FabSwingers.com forum: changes to hoe benefits are provided

By *eavenNhell OP Couple
over a year ago

carrbrook stalybridge

found this on another forum allegedley written by one of the "1% " thoughts ?

SOMEONE AMONG THE 1% OF THE WEALTHIEST BRITONS HAS COMMENTED ON BENEFIT SANCTIONS

WE NOW HAVE A NEW TAP STRAP LINE

No British citizen without an affordable home and an adequate income in work or unemployment.

ONCE AGAIN I AM GRATEFUL FOR A GREAT DEBATE IN THE PREVIOUS POST. THIS TIME ABOUT SANCTIONS.

THIS CONTRIBUTION FROM SOMEONE AMONG THE 1% OF THE WEALTHIEST BRITONS IS EXTRACTED AND RE-POSTED BY TAP FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU "Peculiar Musings" who writes;

I have multiple degrees and an income that puts me in the 1%.

The basic issue is the state's "human right" guarantee than nobody in our society should be allowed to starve or go homeless.

It would be political sucide to openly revoke the underlying guarantee of the welfare state. However, austerity has been implemented as death by a thousand cuts.

You can still claim benefits, but the bureaucracy will make it more hassle than its worth and deliberately introduce enough arbitrary rules that statistical reductions in payouts can be made, just by excluding people for a minor technically.

This is probably counter productive in most cases.

People wanting to game the system are the ones most likely to pay attention to the technicality rules. For everybody else, the sanctions create a financial emergency that distracts from the bigger picture goal of getting their life back on track.

The alternative to sanctions is a universal citizens income. 42% of GDP already goes to the government through taxation, so we already have a significant amount of convoluted income redistribution.

Removing all conditionality means some people will chose not to work, but that already happens under our existing system. This is a cost of doing business for making a "human rights guarantee", but one in the grand scheme of things we can actually afford as a country to make.

The net result is to give people the freedom and security to focus their attention on their long term needs, rather than being constantly distracted by short term emergencies.

My belief is that both net GDP and human happiness would grow as a result.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If you choose not to work, why should that mean you cannot contribute to society / the nation?

There's a world of different between Cant Work and Wont Work. In any sympathetic society, systems are in place which safeguard the former; but I don't necessarily agree that we should have systems in place for the latter.

If more people choose not to work, how do you sustain your GDP?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Are there benefits to being a hoe ?

How about rakes and shovels are they being discriminated against ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andybeachWoman
over a year ago

In the middle

"Are there benefits to being a hoe ?

How about rakes and shovels are they being discriminated against ?

all you hoes

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If you're not concentrating on how to feed yourself and not worrying about how to feed your family, and in a good state of physical and mental health because you can do these things without any additional stress then yes it makes sense that society would benefit. You could concentrate on other things that would be beneficial to society.

Does everyone want to be beneficial? No, but like you say they people are doing their own shit anyway so they don't matter.

Where will the money come from? It is there and it is a valid concept, but will those who intentionally hoard money release it to others? They're trying not to right now and have been trying not to for a long time, they're mentally ill and i don't see any chance of making them mentally well either, although anything is possible when someone seeks a cure they are more likely to find one than someone who is stubborn about changing.

Society needs a lot of work to get what one particular set of people wants, i suppose if we want a society that is loving then we should have our top people set the example and choose to give love, but we always choose those who are selfish coz we're selfish. Humans should just die out quietly and leave the universe to it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

It's interesting how our culture supports double standards, depending on which strata of society people exist in.

Since the 80s the increase in the gap between rich and poor has been magnified.

The current style of sanctions placed on people is inhumane, whilst the system is being designed to be paying much less.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eavenNhell OP Couple
over a year ago

carrbrook stalybridge

"It's interesting how our culture supports double standards, depending on which strata of society people exist in.

Since the 80s the increase in the gap between rich and poor has been magnified.

The current style of sanctions placed on people is inhumane, whilst the system is being designed to be paying much less.

Few people have challenged the divide and conquer tactics that have been used. Many at the bottom have parroted the likes of 'scrougers', 'lazy' etc their masters want them to. The same mouths and heads seem strangely slimline in abilities to make the connections and recognise divide and conquer tactics that they are the puppets for. "
this they are all to happy with the bread (cheap credit) and circus (celebratory culture ) act being fed to them to wake up and challenge it untill its to late

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread