[DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread

Our best bits.
User avatar
elite knight danbo
Member
Joined in 2012

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by elite knight danbo » Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:32 pm

[iup=3577162]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:It's an interesting difference in political/societal philosophy between people who think you should work towards a goal (eg. moving out of home), as opposed to getting a place for free off the State before you've even contributed in terms of tax and National Insurance. Sorry, but when we're so heavily in debt, the latter is silly, and anyway it's hardly likely to lead to a good work ethic.


How seriously do you take the consideration of building a "good work ethic" with regards to benefits systems?

User avatar
Stugene
Member ♥
Joined in 2011
AKA: Handsome Man Stugene
Location: handsomemantown
Contact:

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Stugene » Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:41 pm

[iup=3577409]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577363]Karl[/iup] wrote:I might agree that in broad principle that "Johnny B'stard" shouldn't get a free flat, but in all practicality I would favour - infinitely - a system that granted Housing Benefit to a few Mr. B'stards but didn't miss any of the Ms. Being-Rapeds or Mr. Beaten-Every-Days out there.


OK! I disagree with you, based on two things:

1. The country's finances at present. In my opinion, there are many more important things to spend money on than a universal right to independent living for 18-21 year olds.

2. Finances notwithstanding, where is the incentive to contribute to society if you know you can get rewarded for doing nothing? I really think that a universal right to housing benefit sends out a bad message. I think that the so-called benefits culture that grew up under New Labour is a direct result of the State funding lifestyle choices.

When you start tightening rules and being selective, those in genuine need start to fall through the system. If we sliced the bureaucracy and gave reasonable benefits to - more or less - all those who asked, would we have such a problem with homelessness in our cities? Would we still have people using food banks, or sleeping in their cars?


I agree that bureaucracy and admin can lead to poor outcomes, but that's getting into the nitty-gritty of the efficiency of administrating a policy. I don't think we can afford universal Housing Benefit, nor do I think it's desirable for society. I think it would be ridiculously expensive and that the vast majority of potential recipients would not receive benefit based on 'need', and this is contrary to the reasons that Social Security and Welfare exist in the first place.

The average poor person isn't lazy - they're just poor. Let's recognise that, stop demonising our working class, and start helping people out of poverty. Sure, we would need to make some changes - build more houses, stop spending money on bombing large stretches of Asia, that kind of thing - but I think it would be well worthwhile.


I forgot a third reason above - we don't have the housing stock. I completely agree that we need to build many more homes, at a much accelerated rate. In many ways, those who demonise the working class are the people who think they need hand-outs to survive, and, like Stugene, are convinced the poor live in 'squalor'. The vast majority don't want hand-outs, have pride in their homes, and (according to polls) are the group who are most angry about benefit cheats.


Mmm yes I definitely said all poor people live in squalor. I certainly didn't say that they would be forced to live in squalor without state help. It certainly wasn't an example of what could happen without state help. Please just go ahead and make gooseberry fool up to attack my character.

You're right that the vast majority don't want handouts. The percentage of people who falsely claim benefits is substantially smaller than those who are due them, but do not receive them. But tell me more about how cutting housing benefits will benefit the young and poor.

Image
Taint
User avatar
Eighthours
Emeritus
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Eighthours » Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:58 pm

[iup=3577415]elite knight danbo[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577162]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:It's an interesting difference in political/societal philosophy between people who think you should work towards a goal (eg. moving out of home), as opposed to getting a place for free off the State before you've even contributed in terms of tax and National Insurance. Sorry, but when we're so heavily in debt, the latter is silly, and anyway it's hardly likely to lead to a good work ethic.


How seriously do you take the consideration of building a "good work ethic" with regards to benefits systems?


As New Labour's legacy has shown, it has to be a consideration.

User avatar
Eighthours
Emeritus
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Eighthours » Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:00 pm

[iup=3577424]Stugene[/iup] wrote:Please just go ahead and make gooseberry fool up to attack my character.


"It must be wonderful to be so wealthy that you don't encounter the poor."

User avatar
Tineash
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Tineash » Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:00 pm

I'm too young to remember life before 1997, it must have been magical with full employment and no poverty.

"exceptionally annoying" - TheTurnipKing
User avatar
Winckle
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Liverpool

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Winckle » Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:21 pm

[iup=3577440]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577415]elite knight danbo[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577162]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:It's an interesting difference in political/societal philosophy between people who think you should work towards a goal (eg. moving out of home), as opposed to getting a place for free off the State before you've even contributed in terms of tax and National Insurance. Sorry, but when we're so heavily in debt, the latter is silly, and anyway it's hardly likely to lead to a good work ethic.


