why should we pay benefits to fit and able young people?

Answer 1

we shouldn,t since they have not paid any taxes

Answer 2

We shouldn't.

By definition they are fit and able (to work), I don't see how they can qualify, being a waster should not be allowed to be a profession.

Either they get a job they actually want to do, or they should need to do some work that is given to them like sweeping streets or painting public areas etc.

Of course some benifits are there to support people who cannot make enough to live on, that is a different issue, you should be paid fairly for work done, if pay is low then I agree that benifits should be there to support people that are actually trying to work and support themselves as a means of increasing there "pay."

No one should get anything "free" from the state unless they have a genuine reason for not being able to contribute to the public coffers that they are happy to take from.

I include in this the public financed breeding program that some people (not just women) embark on, churning out kids the way a dog produces a litter, only to expect those of us who work and pay taxes to finance it.

Do not confuse this with helping those in need, I absolutely agree that people who cannot work should be looked after by the State. If sponging were to be clamped down on those with a genuine need could be looked after better, including pensioners who have often contributed there entire lives.

The downside to this is of course Jeremy Kyle will run out of participants and an audience - sure he is well able to sweep the street. He could maybe become a soap salesman.

Answer 3

i had to go on benefits when i had my baby and then my boyfriend left me for someone else.
at the time it came as a huge support but only untill my baby was old enough to be left with a child minder or nursery then i went back to work.
i wouldnt of been able to work and look after a newborn baby all by myself that is why the benefit system is in place.
now i am working and feel when i pay my taxes it goes to some people who needed it like i did.
of course there are some people who take advatage of the benefit system and are simply lazy but not all of them are young,.

Answer 4

Um, most low income jobs don't have benefits and for those with an education or skill, benefits are a perk to attract employees.......With the cost of benefits increasing to both the employee and the employer, benefit packages have become a very important topic. Preventative medicine or wellness care is another good reason for benefits. It helps employees to stay "able" when they get older by educating them about health issues and how to prevent them.

Answer 5

Its preventative. Hopefully, by paying benefits to the fit and able young people, we encourage them to get their yearly physicals to help them avoid elevated cholesterol and heart disease, get vaccinations, and educate them on proper health maintenance. So, when they get older, they will be in better health and won't cost all other insurance subscribers lots of money.
It is easier to prevent major illnesses in the young than to try to treat them when they diagnosed later in life. Its about being proactive.

Answer 6

I don't know why everybody's thumb's downing this question. It's a good question, and it has answers, and it isn't the question's fault that so many of the answers are bad ones.

The bad answers come in two kinds. First, there are ones which defend social welfare only vaguely, with allusions to what "everybody knows," which is frequently false information that originated as someone's advertising or media propaganda.

Second, some bad answers oppose social welfare with standard conservative fantasies about how people can get paid for sweeping streets and "painting public areas." I haven't seen anyone hiring people to do that, and I don't think you have, either.

The conservative myth, which always seems to rise up when social welfare is discussed, is that there's a job waiting for you "just around the corner." It's always around the corner. The employer who's sure to hire you because he's so desperate to have street sweepers or public area painters is never specified. The conservative simply assures you that there are lots of such jobs "around the corner" and that if you try you're sure to be hired for one of them.

This is the most dishonest thing that conservatives do. The plain fact is that there are more people than jobs, and in this game of musical chairs there's going to be millions of people left standing when the music stops and all of the seats have been occupied. Yet the conservative keeps slandering the unemployed as lazy and characterizing their enrollment in social welfare programs as a kind of theft.

Some able-bodied people are sure to be left out when all the jobs have been taken. And although employers have a general incentive (the profit motive) to choose the best workers, that isn't their only selection criterion. They also choose people who are easy to dominate or intimidate, because such people can be frightened into giving up their civil or personal rights by the threat (which does not need to be expressed in any explicit way) of having his job terminated. Employers have a minimum bar set for job-competence, but, once that standard is met, they begin to screen job applicants for their pliability and political suitability.

Having said all that, there are problems with social welfare, and the biggest one is that wherever you have it, not only do you attract people who are inclined to abuse it, living by fraud - also, you create an environment that will breed inferiority. The worst among us are SUPPOSED TO DIE. Nature gets rid of bad genes by natural selection, and we have not been so long civilized, nor will remain so long enough, that we can disregard nature's normal operating procedures without having to pay the accumulated cost for that disregard.

Social welfare should be a eugenic tool that permits the best humans to produce the greater number of children, so that the world will come to be filled with people of better quality and higher creative powers. Wherever social welfare exists, it should be combined with a method for getting rid of the worst human material, and it matters less HOW it is done than THAT it is done.

Answer 7

because if they have been made redundant or made to leave work because of a difficult situation then they cannot starve and have no money to pay their rent!!
i do agree there are people out there who cant be assed to work but dont stereotype...

Answer 8

If you are able to work, then you should work,if you are unable to work then you should be supported, if you are able to work, but just don't want to, you should be left to starve.
Anyone who does not want to work, neither let them eat. 2 Thessalonians 3:10

Answer 9

So they dont have to rob us.Keep em sweet or keep em silent buffalo bill style!

Answer 10

Assuming they satisfy the criteria (a different argument as to what this should be), then age and ablement should be irrevelant.

Answer 11

We don't so find out the facts before asking pointless dumb *** questions.