Should welfare benefits be restricted to those who have contributed financialy to society?

Question

I believe that the rightful role of government is to maintain order and property. I feel that the government has no right to put their hand in my pocket so that I can support the idle, the ignorant, the untrustworthy, the never do wells etc. Why should those that contribute the least benefit the most? The middle classes have become the new slave class; with the underclass the new masters.

Answer 1

Well to answer your question no,

The best and clear example is children.
they are the most vuenarable percisely because of their limted role in our society.


what you suggested is flawed for many many reasons but on a moral point it is disturbing.

In conclusion to this question i would like to state the system was put in place because of the economic collapse of the 1930's, it is a safe guard, it could happen again to believe you wouldn't need some help is huberis.

please regain your humanity.

Answer 2

I have a lot of sympathy with your comments. However, some people are luckier than others. I am surrounded by a council estate on one hand and a huge private estate with big house, fields, etc on the other. Who's the leech? Someone who had made money from other people's industry or the group struggling to survive. My husband walked out one me when my baby was 4 months old, my toddler 3. Without charity, I don't know what would have happened to us.
I think we use the welfare state as a hammock, not a safety net. The USA have cut down the number of benefits. Their teenage prgnancy rates have dropped by 60% (I stand to be corrected on the figures). Now we pay too much tax to support the feckless. There's a middle line somewhere. How do we distinguish from the genuinely needy and the greedy/lazy/dishonest?

Answer 3

You say the government should "maintain order and property." Good. But remember poverty breeds desperation, and desperation leads to crime. Police and prisons are very expensive. Then there's higher insurance premiums. And having the streets littered with the dead and dying is unsightly and unsanitary. Sometimes welfare is actually cheaper than the alternative. It's like the truism: "The price of peace is always less than the cost of war." Don't let envy cloud your mind, sound economic reasoning is the true mark of conservative principles.

Besides, it's too easy to get selective in defining what is welfare and what is not. For example, public education is a purely socialistic endeavor which has made the US a better place. I imagine there are few people in the US who worked to pay for their education before starting kindergarten. Here in Ohio, it costs the taxpayers about $150,000.00 to put a child through kindergarten through high school.

Answer 4

Yes, I think that a maximum benefit should be implemented. You reach X number of days/weeks and then you ar ecut off. Obviously, there would need to be some kind of benefits remaining for those unable to support themselves, children, the aged, handicaps, etc. But I feel like unless you can prove that you fall into one of those catagories, then you will need to replenish the well.

I also believe that there should be a lifetime cap of benefits, no sense in letting them work for a month just to be able to get back on for 6.

If they can't find a job, then give them education and job training, but make them work in a government program until then, such as street maintenance.

Answer 5

I believe that if you work and still cant make it you should be entitled to help. There is a big difference between that and not doing anything while being better off than the people that do. I know someone who had their debt to the dmv paid so they could get their license back, and even gas money to look for a job. I am laid off from my job right now and still dont accept gov't assistance. When I do have a job I usually make it from paycheck to paycheck with food, gas, and everything else watching people I know for a fact dont even attempt to get jobs spending hundreds of dollard in food stamps b/c they have popped out multiple kids. It's almost as if you get rewarded for having kids you cant take care of and I think it's pretty sh***y.

Answer 6

Absolutely YES!!!
When I was out of work a couple of years ago I was refused job seeker's allowance because I had been out of the country and could not prove 'habitual residence'
This in spite of the fact that I was born here and had been making contributions to the NI from abroad.
Foreigners come here and go on to benefits without having made any contributions. What sort of sick logic is this? The woman at the job centre seemed to think this was amusing.

Answer 7

I don't agree with you final comment but I agree that people should not take out if they haven't put in. I don't think immigrants should be allowed benefits until they have contributed to the UK's economy by working. In Australia I think you have to work for at least 3 years before you can claim any benefits. If we had the same approach we definitely would not have as many immigrants draining our benefits system.

Answer 8

A great point, i believe that we do work for the lazy bums in our society and immigrants to live comfortably. my Father who has worked all his life until recently and always paid his taxes was unable to continue to work due to a back injury caused by his job (Bricklayer) the goverment do nothiong to help as he was self employed, he cant claim benefit, he cant get a job he is trained for due to the injury, and he cant get anothe job due to age and lack of proper traning, Yet other jobs are given to immigrants and people who have never worked get all the help they want and more, we live in a crazy land where fools rule and the hard working are made to look even more foolish than the fools.

Answer 9

I believe that welfare benefits should be properly means tested to help those who are genuinely disadvantaged and yes part of that should be that you must make a positive contribution to the country that you reside in.

otherwise we will end up like the USA (no disrespect).

But please remember our country Great Britain got rich and powerful on the backs of other less powerful countries.

Answer 10

workers we legitimately injury on the job and can't artwork can't be thrown out. infantrymen disabled can't be thrown away b/c they are in a position to not function they used to, the elderly did their time and paid their dues. it fairly is the government (the two Republicans and Dems) by away the money. Had our government been so short sited we'd have a good number of money for healthcare, SS, and so on for the oldest generations and greater left over. You do have a component that some human beings merely artwork the device.. not all human beings yet some do. those human beings suck.

Answer 11

Completely, absolutely yes...........

The only caveat I would put on that is people who are physically unable to work, ie completely disabled, not some buidler with a so called bad back......

Why do children need benefits? There's always an adult that claims, an that adult should be financially responsible and stop mooching....

Job seekers and housing benefits should be limited to 6 months so you have a small buffer, and child support should be banned! Honestly why should my taxes pay for your children...good grief