If you stopped all benefit to those capable but unwilling to work what would happen?

Answer 1

We would start to hear those that had their benefits cut begin to cry that life was unfair. Along with those cries we also would hear cries of unjustice from: The left wing media, liberals/democrats, etc....

Answer 2

This has been done for the past ten years. Women have been time-limited on the welfare roles and then put into minimum pay jobs that carry no health insurance or other benefits. These jobs do not even pay enough to cover rent, let alone food, utilities, transportation, clothing, and medical care.

The result has been a huge influx in homeless shelters across the nation, women and their children the largest population of clientele. Crime has also gone up, as some women turn to dealing drugs and prostitution to try to pay the rent and put food on their tables.

A very, very small group of these women have instead opted to go to school, get their GED and go on to college. They are able to get grants and loans to do so, but many times end up deep in debt from college loans, at the end of it even so. But at least these women are able to make a living.

A large proportion of women on the welfare rolls simply do not have the capacity to take part in higher education. They barely made it through school as it is, with low grades and many dropping out before graduation. The IQ among this population is disproportionately low, as compared to the general population.

So, what is the answer? Menial jobs (factory work, etc.) that pay enough to support a woman and her children, to pay the rent, utilities, food, clothing, with health insurance coverage. Most of these women would MUCH rather work, than sit on welfare. However, with these types of jobs being replaced by technology or being outsourced to India, South America, and other places, there is no place for these women to go anymore, the pickings are very, very slim.

Answer 3

1. you'd be putting thousands of families onto the street
2. the nhs wouldn't be able to handle the side effects of the bad health and diseases that would soon affect the newly homeless people.
3. there would be thousands of homeless people. we'd end up giving them as much in spare change as we would in benefits out of our tax. if not more

my point is. it's unethical and not worth it. we'd be penalising the majority that don't abuse the system. to be honest. if you're lazy enough to want to live on benefits, eat excessive amounts of oven chips and have 15 kids, i'm happy to give you the £50 a week to let you rot in your own filth. better that than you mugging my gran if the benefits were to stop

Answer 4

A lot of CEOs and VPs and other executives would get a rude shock - they'd actually have to do something at their "jobs" besides play golf, eat lunch, and think up new ways to screw their employees and their customers.

Answer 5

what should happen is national service a bit of responsibility. In reality they would starve, beg borrow & steal & drive friends & relatives mad.

Answer 6

Nothing, the government would just waste the money on something else.

Answer 7

great idea. a lot of people working are on less money than those on benefits, a lot of benefits are paid to people who are fiddling the system. i work but cannot aford to go out as much as people i know who are on benefits. their children have top of the range clothes ect, get grants for household items, alot of people deserve the benefits but there is alot of scroungers out there.

Answer 8

They would have to leave the plantation and start being accountable for their own actions (or lack of them). The tax base would surge, but any gains would be offset by more crime and homelessness.

Answer 9

it depends because the sick just cant work but all the rest will have to get off there bums and find a job There plenty out there why you asking

Answer 10

The royal family would be slightly poorer.