Welfare state?

[Skandi]

What are your thoughts on the "welfare state" as it is at the moment? If you don't like it could you say why and what you would do about it?

Personally I despise the way it is treated in Britain at the moment. It encourages lazy uncouth elements to breed and believe that they have a right to tell other hard working citizens what to do, it encourages immigration and actively penalises those who wish to come off it and into the working world.

And this is what I would do about it;


Unemployment...

1. Dole lasts at full rate for 6 months, after that rate is 0

2. If you have not found a job by 6 months then one will be found for you.(nasty menial labour)

3. Attendance of such found work would be compulsory, the option would be a debtors prison, lets get some of the jobs back from the far east.

Disability...

1. A job that is suitable would be found or created,

2. If disability is so severe that no work of any kind can be done, then they must be either a hospital case or asylum case anyway.

Old age...

1. Retirement age of 60 for both sexes obviously not mandatory.

2. State pension rises fixed to cost of goods, including fuel and housing.

3. "Bonus" pension top ups for those who have served their country, ex services, including fire etc, nurses, mothers of 4 or more children (or fathers who have been the sole parent), those with bravery awards etc.

Parenthood...

1. if a couple one half must be working to have any benefits given,

2. Maternity/paternity benefit at full wage for 12 months

3. For family's of 4 children or more with one parent working or unable to work or look after children (i.e dead) full wage payed to parent who stays home to educate/look after children

Just my ideas, what would you do?
__________________

[Skandi]

I was going to start this thread, then looked to see if there was one, and there is and it's mine and no one has replied! Since many of you weren't online when I posted this I'm going to see if it's worth another go. Does anyone like me now?

BUMP

[Hildolf]

I think what has already been written by yourself is pretty much spot on. One thing that does bother me when un-employed is that you can't get training for 6 months. I feel if someone wants to re-train, get them straight onto it, get them on the job training etc. At least they will be doing something positive and it would improve the skill base of the workforce.

Needing less "immigrants" for such roles.

The idea of getting the workshy to do unskilled labour also adds to this lack of so called need for "immigrants".

[RoyBatty]

Hi Thrymheim! :wavey001:


What are your thoughts on the "welfare state" as it is at the moment? If you don't like it could you say why and what you would do about it?

Personally I despise the way it is treated in Britain at the moment. It encourages lazy uncouth elements to breed and believe that they have a right to tell other hard working citizens what to do, it encourages immigration and actively penalises those who wish to come off it and into the working world.


Atm it's pretty diabolical. Agree with what you state here. It encourages a generation of parasites (both native born and from the ranks of the "asylum seekers") who make wb a career choice. And why wouldn't they seeing as they'll get more money, better benefits and all that for no work whatsoever vs what they'd get if they had a job.

The system is skewed and naturally ppl will take advantage.



And this is what I would do about it;


Unemployment...

1. Dole lasts at full rate for 6 months, after that rate is 0

2. If you have not found a job by 6 months then one will be found for you.(nasty menial labour)


I'd propose dole for 3 months maximum, within that time they HAVE TO report to the Jobcenter, take their choices and MUST pick something. Ones who don't get busy get blacklisted. Give consideration to deserving cases where ppl are making an effort to keep head above water, punish the ones who are lazing about.




3. Attendance of such found work would be compulsory, the option would be a debtors prison, lets get some of the jobs back from the far east.


There is something a lot more scary than prison. It is called a "labour camp". Forced labour will cure most problem cases. For ones who still insist on being useless, perhaps a 6 month mandatory stint in the Outer Hebrides will be of benefit.




Disability...

1. A job that is suitable would be found or created,

2. If disability is so severe that no work of any kind can be done, then they must be either a hospital case or asylum case anyway.


Right




Old age...

1. Retirement age of 60 for both sexes obviously not mandatory.


Since ppl are living longer they may as well work for longer. They should have the option of retiring or staying in work.





2. State pension rises fixed to cost of goods, including fuel and housing.


Sure, couple it to inflation and the costs of energy and basic goods.