How seriously do you take the consideration of building a "good work ethic" with regards to benefits systems?


As New Labour's legacy has shown, it has to be a consideration.

This kind of meaningless statement works with your conservative leaning friends, but here you have to actually explain what you mean.

User avatar
Tell Karl his brother is dead
Daiakuma
Daiakuma
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Tell Karl his brother is dead » Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:23 pm

Eighthours wrote:OK! I disagree with you, based on two things:

1. The country's finances at present. In my opinion, there are many more important things to spend money on than a universal right to independent living for 18-21 year olds.


I believe housing benefit in total is something like 2% of total government expenditure. There are around 144,000 childless under-25s claiming Housing Benefit, according to Stat-Xplore over at the DWP, and there were around 5,000,000 total claimants. So, around 3% of Housing Benefit claimants are childless under-25s.

I don't think slicing 3% off the costs of a scheme that comprises 2% of our budget, at the expense of the housing security of some of the most vulnerable people in the nation, is a good deal. I would rather our savings came from elsewhere. "Where?" you might ask - I'm not an economy specialist but my first place to look would be our expensive endeavours in foreign policy.

Eighthours wrote:2. Finances notwithstanding, where is the incentive to contribute to society if you know you can get rewarded for doing nothing? I really think that a universal right to housing benefit sends out a bad message. I think that the so-called benefits culture that grew up under New Labour is a direct result of the State funding lifestyle choices.


What message do we send to the world if we allow our citizenry to go homeless and starving? The incentive for young people to work is to get more than £57/wk to live on (comparison: minimum wage full-time is £180/wk), but in any case a life is worth more than its work ethic. People can and do die on our streets.

Eighthours wrote:
When you start tightening rules and being selective, those in genuine need start to fall through the system. If we sliced the bureaucracy and gave reasonable benefits to - more or less - all those who asked, would we have such a problem with homelessness in our cities? Would we still have people using food banks, or sleeping in their cars?


I agree that bureaucracy and admin can lead to poor outcomes, but that's getting into the nitty-gritty of the efficiency of administrating a policy. I don't think we can afford universal Housing Benefit, nor do I think it's desirable for society. I think it would be ridiculously expensive and that the vast majority of potential recipients would not receive benefit based on 'need', and this is contrary to the reasons that Social Security and Welfare exist in the first place.


Of course benefits should be means-tested, but I believe that is the only test that should be put upon them; let us stop the vast injustice of discriminating based on age, for one, and for seconds we can stop these bizarre notions about time-limiting benefits (as if someone will be less poor after some months on JSA than they were before!).

Eighthours wrote:
The average poor person isn't lazy - they're just poor. Let's recognise that, stop demonising our working class, and start helping people out of poverty. Sure, we would need to make some changes - build more houses, stop spending money on bombing large stretches of Asia, that kind of thing - but I think it would be well worthwhile.


I forgot a third reason above - we don't have the housing stock. I completely agree that we need to build many more homes, at a much accelerated rate. In many ways, those who demonise the working class are the people who think they need hand-outs to survive, and, like Stugene, are convinced the poor live in 'squalor'. The vast majority don't want hand-outs, have pride in their homes, and (according to polls) are the group who are most angry about benefit cheats.


Clearly we need more affordable housing (I am glad we can agree on that point, at least); and on your second point, no, I don't believe that the kind of person who wishes to foster an environment in which poor people are helped from poverty are demonising them. Let me say that no-one wants to be called a "cheat" and the oft-quoted statistic, known to us, that unclaimed legitimate benefits are thought to outweigh fraudulent ones, is certainly never put forward in reasonable, well-sourced articles in The Sun. Is it any wonder poor people wish to distance themselves from the idea of being working class, as it is commonly portrayed by the right-wing media?

[iup=3577385]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:The choice of living home doesn't come easily for many people who you would consider to be above the poor bracket. We often hear talk of the 'squeezed middle', which I believe is the forgotten group in society. Those who struggle to make ends meet, but don't have access to the benefits system due to being in paid work and earning just too much.


Do you struggle to put food on the table? Are you in danger of becoming homeless? Can you afford new clothes when your old ones wear through?

I have no doubt that you face problems in your life that are every bit as meaningful and tough to you as the problems the poor face - as I know what it's like to live without a Dad, I am genuinely very sorry to hear that you struggle to visit your son regularly and I really do wish you the best in getting that sorted out - but we're talking about people in the UK living in real, dangerous poverty. That's why we don't talk about the problems the middle-class face very much in a social security context.

User avatar
Partridge Iciclebubbles
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Partridge Iciclebubbles » Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:31 pm

[iup=3577445]Tineash[/iup] wrote:I'm too young to remember life before 1997, it must have been magical with full employment and no poverty.


What's funny is the Tory party was saying the same sort of thing back in the early 90s.

Mr Lilley said: 'The Conservative Party has always been the party of the family. We realise that relationships do break down but that should not be brought about or encouraged by government policy.' Asked whether he thought single mothers deliberately got pregnant to exploit the benefits system, he said: 'Perhaps were it not for the availability of housing in particular, people would approach having children more cautiously.' At last year's Tory Party Conference, Mr Lilley recited his 'little list' of fraudsters which included 'young women who get pregnant just to jump the housing list'.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/torie ... 82903.html


Image
User avatar
Prototype
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Prototype » Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:35 pm

Eighthours wrote:You have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to my personal circumstances.


Precisely. Just like you don't know the personal circumstances of all 18-21 year olds.

User avatar
Green Gecko
Director
Joined in 2008
Location: Sussex
Contact:

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Green Gecko » Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:42 pm

Eighthours wrote:
[iup=3576663]Prototype[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3576518]Tineash[/iup] wrote:Cameron's newest wheeze: No housing benefit & no JSA if you're 18-21.

erm. no words. Who is this for? To impress old grumpy UKIP voters?


A man who's lived such an institutionalised life that he has no grip on reality.

Not everyone is fortunate enough to have rich and supportive parents to fall back on.


I don't think that 18-21 year olds should get housing benefit. If they can't afford to move out of home, they should continue to live with their parents. JSA, however - they should definitely get that.

One thing that's never mentioned is the minimum wage for apprentices. It's absolutely pathetic: £2.68 an hour.

Er what if your parent(s) can't afford to house you?

RIP in peace Wii U | Support GRcade | t: @GRcade | FB: GRcadeUK | YT: GRcadeVideo | Twitch: GRcadeUK
Image
Image
User avatar
Eighthours
Emeritus
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Eighthours » Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:49 pm

[iup=3577474]Winckle[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577440]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577415]elite knight danbo[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577162]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:It's an interesting difference in political/societal philosophy between people who think you should work towards a goal (eg. moving out of home), as opposed to getting a place for free off the State before you've even contributed in terms of tax and National Insurance. Sorry, but when we're so heavily in debt, the latter is silly, and anyway it's hardly likely to lead to a good work ethic.


How seriously do you take the consideration of building a "good work ethic" with regards to benefits systems?


As New Labour's legacy has shown, it has to be a consideration.

This kind of meaningless statement works with your conservative leaning friends, but here you have to actually explain what you mean.


Consider the so-called 'welfare trap'. When low-paid jobs barely pay people more per week than they receive on benefits after work-related costs are taken into account, and when there is the disincentive of means-tested benefits that are withdrawn when income rises, it's not difficult to understand why some people don't consider it worth their while to get out of bed in the morning. Indeed, it might even be called smart. Until there is clear blue water between the relative incomes of benefits and low-paid work, there is less incentive to find a job than there should be. This is why welfare being a safety net rather than a lifestyle choice is so important. It shouldn't be an option not to work - the State should only be expected to support you while you are looking for a job. But, of course, it's very difficult to find the right balance for how welfare should work and the support it should offer, when there are exceptional circumstances as KP, Moggy and FE have outlined.

I'm not sure there's an answer that is perfect for everyone. Greater minds than ours have tried but failed to come up with a solution.

User avatar
Eighthours
Emeritus
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Eighthours » Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:51 pm

[iup=3577499]Prototype[/iup] wrote:
Eighthours wrote:You have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to my personal circumstances.


Precisely. Just like you don't know the personal circumstances of all 18-21 year olds.


Which is why there has to be a starting point. 'All 18-21 year olds should automatically have the right to housing benefit' isn't it, IMO. Because that is a blanket award that doesn't consider personal circumstances.

User avatar
Stugene
Member ♥
Joined in 2011
AKA: Handsome Man Stugene
Location: handsomemantown
Contact:

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Stugene » Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:51 pm

[iup=3577444]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577424]Stugene[/iup] wrote:Please just go ahead and make gooseberry fool up to attack my character.


"It must be wonderful to be so wealthy that you don't encounter the poor."


Well that makes it OK then! Two wrongs making a right here everyone.

Image
Taint
User avatar
Partridge Iciclebubbles
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Partridge Iciclebubbles » Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:53 pm

[iup=3577521]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577499]Prototype[/iup] wrote:
Eighthours wrote:You have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to my personal circumstances.


Precisely. Just like you don't know the personal circumstances of all 18-21 year olds.


