Can An Employer Reverse Your Redundancy...
Jobs & Education0 min ago
Has The Welfare System Created A Monster?
120 Answers
http://
Do you agree that the welfare system, the concept of which at first was a blessing, has now created a monster, as has been shown in this tragic case?
It has created a completely different species of human being, as has been shown with the various individuals interviews over this case, they tend to have a different look from the norm, so much so that some are have even been given a name, 'CHAVs'.
These are not the usual 'poor', in fact there are many who live in council houses, (now called social housing) who may not be 'well off' but are decent hard working people, who not only take a pride in themselves but also tend to live to a certain standard of morals.
/// Philpott had also fathered another six children by three other women. As far as can be known, he never contributed so much as a penny towards the upkeep of any of these 17 children, all of whom were born into dependency on state benefits. ///
/// His story throws into surreal relief the row between the Tories and Labour this week about Iain Duncan Smith’s much-needed benefit reforms. While the Left and the Church cry that they are unfair and immoral, the Government argues calmly that what is immoral is leaving families such as Michael Philpott’s to languish on benefits for generations. ///
/// Indeed, Philpott never even attempted to find a job. The children owed their existence to his desire to milk the welfare system. ///
Do you agree that the welfare system, the concept of which at first was a blessing, has now created a monster, as has been shown in this tragic case?
It has created a completely different species of human being, as has been shown with the various individuals interviews over this case, they tend to have a different look from the norm, so much so that some are have even been given a name, 'CHAVs'.
These are not the usual 'poor', in fact there are many who live in council houses, (now called social housing) who may not be 'well off' but are decent hard working people, who not only take a pride in themselves but also tend to live to a certain standard of morals.
/// Philpott had also fathered another six children by three other women. As far as can be known, he never contributed so much as a penny towards the upkeep of any of these 17 children, all of whom were born into dependency on state benefits. ///
/// His story throws into surreal relief the row between the Tories and Labour this week about Iain Duncan Smith’s much-needed benefit reforms. While the Left and the Church cry that they are unfair and immoral, the Government argues calmly that what is immoral is leaving families such as Michael Philpott’s to languish on benefits for generations. ///
/// Indeed, Philpott never even attempted to find a job. The children owed their existence to his desire to milk the welfare system. ///
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
In as much as it gives folk the impression they an have as many kids as they want and not be responsible because the State won't let the innocent suffer, there are issues to be addressed. But the answer is not easy to see, most quick fixes have issues of their own.
But whatever system is in place there will always be, and always have been, those who believe if it is on offer they are morally ok to demand it. Having no concept of the difference between being offered a helping hand in times of need, and mooching on those around you.
I think the attitude of someone who feels putting their family in danger for a hoped for outcome is ok, reveals more about the inherent mental inadequacies of the individuals than any affect a Welfare system could produce.
But whatever system is in place there will always be, and always have been, those who believe if it is on offer they are morally ok to demand it. Having no concept of the difference between being offered a helping hand in times of need, and mooching on those around you.
I think the attitude of someone who feels putting their family in danger for a hoped for outcome is ok, reveals more about the inherent mental inadequacies of the individuals than any affect a Welfare system could produce.
There are certainly many people who know exactly how to play the system so it funds their chosen way of life. However we should remember that there are also many who either fail to claim the benefits they are entitled to or struggle to exist on benefits.
I agree we have created a monster though with our welfare system and I doubt it will be tackled because any attempts to do so leads to accusations of 'bashing the poor/disabled/elderly/children' and because there will always be some 'losers' and we only seem to want change where everyone wins. Changes made by the right are always going to be unpopular as they are perceived as out of touch rich boys and attract criticism from their opponents, the unions, the media and the church so the only real hope is if someone who has the trust of the broad left (someone like Frank Fields) is given the chance to make major changes over a period of 5-10 years.
I agree we have created a monster though with our welfare system and I doubt it will be tackled because any attempts to do so leads to accusations of 'bashing the poor/disabled/elderly/children' and because there will always be some 'losers' and we only seem to want change where everyone wins. Changes made by the right are always going to be unpopular as they are perceived as out of touch rich boys and attract criticism from their opponents, the unions, the media and the church so the only real hope is if someone who has the trust of the broad left (someone like Frank Fields) is given the chance to make major changes over a period of 5-10 years.
humbersloop's link puts forward a balanced assessment (something you could never accuse the mail of doing!) that points out the tragey of this situation.
It is not because a Welfare System 'breeds' someone like this man - as AOG apparently agrees with his "...a completely different species of human being ..." observation.
Welfare claiments are not mutants, they are in the majority of cases people who depend on assistance for a variety of complex, but none the less valid reasons, and that is what the Welfare System is for.
