I would be sorry to see this thread killed merely because of the response of a single difficult/dissenting person. Meanwhile, the UK economy, while not exactly thriving, is doing a fair bit better than it was. The initial threshold of paying tax is about to be raised to £10.5K. But no doubt there are still people struggling and quite what can be done about it I'm not at all sure. I dare say that anyone who is managing to keep their head above water can feel guilty about those who are not. But should we now institute a special public fund which everyone can subscribe to in order to help the very poor? There are surely charities which already cater for this (and I do actually contribute to some of them).
Meanwhile, let's continue to climb at least a little bit out of the hole which we've been in ...
I dare say that anyone who is managing to keep their head above water can feel guilty about those who are not.
Tony.
I would much rather people merely showed empathy. No one should feel guilty for their privileges but I would like to think that in a just and socially responsible world, those who can afford their dinner tonight can empathize with those who can't.
It is not about the poor blaming the rich, out of sheer repugnant jealousy, it is about people showing common decency to their fellow man. It is understanding, education, a basic sense to help someone who has fallen get back up.
Keeping your head above water is what everyone is trying to do. I would much rather see a society with a lifeboat sturdy enough to carry those who can't swim, than simply watch them struggle and sink. I'm afraid, as far as I am concerned, we are throwing the vulnerable out of a sinking ship and wondering why they are angry, at least the ship isn't sinking so fast.
You see a mouse trap
I see free cheese
And a ****ing challenge
I would much rather see a society with a lifeboat sturdy enough to carry those who can't swim, than simply watch them struggle and sink. I'm afraid, as far as I am concerned, we are throwing the vulnerable out of a sinking ship and wondering why they are angry, at least the ship isn't sinking so fast.
We already have that in the welfare state. However, some people are ruining it for everyone by willingly abusing the system.
A few people on benefits aren't the only ones abusing a system. What about politicians on top of their already bloated wages abusing the expenses system?
A few people on benefits aren't the only ones abusing a system. What about politicians on top of their already bloated wages abusing the expenses system?
I think there are a lot more people abusing the benefits system than there are MPs abusing the expenses. You also have to remember than MPs are paying into the system as well, whereas generational welfare dependents have not. Not to justify or excuse the MPs, of course.
I know I just don't like everyone blaming poorer people, not that anyone has, while MP's can seemingly get away with it unless caught out. I don't want to pay for some tit to keep his stables heated.
Well Shenanigans, we can call it empathy, sympathy or guilt, but it comes down to the same thing. Where I disagree is your suggestion that those who can afford to eat are enjoying "privileges"; these are actually people who've worked and succeeded in getting their heads above water, paying taxes along the way and contributing to the Welfare State (and much else). So, on reflection, I don't think they should feel guilty at all. Perhaps the government should, for failing to make the Welfare State so all-embracing that no-one falls off the end - but where does it stop? How much more of a proportion of GNP must the country spend on Welfare? As The One Who says, this is the system which is designed to help the genuinely needy - but there surely has to be some limit ...
And Enthused, I have to say that I think you are being unfair in describing MP's salaries as "bloated wages". They certainly earn more than many people doing more ordinary jobs, but they are actually doing much more (both in Parliament and in their constituencies) than most in ordinary jobs. Many of them could earn much more in, say, the City but their sense of vocation keeps them from doing so. Most of those involved in the expenses scandal were taking advantage of the then system which they thought allowed them to "top up" the salaries which they thought inadequate and which the public would not accept being increased. This was put to bed in 2009 ...
I know I just don't like everyone blaming poorer people, not that anyone has, while MP's can seemingly get away with it unless caught out. I don't want to pay for some tit to keep his stables heated.
Not 'everyone' is blaming poorer people. The fact is that there is wrongs from both side, both rich and poor, those in power and those with little power. Its reckless to completely whitewash the fact that there are people on benefits who do lie and fiddle the system.
There was a lady who was on benefits claiming to be agoraphobic and yet she was spending 1000's of pounds on holidays, which YOU helped pay for. So I don't understand how that is different from paying for someone to 'keep his stables heated.' It wasn't as if she was cheating the system to feed her family or whatever else.
The people on benefits who are fiddling the system DO get away with it until they are caught, surely there is very little difference between the two?
Also have you ever considered the reason people get so pissed off at benefit fraud is because it severely detriments everyone else who gets benefits? I cannot tell you how many times I have been into the job centre after another one of these stories comes out in the press to have the 'advisor's' be overly suspicious, accusing people of benefit fraud to their faces in front of everyone else and all sorts of other humiliating tactics they put into place because they're obviously annoyed at stories in the press. The MP fraud doesn't mean much in regards to peoples day to day lives,normal every day cheating the system has much more impact.
There are times to stay put, and what you want will come to you.
But there are times to go out into the world and find such a thing for yourself.
I aint no abacus but you can count on me.
What have the Conservatives got to do with it? All parties are in favour of tightening up on welfare spending. Hell, it was Labour who brought in Work-Capability Assessments and ATOS, and the overriding Welfare Reform Act 2007.