3. "Bonus" pension top ups for those who have served their country, ex services, including fire etc, nurses, mothers of 4 or more children (or fathers who have been the sole parent), those with bravery awards etc.


Not sure about this one. It creates different classes of citizens.

Ex-service ppl for example... I'm not comfortable with handing out rewards for overseas mercenary operations (for the benefit of the corporations, the rich etc) which is effectively what the military are doing atm on the orders of the NuLabour regime.

Parents with kids ought to be helped financially during the time they're raising the kids, not necessarily afterwards.

My view is that firefighters are getting the short end of the stick. They are grossly underpaid and under-appreciated for the work they do. Their salaries need fixing.



Parenthood...

1. if a couple one half must be working to have any benefits given,

2. Maternity/paternity benefit at full wage for 12 months

3. For family's of 4 children or more with one parent working or unable to work or look after children (i.e dead) full wage payed to parent who stays home to educate/look after children

Just my ideas, what would you do?



Unless both are disabled or there are valid reasons why neither can work then yes, certainly at least one should be bringing home the bacon.

For maternity / paternity wage for 12 months, it's probably OK for one or the other parent (they can decide which) but certainly not for both. :-P
It may be worth looking at examples of other EU countries, for example Sweden. (Not sure what the practice there is)

As for large families (just like smaller families), I think the children ought to either go to a nursery / pre-school / afterschool care while the parent works.
The state should assist with the expense of care / make it accessible and affordable at reasonable rates.

[Skandi]

As for large families (just like smaller families), I think the children ought to either go to a nursery / pre-school / afterschool care while the parent works.
The state should assist with the expense of care / make it accessible and affordable at reasonable rates.

It would probably cost the state more to pay for 4 children to have childcare than it would to pay a parent to stay at home to look after them, not to mention that is it better for children to be with their families.

Yay I've had replies (4 months late!) :p

[RoyBatty]

I think it's all relative to economies of scale. If there is a reasonable ratio of children to a supervising adult it should still make more economic sense than to take a parent out of full time work, unless that parent is earning minimum wage. :)

[Hrolf Kraki]

I strongly dislike the welfare state in which we live. To fully elaborate on all its flaws I´d actually need to write an entire book, which although not out of the question, I don´t really feel like doing right at this moment. Therefore, I´ll simply quote Nietzsche.


Sympathy thwarts, on the whole, in general, the law of development, which is the law of selection. It preserves what is ripe for extinction, it resists in favour of life´s disinherited and condemned ones, it gives to life itself a gloomy and questionable aspect by the abundance of the ill-constituted of all kinds whom it maintains in life.

I do not sympathize with those who leech off society. They´re not fit to live in this world, but only suitable to die off. We don´t need the weak and pathetic breeding, but rather the strongest and most apt to make it in life, without the constant assistance of government support. Welfare goes against the natural order of things and we´ll soon discover that we´re doomed to failure when society operates contrary to nature.

[stormlord]

3. Attendance of such found work would be compulsory, the option would be a debtors prison, lets get some of the jobs back from the far east.


I agree with all of what you posted aside from this. We're not living in Soviet Russia; if people don't want to work then that's their right as a free man, they just can't expect any help from the government if that's what they choose (i.e. if they want to starve, live in the forest etc then they have a right to do so.)

[Skandi]

I agree with all of what you posted aside from this. We're not living in Soviet Russia; if people don't want to work then that's their right as a free man, they just can't expect any help from the government if that's what they choose (i.e. if they want to starve, live in the forest etc then they have a right to do so.)

The reasoning behind that, is to give people new skills, even if they are to lazy to learn them, it would also be useful in developing cheap industry. Plus they will just turn to crime otherwise. You can't expect people to starve quietly.

[Psychonaut]

What are your thoughts on the "welfare state" as it is at the moment?

While we're not yet as bad off as large portions of Europe, I think our welfare system is already far too large and should be drastically reduced. Like many of the other Americans on the board, I feel that welfare goes against the foundational principles of our nation, which was originally intended to be comprised of rugged, self-reliant yeoman farmers. The idea of helping out those less fortunate than ourselves, particularly those who have, through no fault of their own, fallen on hard times is noble and entirely in keeping with what we know of the legendary generosity of our pre-Christian forefathers. However, like most good things, when "giving" becomes compulsory and regulated by the Federal Government, it quickly turns to shit.


If you don't like it could you say why and what you would do about it?

I think that the system we've been burdened with is nearly beyond repair; so I'd scrap the whole edifice and start from scratch. For all the legendary faults of FEMA, I think that some form of assistance for those affected by natural disasters is a good thing; this could easily be handled on a state level. I also think that one, perhaps two, months of unemployment should be available no more than once per year; this could also be handled on a state level and adjusted accordingly. I'm also in favor of state run (not national) heath care.

[Aemma]

It would probably cost the state more to pay for 4 children to have childcare than it would to pay a parent to stay at home to look after them, not to mention that is it better for children to be with their families.
Yay I've had replies (4 months late!) :p


Indeed!! It makes no sense to ship off one's own children to a daycare (either privately-run or state-run), to be raised by another woman or worse by many in an institutionalised setting while both parents are working hard at bringing in money. This totally goes against my take on Natural Law. Society should be assisting families to have one parent stay at home to raise said children. Otherwise all we are doing is perpetuating the capitalist/consumerist agenda. We want to raise good healthy children don't we and not necessarily future consumers; that ought to be the goal imho at any rate.

Believe me we've been there and done that, the double income family while our son was in private daycare (after he had turned one and half years of age--luckily Daddy-O was able to stay at home during that time while I worked outside of the home) from the age of one and a half to about six years old. We both came home tired and our family's quality of life suffered immensely. After some circumstances that dictated that the best choice for us was for me to stop working and to be a full-time stay-at-home mom, we've never looked back. Sure there are things that one does without--like the bigger house or a new car. But who cares? I get to be home everyday to greet my son from school, to ask him how his day went, to help him with his homework, to nag him to practise his piano (;)). He's no 'latch-key kid' and he is--we are--all the better for it too.

We should be careful what we wish for from any welfare state. Not that I disagree with the notion of having a social safety net mind you--I happen to live in a very socialist country in that respect and I see many positives for my countrymen and countrywomen. But there's a fine line between 'benevolent' state intervention/interference and 'Big Brother good intentions' and offering families the wherewithall to use those resources as they see fit. As much as I am wary of my own Prime Minister's schemes at times, I think that not having a National Daycare program here in Canada and offering the financial resources to families instead to be able to choose how and by whom they would want their children raised, either by a stay-at-home parent or in a daycare setting, has been one of the most positive and family-friendly schemes implemented in my country in a long while. [By the way we don't qualify for such since our son is beyond the cut-off age of 6 years old, fyi.]


Anyway, that's my little rant on one of many aspects that I could go on about having been a social worker amongst other things in my professional life. :D

Cheers all! Another great thread Thrym! ;) ...Aemma

[Beorn]

Dole lasts at full rate for 6 months, after that rate is 0

Dole should last from the moment you claim unemployment till the time a job is secured.

There is nothing wrong with the benefit allowance system per se, but the allocation of professional one-on-one counselling, training and education advancement schemes, etc, etc...

I would expand the required dole visits from the fortnightly to twice weekly with more onus on securing the claimant a job for life, rather than a job to merely placate the need to simply be rid of one more unemployed person.


If you have not found a job by 6 months then one will be found for you.(nasty menial labour)For those who are simply using the dole as a means to scab from society? Then yes, it would be more favourable for the person to simply re-enter the job market as and where possible if unresponsive to professional and friendly guidance.


Attendance of such found work would be compulsory, the option would be a debtors prison, lets get some of the jobs back from the far east.Who is going to fund this 'debtors prison'? Certainly not I.

I'd rather see hard earned tax payers money be pumped into reforming the lower end of the working British.


A job that is suitable would be found or createdCan't fault that. Every person has a limit. Disabled people are no different.


If disability is so severe that no work of any kind can be done, then they must be either a hospital case or asylum case anyway.That discussion is for another thread.


