The Socialist Republic can make it's own arrangements; everything anyone needs or wants will be free at the point of delivery and disease will be abolished.
You have hit the nail on the head. It's not the idea of benefits or a welfare state that is a problem (even India is at last starting to propose moves in this direction)... it's the fact that the system has got out of control. Benefits paid to pensioners, but only in the form of the state pension, are contribution based, as are a few others (one form of JSA) - these are understandably a sizeable proportion of the huge annual benefits budget (the largest part of government spending - above even the NHS), but they are roughly balanced by NI contributions (which are the used to determine entitlement). However we have reached the point where we have also got to fund a number of costly "Universal" benefits such as Child Benefit, and a wide range of non-contributory benefits and tax credits. As well as being a problem from an affordability point of view, these cause challenges in other ways: - Housing Benefit can inflate rents - In-work benefits can "subsidise" low-paid jobs, perhaps, although the economics of that are a little more complex, as reducing benefits would not necessarily lead to employers having to pay more - there are other reasons for low wages, such as globalisation. - Having a non-contributory benefits system (especially when combined with free education and health care and better security and employment prospects than many other countries) increases the attractiveness of the UK to lower-earning immigrants who will not be net contributors to the budget (after all, they may well receive in-work benefits). It's terribly difficult to unwind this though, as demonstrated by the mess that the coalition government is making of it.
Yes. The problem always comes back to how do you "incentivise" the right kind of behaviour. Those who have made no provision and can't afford things get them given and those who can pay for themselves in addition to those who can't. Redistribution is a fact of life but trying to make it work whilst remaining fair to all is an almost impossible problem. I instinctively shy away from "complicated" solutions, keep it simple so there is a visible link between actions and reactions.
The country is in a bit of a state. I feel sorry for the other countries and the disasters that have happened but I don't understand why we send so much money out in aid when we can't help our own here in the uk
We are, in effect, borrowing money to give away in Foreign Aid. Someone will be able to explain how the resulting benefits to the UK are somehow greater than the cost, but I find that a little hard to swallow. Disaster relief is another matter really, but in all cases the public can and do give generously via charities. But what I resent is that the current MPs (of all parties) are trying to enact legislation to oblige FUTURE governments and taxpayers to give away a minimum proportion of GDP, regardless of the state of the nations's finances (the Treasury can only get away with borrowing so much at the moment because effective interest rates are so low, but that could change, even if the BoE does not increase the base rate).
have a look at Victorian Britain before we start coming up with solutions. theres plenty that needs doing if it means getting it done on the cheep and getting dudes out there bed and away from there tv. just do it. i would.
There is a debate to be had about the respective merits of universal benefits, contribution-based benefits, and means-tested benefits, each of which has its advantages. May I throw in a couple of points? If wealthy people receive no benefits at all (on the means-testing grounds that they can afford to pay for themselves), they lose any interest in the benefits system and use their political clout to cut it. Only if some benefits are universal so that even the wealthy get them will they maintain a stake and a commitment. Means testing is hugely expensive to administer; it requires an army of employees to monitor, record, calculate, assess, and sanction. A large slice of the money goes to the administrators instead of the claimants. Universal benefits are very cheap and simple to administer; nearly all the money goes to the recipients.
It's not entitlement that's the issue, it is working out, on a year-by-year basis, whether people continue to be entitled to a given benefit. In the case of Child Benefit, it is doubtful that the administration of means-testing would cost much less compared to paying Child Benefit to all and sundry. It is quite possible that it saves the taxpayer money using the broad-brush approach. Of course, it's nice to think that "rich folk" would decide for themselves that they don't need to, and won't, claim Child Benefit but, hey, they didn't get rich by passing up the opportunity to make money, right? Obviously, this is an indication that the whole idea of Child Benefit is broken. If it's cheaper to pay it to people including those who don't need it, just how "necessary" is it in the first place? However - which Government is going to be the one to withdraw it, eh?
I think there should be a points system. You start with say 50 points a year, if you have kids and screw the child benefit, if you claim unemployment benefit, if you are constantly at the hospital,if you block up the school with kids, you lose an amount of your points.......once out of points you have to pay.....or cover it with your insurance. If you can demonstrate good management of your points over the years you get to get the state pension.... If you dont use your points you get a tax rebate at the end of the year..........
My dealings with the rich have led me to one conclusion, the more they have the more they want, the majority think it's their god given right to be handed stuff on a plate free of charge, had one couple of years ago £1.5 million house, wanted a gas service, its standard charge of £350 based on certain criteria that he met so was entitled to the standard cost. He fucking argued the toss saying that he should get it for free.
did a window cleaning job (lasted a day scared of heights)in a village called bridge of weir built on a hill, the ubber wealthy lived at the top the regular joes lived at the bottom, the top payed by cheque no tip. the bottom payed cash tipped and fed you coffee and biscuits. just saying. :smile:
Working class mate generally a better class of people with proper upbringing, wealthy kids grow up expecting everything spoon fed and don;t want to pay for it. Makes me sick.
Yes, sorry, I didn't finish my thought. What I meant was, if Child Benefit being paid out is so inexpensive as to be cheaper to pay out than to regulate via means testing, then perhaps it could be withdrawn altogether. If parents are in actual need of the Benefit, it is likely that they are already in receipt of other benefits (which are already regulated). Parents in this situation could receive the equivalent of the former Child Benefit as part of their other benefits payments. Of course, abolishing Child Benefit won't happen any time soon. No Party would get voted in with that little bombshell in their manifesto. Also, if Child Benefit is the difference between sink & swim for parents who are not in receipt of other benefits, withdrawing CB would create serious hardship.