To use this huge tragedy with its equally huge complexity of issues as a simple stick to beat the underclass of this country is mindlessly simplistic, as well as factually wrong.
If you extrapolate the argument that a Welfare System creates people like this, then you could equally use it to call into question all manner of situations and cherry-pick instances to back up your argument.
Here's one off the top of my head - thinking it as I type - the military incursion into Afghanistan is a total wholesale failure without merit of redemtption because one Allied-trained Afghan recruit has shot one Allied soldier.
That is a fact - but it is not reflective of the facts - because as has been opined many times, the truth is rarely simple.
Middle England can trumpet across its breakfast tables about the plebs using state handouts to murder their children, but that simply diverts attention from, and belittles the tragic deaths of six innocent children.
I have avoided reading my paper this morning - i shall instead pause to remember those poor children, and their lives unfulfilled - and that puts the notion of a misapplied Welfare System into a perspective that the Mail chooses to ignore in pursuit of Middle England outrage, and that is the real shame and tragedy here.
It is not because a Welfare System 'breeds' someone like this man - as AOG apparently agrees with his "...a completely different species of human being ..." observation.
Welfare claiments are not mutants, they are in the majority of cases people who depend on assistance for a variety of complex, but none the less valid reasons, and that is what the Welfare System is for.
To use this huge tragedy with its equally huge complexity of issues as a simple stick to beat the underclass of this country is mindlessly simplistic, as well as factually wrong.
If you extrapolate the argument that a Welfare System creates people like this, then you could equally use it to call into question all manner of situations and cherry-pick instances to back up your argument.
Here's one off the top of my head - thinking it as I type - the military incursion into Afghanistan is a total wholesale failure without merit of redemtption because one Allied-trained Afghan recruit has shot one Allied soldier.
That is a fact - but it is not reflective of the facts - because as has been opined many times, the truth is rarely simple.
Middle England can trumpet across its breakfast tables about the plebs using state handouts to murder their children, but that simply diverts attention from, and belittles the tragic deaths of six innocent children.
I have avoided reading my paper this morning - i shall instead pause to remember those poor children, and their lives unfulfilled - and that puts the notion of a misapplied Welfare System into a perspective that the Mail chooses to ignore in pursuit of Middle England outrage, and that is the real shame and tragedy here.
Well, I never had children of my own , I have step children now, and only one dependant. I had no idea how much money is given to the parents of children either benefits or allowances until talking with my OH. I was amazed...why ?? If one can not afford children , don't have them. The monies given are not all means tested so an awful lot of money is used inappropriatley . I understand that people's circumstances change and of course there should be an umbrella of financial help for them, not all and sundry as they have children.
If you cannot afford children, then you should try to avoid having them to be sure. But birth control doesn't always work, or perhaps one night you forgot or just got caught up in the moment or some other euphemism. Then someone on benefits is pregnant and ... well ,now what? Compulsory abortion? Or forced adoptions? Even forced sterilisation beforehand, perhaps. Or, maybe, you just stop paying out the benefit. The problem is that in this case it's not just the parent who made a mistake that suffers, but also the child. Who, certainly, had no say in the matter. And all the other options I mentioned are surely unacceptable or at least unpleasant to consider.
Which leaves paying out the benefit, and telling the parents to be more careful in future. But, anyway, people make mistakes, or circumstances change all of a sudden. It may not even be anyone's fault that this happened. Then benefits anyway should still be paid out, because ultimately it's not really something that we should use to punish people for mistakes, or judge people's lifestyle and life choices.
Although we should try to get people out of depending on benefits whenever possible, that shouldn't be something we are doing just to reduce the bill. Whenever money becomes the motivation, people who need the money seem to be denied it, and are caught up in this crackdown as if they were all criminals, or all undeserving. Better, I think, to accept a high bill and try to reduce it not by changing the rules, but by trying to tackle the reasons people end up on them in the first place.
Which leaves paying out the benefit, and telling the parents to be more careful in future. But, anyway, people make mistakes, or circumstances change all of a sudden. It may not even be anyone's fault that this happened. Then benefits anyway should still be paid out, because ultimately it's not really something that we should use to punish people for mistakes, or judge people's lifestyle and life choices.
Although we should try to get people out of depending on benefits whenever possible, that shouldn't be something we are doing just to reduce the bill. Whenever money becomes the motivation, people who need the money seem to be denied it, and are caught up in this crackdown as if they were all criminals, or all undeserving. Better, I think, to accept a high bill and try to reduce it not by changing the rules, but by trying to tackle the reasons people end up on them in the first place.
Latest Posts
Animals & Nature2 mins ago
Developing Fast': Britain Facing...
News7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago