genuinely sorry, your circumstances must be awful.
I think you have done this incorrectly as someone posted above. Having worked in financial services for over a decade, dealing with many of these undesirables its a lot more lucrative for them to not work.If you think £17 per day for a couple to live on is enticing then I'm genuinely sorry, your circumstances must be awful.
Edited by wfw14b on Friday 8th October 11:42
Trackdayer said:
ZedLeg said:
Also the idea that things like addiction are purely down to personal choice is embarrassingly ill informed.
It's not. It's reality.How does somebody get addicted to heroin without choosing to take heroin?
Yes they’ve probably not been held down and made to take it but there’s obviously often other factors at play.
wfw14b said:
monthou said:
It isn't. It's £509 cash plus a council tax reduction.
If you think £17 per day for a couple to live on is enticing then I'm genuinely sorry, your circumstances must be awful.
I think you have done this incorrectly as someone posted above. Having worked in financial services for over a decade, dealing with many of these undesirables its a lot more lucrative to not work.If you think £17 per day for a couple to live on is enticing then I'm genuinely sorry, your circumstances must be awful.
If you have savings it goes down after £6K and if you have £16K you get nothing.
Feel free to check.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff