Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda
Whether benefits are too generous, or wages too low, is an irrelevance.
What we've seen happen over recent years is a broken, flawed system
The welfare state was a ground breaking concept.
It was created to help those, who through no fault of their own, were in genuine need.
To be able to chose to live on benefits, because it's better paid than working for a living, is wrong, and it was wrong for successive governments to allow this to happen.
I'm with Marg P, on what constitutes the definition of poverty.
To me that's not having enough food to give your children, no money to heat your home, and not having enough money to see a doctor, and buy medicine.
In my opinion you don't live in poverty if you have a house full of the latest 'must have' gadgets, many working families would struggle to afford to buy.
Why work when I can get £42,000 in benefits a year AND drive a Mercedes?
If everyone decided they weren't going to work, there'd be no welfare state.
It's funded by peoples' hard earned taxes.
The money that pays for it doesn't grow on some magical tree. |
The system that is flawed is not the welfare system ... it is the tax system ... you mention that the welfare system is "funded by peoples' hard earned taxes" ... but it is not the taxes of all the people; missing are those who have a magical tax avoidance tree in the Caymans. The government is supporting the poor on the backs of the not quite, but almost poor.
And I can't agree with you and MargP on the definition of poverty. What you guys see as poverty closely resembles what I see when I watch late nite tv, and someone wants me to adopt a kid in Africa ... so you are saying that a First World Nation should adopt definitions of poverty more fitted to the Third World
I prefer the Canadian, much more lenient, definition: A family in poverty is one which spends more than half its income in basic food and shelter.
Though the shelter could be an igloo
