Originally posted by C1I1D1PSure such stories are heartbreaking, but what of the many poor who go to work and take care of themselves despite difficulties of work or displeasure at what they have to endure?
11,000 people have died...and they have the cheek to call it WELLFARE
Here is one poor mans tragedy.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/heartbroken-dad-reveals-agony-decision-2343897
A good friend of mine has a son, nearly 60, who refuses to work though he has substantial skills. He bought him a mobil home, furnished it, and a used car, all of which are beyond repair due to use and no maintenance, while the son simply goes about totally careless of his father's advanced years and diminished finances.
It is simply not possible for the productive members of society to support the lifestyles of those who will not work, and who demand their support be at some given level they think they deserve.
I don't know who the 11,000 are that you say have died, but I'm pretty sure that many die every day who aren't on welfare. Death is the natural, and unavoidable end of all life.
Originally posted by normbenignWhat makes you say that? Rapid advancement in technology and skyrocketing productivity have made it so that it is easy for society to provide a basic minimum living standard to all of its members at minor cost. I think people who are able to work and contribute to society should at least attempt to do so, but it's a moral issue, not one of economic necessity.
It is simply not possible for the productive members of society to support the lifestyles of those who will not work [...]
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNope!!
What makes you say that? Rapid advancement in technology and skyrocketing productivity have made it so that it is easy for society to provide a basic minimum living standard to all of its members at minor cost. I think people who are able to work and contribute to society should at least attempt to do so, but it's a moral issue, not one of economic necessity.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe Soviet comedian Yakov Smirnoff used to compare the Soviet and American systems, and say of the Soviet "They pretended to pay us, and we pretended to work". What a country! he would say about America.
What makes you say that? Rapid advancement in technology and skyrocketing productivity have made it so that it is easy for society to provide a basic minimum living standard to all of its members at minor cost. I think people who are able to work and contribute to society should at least attempt to do so, but it's a moral issue, not one of economic necessity.
One of the problems is what is the basic minimum, and who determines it? If that basic minimum exceeds what many working people can afford you have a moral hazard arising.
With rent subsidies, high food costs, etc. in places like NYC, many welfare recipients have incomes equivalent to midwestern and southern working folks. They receive significant non cash amounts, which don't count against their membership in poverty. Oh, and then there is the fraud!
Originally posted by normbenignOf course any "basic minimum" supplied should be less than the minimum wage.
The Soviet comedian Yakov Smirnoff used to compare the Soviet and American systems, and say of the Soviet "They pretended to pay us, and we pretended to work". What a country! he would say about America.
One of the problems is what is the basic minimum, and who determines it? If that basic minimum exceeds what many working people can afford you have ...[text shortened]... mounts, which don't count against their membership in poverty. Oh, and then there is the fraud!
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe minimum wage is a politically determined "basic minimum" determined outside market considerations. How can they be separated? As already pointed out, welfare benefits are often not cash, so don't count. Section 8 housing is huge. A renter may get on section 8 a house or apartment for $100/mos or less which has a market rental of $3000.
Of course any "basic minimum" supplied should be less than the minimum wage.
Originally posted by normbenignI don't think housing should be subsidized.
The minimum wage is a politically determined "basic minimum" determined outside market considerations. How can they be separated? As already pointed out, welfare benefits are often not cash, so don't count. Section 8 housing is huge. A renter may get on section 8 a house or apartment for $100/mos or less which has a market rental of $3000.
All the info is in the below web address
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2013/01/30/soldier-injured-in-iraq-grenade-attack-wins-two-year-benefit-battle-with-dwp/
Essentially it's the story of how the British Government is putting disabled people through test interviews and claiming that they are "fit for work" when in actual fact, they are not.
One of the most shocking aspects of this ongoing story is that injured war veterans are also being targeted as being "fit for work", when in fact they are not.
Staff from the I.T company ATOS (FRENCH I.T specialists, not health specialists ) have quit becoming whistle-blowers to the fact that for every person they pass then they get extra money for the company.
Ex-Soldier suicides are up as are thousands of civilians and the government department, The DWP, published their own figures stating that thousands of disabled Brits had died because of the assessment programme.
There are always a very very small minority who do claim benifits wrongly but are found out quickly, this is a whole new ball game that is being played out now.
Even the terminally ill have been declared "fit for work".
Now I don't care who you are but how can anyone justify the unjustifiable ?
Originally posted by C1I1D1POne of the problems with government welfare, and government run health care, is that in the end IT and Accounting end up making most of the decisions to mitigate costs, which are always higher than estimated.
All the info is in the below web address
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2013/01/30/soldier-injured-in-iraq-grenade-attack-wins-two-year-benefit-battle-with-dwp/
Essentially it's the story of how the British Government is putting disabled people through test interviews and claiming that they are "fit for work" when in actual fact, they are not.
One ...[text shortened]... d "fit for work".
Now I don't care who you are but how can anyone justify the unjustifiable ?
Originally posted by C1I1D1PI'm signed off on benefits at the moment. Mainly because I'm not allowed back to work. I had endless problems with the councils down south - they picked on me because I worked for an American company and tried to claim previous flatmates tax from me, even had to bail my next door neighbour out of jail over council tax. Sent me so crazy I was signed off sick from my company, psychosis and servers don't go together. So thanks to the council I'm now in council accommodation. I stay in a hostel because I refuse their housing, I think just for me its a trap.
All the info is in the below web address
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2013/01/30/soldier-injured-in-iraq-grenade-attack-wins-two-year-benefit-battle-with-dwp/
Essentially it's the story of how the British Government is putting disabled people through test interviews and claiming that they are "fit for work" when in actual fact, they are not.
One ...[text shortened]... d "fit for work".
Now I don't care who you are but how can anyone justify the unjustifiable ?
I don't have a problem with assessing disabled people for work but it should be optional for them to go back. The best level of benefits available in the UK (DLA) is still less than full time min wage. A job that is accepting of disabled people is a big improvement. But their aren't enough jobs for the unemployed in most of Scotland and many parts of England so pushing disabled folk down that line on mass is pointless.
Its very sad but since I've been on benefits there is envy of me getting the higher rate. Some fake disease, even will it upon themselves because they can't find work and can't live on JSA. - JSA should be re-named poverty , that's all it is, its a punitive benefit its so low, not enough for a train ticket to an interview.
I think Benefits are a mess- I've long thought councils are the worst; They bully working folk especially those on low incomes, down south their paper work is good for a fraudster but any honest person gets lost in it. But worse they pay out a fortune in housing benefit when really people on benefits need smaller accommodation they can afford and a bit more money in there pocket from jsa. A way to fix that would be good...
its ridiculous, but down south, esp london you can get housing benefits for a property you could not afford if you worked, its so stupid. Scotland has that problem less as the housing market is fairer and there seems to be some comprehension of what people on lower wages can afford as rent. But in London that concept is totally lost.. People struggle on JSA whilst the council will give you a flat you can't afford then punish you with a ton of forms 40+ pages for getting a job. JSA should go up, they should leave disabled alone and make cuts in housing benefit... just my view...They shouldn't trap people in houses they can't afford to rent but in London that's the norm, why we need more hostels...
The UK needs bold politicians to take an axe to councils, make them local service providers and take away all there tax raising and benefit giving powers. Why i'm starting to favour Scottish independence because they really can't do worse...