Well Shenanigans, we can call it empathy, sympathy or guilt, but it comes down to the same thing. Where I disagree is your suggestion that those who can afford to eat are enjoying "privileges"; these are actually people who've worked and succeeded in getting their heads above water, paying taxes along the way and contributing to the Welfare State (and much else). So, on reflection, I don't think they should feel guilty at all. Perhaps the government should, for failing to make the Welfare State so all-embracing that no-one falls off the end - but where does it stop? How much more of a proportion of GNP must the country spend on Welfare? As The One Who says, this is the system which is designed to help the genuinely needy - but there surely has to be some limit ...
Guilt implies that one has done something wrong. Empathy implies allowing oneself to feel for someone other than oneself. Sympathy implies that someone deserves pity for their plight. These are all different words with different meanings.
Yet again you go on about how the rich shouldn't feel guilty for what they have, implying that those who support he welfare think the rich should pay for everything and that they should simply give away everything they have to the poor because they can. Also assuming that just because I support our welfare system and believe in its importance, I therefore think that we should be throwing money into it.
I understand that for you, you feel that those who have are portrayed as scrouges and you just want people to understand that when you have worked hard for something why should you be punished for that? I understand your point. I agree that those who have shouldn't feel guilty nor should they pay a 50% tax on their income or anything so stupid. I empathise with your views.
Just because you do not agree with my view, does not negate my view nor does it mean you can assume what I believe. I could equally assume, as you don't agree with me, that you must therefore be all for introducing back the poor work houses from the Victorian era. That's a silly assumption isn't it?
I said nothing about increasing welfare spending. I also said that the rich should NOT feel guilty. I believe in the importance of the welfare state, and hope that someday it can be implemented in a way that is fair to those claiming it and paying into it. I want out welfare syatem to WORK and I also want it to be AFFORDABLE. Right now, neither is the case. I want people to empathise with people, it is not as simple as one social class being "right" and another being "wrong". It's not about guilt, it's about having a little human feeling for others. It costs nothing but goes a long way.
You see a mouse trap
I see free cheese
And a ****ing challenge
Tightening up on welfare spending yes but people having to go to food banks and old people freezing to death, no. I'm all for tightening up welfare spending. It needs to be done but taking it off people the are genuinely disabled and desperately need the money? That's too much for me. Labour are useless anyway. Just a watered down version of the old labour. It makes no difference who will get in.
How do I know? I'm not being paid a good salary to sort this mess out am I? But instead of leading a witch hunt on the poor and disabled why not try and sort it out.
The welfare state we have now is too complicated. It has been added too, year after year, and is a huge mess. Carers allowance, ESA, PIP, JSA, Incomes support, housing benefit, council tax rebate, child tax credits, working tax credits. The list goes on. For those who desperately need help, the whole system is a confusing riddle. For those who know how to scam it, it's easy to play on the complications of the system.
It's impossible to make a welfare system that works for every gray area of life. Sometimes people's situations will fall through the gaps. The beat way to solve this is to make sure that there aren't so many gaps. There are so many benefits now I'm sure even the system struggles to understand who goes where and why. That's why it's so easy for those who know how to, to abuse it. And why so many people fail to get the help they need.
The idea of universal credit appeals to me. One place, one system, easy. It depresses me that it has been such a failure in setting up. Why our government finds IT systems so staggeringly hard is beyond me.
A simpler system would help all. Less red tape and money spent on administrating a hundred different systems and an easier, less complicated system that means those who need know where to find help. Also, with one system and one place it would be far harder to scam as you can't change your circumstances to fit each certain benefit.
Simply cutting welfare spending, or throwing money into it isn't fixing the problems. Changing the names from incapacity benefit to personal independence allowance. What does that really do? Paying less to the people who need help won't stop the spiraling administration costs of our welfare system.
I agreed with George Osborne about universal credit. It's just a shame he has failed so dramatically in implementing it.
You see a mouse trap
I see free cheese
And a ****ing challenge
I think the government as a whole is corrupt and too comfortable. I think a good idea would be choosing MP's in a similar way we select people for jury duty. No doubt people will agree and disagree but I think it could work.
There are a lot of very good MP's. It is easy to let yourself believe that they are all corrupt, but they aren't. Just as not every benefit claimant is a thief.
MP's have worked hard to be where they are. I would much rather people who understand their role than people who have no idea what they're doing. Picking MP's like jurors doesn't really make a lot of sense. What of democracy? I didn't pick the government we have now, but I'd much rather this one than a government no one has picked at all!
You see a mouse trap
I see free cheese
And a ****ing challenge
Hey Enthused, before we get into this any further I am not, repeat not, leading any sort of witch hunt against the poor and disabled. I have been trying to sympathise with them while at the same time wondering how they can be helped while the welfare bill is contained within reasonable bounds.
I very much hope you don't think I sit here rejoicing at the thought of people suffering. I aired the subject because I felt it was appropriate in the aftermath of the Budget. I have never suggested that the disadvantaged should have to grit their teeth and suffer, but I have hoped that the thread might throw up some ideas as to how to cope with the very poor. And I have however suggested that in a time of necessary austerity most people can manage a hit of perhaps 5 or 10% in their income until things get better. But not the very poor, and therein lies the problem ...