"Bonus" pension top ups for those who have served their country, ex services, including fire etc, nurses, mothers of 4 or more children (or fathers who have been the sole parent), those with bravery awards etc.Would I get a "bonus" seeing as I have paid my taxes, had two children, never committed a crime, yet, never entered the forces; domestic or otherwise?

I can only see a divisive outcome for that policy.


if a couple one half must be working to have any benefits givenWhich benefits would you be talking about?

Child tax?, child benefit?, housing?, council?, disability?, etc...


Maternity/paternity benefit at full wage for 12 monthsMaternity benefit I can agree with to an extent. (I think it should be narrowed down to only three months), but the paternity benefit is simply an atrocious idea.
Agreed, the father can have one to two weeks paid "holiday" to acquaint himself with the new arrival, but after that the world begins to revolve again.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Distributism's end goal is to eradicate finance capitalism and welfarism.

I am currently in a country which is very capitalistic, and has no set minimum wage let alone welfare state. It has a dynamic economy.

Social housing was piloted here, and it resulted in people sub-letting and packing their houses out to capacity, and sometimes sleeping on the street to do so... :D

lol

I like welfare and distributism and capitalism.

Welfare state coupled with the fair distribution of private property within a free market is...

The S**t®

....and national anarchism is probably the best way for us to precipitate regime change towards that end.

[Skandi]

Dole should last from the moment you claim unemployment till the time a job is secured.
No there has to be a limit or people just live off it



I would expand the required dole visits from the fortnightly to twice weekly with more onus on securing the claimant a job for life, rather than a job to merely placate the need to simply be rid of one more unemployed person.

Yes totally


For those who are simply using the dole as a means to scab from society? Then yes, it would be more favourable for the person to simply re-enter the job market as and where possible if unresponsive to professional and friendly guidance.
Preferable yes, but they don't, and having idle people around just leads to extra crime


Who is going to fund this 'debtors prison'? Certainly not I.
It would be self funding, in effect a factory



Would I get a "bonus" seeing as I have paid my taxes, had two children, never committed a crime, yet, never entered the forces; domestic or otherwise?
Yes you would get a pension



Which benefits would you be talking about?
The maternity/paternity pay




Maternity benefit I can agree with to an extent. (I think it should be narrowed down to only three months), but the paternity benefit is simply an atrocious idea.

three months? you would leave your child with a stranger when it should still be breast feeding with it's mother?


Agreed, the father can have one to two weeks paid "holiday" to acquaint himself with the new arrival, but after that the world begins to revolve again.

The leave would be either mother or father not both.

[Beorn]

No there has to be a limit or people just live off it

The reason people live off of the dole and do so successfully for years is the lack of professional impetus in retraining and managing the unemployed back to work.

The benefit allowance and periods of allowance are absolutely fine.


It would be self funding, in effect a factory
Why spend money on building new prisons or converting buildings towards attaining standards to hold debtors, training and employing guards and other staff, relocating vital health care workers, etc, etc...

How would you implement people to actually accept this new proposal?

I have been on the dole for 4 months. I already attend a centre to help me back into a job market which has closed down its employability margins, due in part to a recession, but mostly because of lower paid immigrants.

If they were to turn round and declare me a debtor to society and even attempt to lay their hands on me to escort me to prison, they would have absolute murder to deal with.

They would also have free thinking, freedom loving patriots attacking and disturbing the blatant social class slavery gearing towards some fat cats industry.


three months? you would leave your child with a stranger when it should still be breast feeding with it's mother?No, I just wouldn't allow a woman three months of fully paid breast feeding.

A partner can provide a healthy wage packet bolstered by child tax, child benefit, housing benefit, council tax benefit, working tax credits, etc..., without having to be paid yet another benefit.

[safinator]

The conservatives feel it is a failure as it creates too many people living in a 'handout' mentality and culture.
The liberals consider it a success as it has swelled their voter base with guaranteed democratic voters.

[Damião de Góis]

Welfare should be meant as a temporary aid given to people that are between jobs. It should not be available to everyone, and it should not be given over a period of time too long.