Which is why there has to be a starting point. 'All 18-21 year olds should automatically have the right to housing benefit' isn't it, IMO. Because that is a blanket award that doesn't consider personal circumstances.


But why put those ages in? Is the statement 'All adults should automatically have the right to housing benefit' any different to 'All 18-21 year olds should automatically have the right to housing benefit'?

And I think everyone should automatically have the right to housing benefit, as long as you meet the means tested criteria (which should not include age).

Image
User avatar
Stugene
Member ♥
Joined in 2011
AKA: Handsome Man Stugene
Location: handsomemantown
Contact:

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Stugene » Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:57 pm

[iup=3577518]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577474]Winckle[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577440]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577415]elite knight danbo[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577162]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:It's an interesting difference in political/societal philosophy between people who think you should work towards a goal (eg. moving out of home), as opposed to getting a place for free off the State before you've even contributed in terms of tax and National Insurance. Sorry, but when we're so heavily in debt, the latter is silly, and anyway it's hardly likely to lead to a good work ethic.


How seriously do you take the consideration of building a "good work ethic" with regards to benefits systems?


As New Labour's legacy has shown, it has to be a consideration.

This kind of meaningless statement works with your conservative leaning friends, but here you have to actually explain what you mean.


Consider the so-called 'welfare trap'. When low-paid jobs barely pay people more per week than they receive on benefits after work-related costs are taken into account, and when there is the disincentive of means-tested benefits that are withdrawn when income rises, it's not difficult to understand why some people don't consider it worth their while to get out of bed in the morning. Indeed, it might even be called smart. Until there is clear blue water between the relative incomes of benefits and low-paid work, there is less incentive to find a job than there should be. This is why welfare being a safety net rather than a lifestyle choice is so important. It shouldn't be an option not to work - the State should only be expected to support you while you are looking for a job. But, of course, it's very difficult to find the right balance for how welfare should work and the support it should offer, when there are exceptional circumstances as KP, Moggy and FE have outlined.

I'm not sure there's an answer that is perfect for everyone. Greater minds than ours have tried but failed to come up with a solution.


What you're discussing there is what is called fraudulently claiming benefits. That accounts for 0.8% of claims.

Instead of attacking the poor, for remaining poor, the government should be raising the minimum wage to meet or exceed the living wage.

Image
Taint
User avatar
Fatal Exception
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Racist chinese lover
Location: ಠ_ಠ

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Fatal Exception » Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:58 pm

The solution to this is UBI, but you won't hear anything about that from anyone other than actual left wing parties like The Greens.

The above post, unless specifically stated to the contrary, should not be taken seriously. If the above post has offended you in any way, please fill in this form and return it to your nearest moderator.
Image
User avatar
Christmas Name Change
Bizarre Title
Joined in 2008
AKA: Dan.
Location: Bered Kai Nev

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Christmas Name Change » Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:00 pm

[iup=3577474]Winckle[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577440]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577415]elite knight danbo[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577162]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:It's an interesting difference in political/societal philosophy between people who think you should work towards a goal (eg. moving out of home), as opposed to getting a place for free off the State before you've even contributed in terms of tax and National Insurance. Sorry, but when we're so heavily in debt, the latter is silly, and anyway it's hardly likely to lead to a good work ethic.


How seriously do you take the consideration of building a "good work ethic" with regards to benefits systems?


As New Labour's legacy has shown, it has to be a consideration.

This kind of meaningless statement works with your conservative leaning friends, but here you have to actually explain what you mean.


I too would like an explanation of this 'legacy'

User avatar
Stugene
Member ♥
Joined in 2011
AKA: Handsome Man Stugene
Location: handsomemantown
Contact:

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Stugene » Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:01 pm

Also if you want to divide housing benefit qualification by age, why would you not deny elderly their benefit? They'll die soon, so why have them taking up valuable tax pounds that could be turned into missiles for killing little brown children?

Image
Taint
User avatar
Winckle
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Liverpool

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Winckle » Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:02 pm

[iup=3577535]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:The solution to this is UBI, but you won't hear anything about that from anyone other than actual left wing parties like The Greens.

Wisdom.

User avatar
Prototype
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Prototype » Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:04 pm

[iup=3577521]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577499]Prototype[/iup] wrote:
Eighthours wrote:You have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to my personal circumstances.


Precisely. Just like you don't know the personal circumstances of all 18-21 year olds.


Which is why there has to be a starting point. 'All 18-21 year olds should automatically have the right to APPLY FOR housing benefit' isn't it, IMO. Because that is a blanket award that doesn't consider personal circumstances.


FTFY.

You don't just turn up and 'get it'.


Return to “Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests