Where is the UK headed?

[Starter]

There is always someone looking for a free ride. If access to that ride is made too easy, then the number of people interested in taking it rises. That's human nature and any system that doesn't take human nature into account will ultimately fail of its own weight.

Welfare systems were originally meant as a short term bridge for people who had experienced bad luck to get back on their feet. That is a laudable goal which I support. It's when the bridge becomes a lifestyle that the long term viability of the system comes into doubt. The moneys spent on welfare would be much better served if they were spent on infrastructure improvements and such. That would create jobs and income for those willing to work. For those not willing to work and who don't have a real (not pretend) disability - screw em.

[Malbec]

There is always someone looking for a free ride. If access to that ride is made too easy, then the number of people interested in taking it rises. That's human nature and any system that doesn't take human nature into account will ultimately fail of its own weight.

Welfare systems were originally meant as a short term bridge for people who had experienced bad luck to get back on their feet. That is a laudable goal which I support. It's when the bridge becomes a lifestyle that the long term viability of the system comes into doubt. The moneys spent on welfare would be much better served if they were spent on infrastructure improvements and such. That would create jobs and income for those willing to work. For those not willing to work and who don't have a real (not pretend) disability - screw em.

So how many people actually use welfare as a lifestyle choice?

We in the UK like most developed countries use the benefits system as a means of calculating the total number of unemployed. The vast majority of people transit through benefits and eventually find employment, so much so that we (like every developed country on earth) can use the number of benefits recipients as an index of economic performance. Better economic performance results in a direct lowering of the unemployment rate which is statistically significant enough to base economic policy on, even if many people choose jobs that pay barely more than what they get anyway through benefits. We know that obviously there is a minority who do not seek work and sponge off the system for most of their life but it is important to remember they are a minority, not large enough to skew the statistics significantly.

As for being a bridge, its interesting that different countries have such differing attitudes. In the UK unemployment benefits are at subsistence level and you need to have demonstrated that you have used up much of your assets before becoming eligible. In France and other continental countries the attitude is very different. If you are a high earner then you would have put in much more money into the system via tax than others, therefore it is only right and just that you get more out of the system when you are unlucky in life, therefore unemployment benefit comes in as soon as you lose your job and is linked to your pre-redundancy salary...

[Starter]

So how many people actually use welfare as a lifestyle choice?

It doesn't take too awfully many people abusing the system to invalidate it. And as usual, percentage statistics can be misleading. You say the vast majority go through the system and back into the workforce - which is the goal of course. What is that vast majority in terms of actual numbers though. Or more to the point, what is the actual number who don't? If its a hundred people that is lost in the noise. If its ten thousand (most likely much more), then that is significant People need to have a vested interest for any system to function. A free hand out is most definitely not giving anyone a vested interest in the system. Its just creating a dependent class. Working for that benefit, even if its sweeping the public areas, gives some sense of self worth and, more importantly, gives most a desire and incentive to find better job . The problem with most welfare systems is that they are just free handouts. They'd work so much better if the programs were using basic human nature as a positive force toward the goal instead of the current disincentive.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I wouldn't agree that a few people abusing the system is enough to conclude that the benefit system isn't working. In the case of the UK, as the vast majority of people are only on unemployment benefits for 6 months before they get back into to work, then it shows that the system is largely working as intended. For the vast majority unemployment benefits are not a 'hand out' but a 'hand up' back into employment.

Working for that benefit, even if its sweeping the public areas, gives some sense of self worth and, more importantly, gives most a desire and incentive to find better job

But many people like Starter are ideologically opposed to giving 'hand outs' for people who are not contributing. The example of getting people to work to receive their benefits is basically just forcing unpaid labour. It is only one step up from slavery.

In this case would it be better for businesses to have incentives to pay a higher minimum wage? Essentially taking away the state 'hand out' and distributing it through employment. This would increase the attraction of work. It would be more beneficial for the recipient than unemployment benefit as he would be gaining work experience and skills that could lead to better work. As well as this, higher disposable incomes would increase economic activity in general.

[Starter]

But many people like Starter are ideologically opposed to giving 'hand outs' for people who are not contributing. The example of getting people to work to receive their benefits is basically just forcing unpaid labour. It is only one step up from slavery.

?? Where did I say to force anyone? I just suggested that if you want to get something then you need to do something in return for it. Other than taking up space and using air. If someone doesn't feel they want to work for a government benefit more power to them. They just wouldn't get the benefit. That's hardly slavery. There's what, some seven billion or so people in the world? No one is so special that if they don't want to try they should get a free ride.

[airshifter]

I wouldn't agree that a few people abusing the system is enough to conclude that the benefit system isn't working. In the case of the UK, as the vast majority of people are only on unemployment benefits for 6 months before they get back into to work, then it shows that the system is largely working as intended. For the vast majority unemployment benefits are not a 'hand out' but a 'hand up' back into employment.


But many people like Starter are ideologically opposed to giving 'hand outs' for people who are not contributing. The example of getting people to work to receive their benefits is basically just forcing unpaid labour. It is only one step up from slavery.

In this case would it be better for businesses to have incentives to pay a higher minimum wage? Essentially taking away the state 'hand out' and distributing it through employment. This would increase the attraction of work. It would be more beneficial for the recipient than unemployment benefit as he would be gaining work experience and skills that could lead to better work. As well as this, higher disposable incomes would increase economic activity in general.

I didn't see anywhere where Starter opposed a hand up, just that he opposed a hand out. And on that point I agree with him. None of us should work harder/longer/smarter to support those that don't want to do for themselves.

And here in the US, similar to the UK, unemployment benefit are limited. To me the real burden on the system is the long term disability type payments, housing assistance, tax breaks, etc. I have no problem with helping those that actually need help, but I frequently see examples of it being abused.

Here in the US, the taxation system has become a means of assistance, and the system has huge loopholes in it. Combined with those abusing the system intentionally, it's money completely wasted on the lazy or those intentionally working the system. And in some cases, it requires no ill intention, it's just a screwed up system with loopholes so large that those doing everything legally still get a greater benefit than they should.


I can agree that more money spent on job creation, higher wages, etc would all be a good thing. But in the absence of that, I personally would have no problem if a person (of able mind and body) would have to perform work for the government helping them. There are plenty of ways they could also have said people perform work that would save the government money in assistance programs and at the same time give people job training. We have a local city that runs a large program doing just that, and it helps get people back to work as well as keeps them from paying out so much money.

[donKey jote]

Forget the few lazy sods cheating the system. They amount to peanuts against bonuses for the managers of bailed out businesses, tax fraudsters, money launderers... How many of these are immigrants, I wonder

[janvanvurpa]

Forget the few lazy sods cheating the system. They amount to peanuts against bonuses for the managers of bailed out businesses, tax fraudsters, money launderers... How many of these are immigrants, I wonder

Not able to comment on the details of England's system but we know they "the financial sector" has never been more entrenched, and more profitable than in recent years....In that respect England mimics America...
And as an example of what you say above we just voted in mid-term elections.
2 of the things we had to vote on were to float bonds to pay for the local school system---because for 3 years our REPUBLICAN controlled State legislature has been "unable" to write a budget to allocate funds which by law they must--and are in fact been judged in contempt of the Supreme Court of the State..

3 years..no mandatory budget for schools...

But it took these lackeys just 3 days to put together and pass a $9,000,000,000 tax "deferal"---a gift---for Boeing (who has nearly abandoned manufactring things in this state (sure they still assemble aircraft....but they don't MAKE a lot of the things they assemble here)

Boeing CEO somehow has to struggle along on just:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...soars/6425487/

Boeing CEO James McNerney's 2013 compensation soared in 2013.
McNerney's pay was up 9.4% to $23.2 million from about $21.2 million in 2012. But his overall compensation jumped 66% on a $24.2 million gain from restricted shares that vested and from previously awarded stock options McNerney cashed in, Boeing said Friday in its annual proxy. McNerney gained about $7.3 million from vested shares and exercised stock options in 2012.
McNerney's $1.9 million salary, $3.7 million stock award and $3.7 million stock option grant were virtually unchanged from 2012. His annual incentive bonus grew 19% to $12.8 million.
Boeing valued McNerney's perks at $885,000, including:
$305,000 for personal use of corporate aircraft,
$51,700 for ground transport
and nearly $44,000 for tax preparation and planning services.

And pooor ol Boeing is really in need of that 9 billion tax break:

The commercial and military aircraft giant delivered a record 648 airliners last year and had massive backlog order for 1,355 more.

But really I shouldn't complain, giving Boeing a 9 billion dollar break only costs each man, woman and child in this state just $1304....chicken feed to the CEO

[donKey jote]

Oh but you can't suggest that the big job providers might pay their fair share, or they'll surely close shop and take their monies elsewhere :yadayada:
No, let's focus on the real problem: that 0.1% of lazy immigrants who play the system.
Or the 0.2% of feckless natives like these for example:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-sou...wales-29599487
Time to close the borders !!!

[odykas]

Juncker's new EU Commission takes office

Good news for Europe.

Bad news for David Cameron.