[Marx]

He who does not work, neither shall he eat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_n...er_shall_he_eat

Should it be up to the government and the hard working taxpayers to pay for people who don't work out of plain lazyness ? Should society pick up the bill for people who don't want to work, but who are able to work ? If you are able to work, yet choose not to, surely this would void your right to state benefits ? You make an active decision to not work, so should the responsibility for looking after yourself pass to the state ? This would not apply to people who are unable to work out of illness or old age.


I personally believe that if you are able to work, you should work. State benefits are designed for people who are unable to work for whatever the reason, not to let people be lazy.

[MrJohnDClare]

My mothers boss at the Wool Control during the war used to say this, but he meant it in a Victorian way - that the laxy deserved to starve: 'those who don't work, don't eat'.

Even as it was being introduced, people were worrying that the Welfare State would turn into a Santa Claus state, and encourage the lazy:

Quote

"It appears to be a case of 'What can I get?' ... this Bill saps the very foundations on which our national character has been built."
Viscountess Davidson, speaking in the debate on the National Health Service 30 April 1946

This nowadays perpetuates itself as the workfare ethic.

In my opinion, it is one of those ideas that has an attractiveness in theory, but all kinds of injustices and is unworkable in practice. No working has its problems, even if you DO get benefits.

I find it really interesting that the idea of a wefare state should be an anathema to both the far rights AND the far left!


And it will be really interesting to see what modern young people think about this very old statement.

[glitterglitter]

Marx,

Did you check your sources first? e.g the Government eligibility criteria for Jobseekers allowance?

Just wondering cos as far as I'm aware, under the current system benefits are only paid to those ABLE to work if you can prove that you are actively looking for work. If you can't prove you're looking for work your benefits are stopped. That's why it's called jobseeker's allowance. Proof includes regular interviews where you have to show evidence that you have been applying for jobs, e.g. rejection letters. The system was not set up to give benefits to people who simply don't want to work. People who claim to be unable to work I believe can claim for income support.

Another wee bit - your quote referred to the Bourgeoisie, as I'm sure you are aware, and I really don't think the genuine Bourgeoisie would be claiming benefits since they are likely to have too many assets or savings

Or are you playing Devil's Advocate???????

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

I have to disgaree with Mr JDC's assertion that it '... is unworkable in practice'. It is working. Has been for a long time. The Government is always trying to tighten it up but gets attacked when it does so, e.g. having to prove invalidity. I think you mean that there are certain groups in society you don't like and you feel are diddling the system, but for every real life example of someone YOU KNOW (not read or heard about) that fits into this category I'll tell you scores of genuine cases. This is supposed to be history forum, not the Daily Mail letters page!!!!!!!

[donone123]

I think benefits should only be taken in extreme circumstances. Example, I'm studying in Edge Hill university and I'm now finished for the summer. There are no suitable jobs in the local area and I cannot claim benefits as I am still classed as in full time education. I didn't complain, but I think it's ironic that the people who can work but have not wanted to for a number of years should be paid for by the government when people who are really trying hard to make ends meet, taking the hour long journey to uni and the hour long journey home and doesn't have any government loans/grants to get them through the summer should suffer.

[glitterglitter]

donone123, on Jun 17 2009, 09:37 AM, said:

I didn't complain, but I think it's ironic that the people who can work but have not wanted to for a number of years should be paid for by the government

Again, just to point out that the Government does not willingly pay people who do not want to to work. These people are defrauding the system. Just as a number of students used to defraud the system by claiming to be looking for FT permanent work when in fact they just wanted money for their holidays before going back to uni in the Autumn. So the Gvt clamped down. They thought the money would be better going to people who couldn't adequately feed their children because they'd been made redundant.

Do you know any specific examples of these people who can work but have not wanted to for a number of years? I know you couldn't simply be referring to stories you've read in the red tops or things you've seen on the telly I'm happy to share with you stories of some family members whose lives and marriages have been ripped apart by long term unemployment.

The situation of students is different. 100% of students are in their situation because they have made an academic AND economic decision to put themselves there. Students are well aware in advance of the situations re holidays etc but decide the short term economic hardship will be worth it in the long run. And the majority are young school leavers and living at home. I don't know the figures, but I doubt many people are unemployed because they chose to be (you don't benefits if you willingly leave employment) and think it will enhance their long term prospects. Many are not young. Many have dependants.

Here endeth the rant. Enjoy your holidays!!!!

[MrJohnDClare]

glitterglitter, I edited your post a little.
There's nothing wrong with debating the issue, but let's not get too 'hot', or personally confrontational, please - this is a History forum for school pupils, not a political forum.

I approve of your comments, which are mature, and socially aware and motivated, and show great care.
I too know of decent families damaged by unemployment, and I sympathise desperately.
But surely you also know of families who are taking the system for a ride, and have been doing so for generations, never mind years.

I am painfully aware of being middle-class, and thereby separated physically and emotionally from the reality of many working peoples' lives; but as a Councillor I meet with many people, and one of the greatest gripe of decent working people who are in the situation you describe is the situation of some of their neighbours to whom these rules somehow and inexplicably do not seem to apply.

[glitterglitter]

Apologies if you thought I had worded reply too strongly.

I honestly don’t know anyone who is unemployed because they don’t WANT to work.

The generations you speak of may be caught up in a cycle of poverty, bad housing, low education and skills leading to apathy, low expectations and depression that probably makes them virtually unemployable. Maybe that's the case with these neighbours, or maybe they have health problems. Invalidity even covers depression and alcoholism!!!!! But I think these people need help and support. I’m sure that’s not how they wanted their life to turn out.

I agree there are people in our society with mental health and behaviour issues who are probably never going to be able to effectively contribute. But if we take away their dole they may just turn to crime. Again, support is needed.

And I’m quite sure there are people out there defrauding the system. Our politicians for example!!! £4000 a year dole money is nothing compared to those chancers! 'Working' does not autimatically equal 'decent'!

Things were terrible and unfair before the Welfare State. There still room for imptovement, but I think the benefits outweigh the difficulties

[MrJohnDClare]

glitterglitter, on Jun 19 2009, 02:05 PM, said:

Apologies if you thought I had worded reply too strongly.

I honestly don’t know anyone who is unemployed because they don’t WANT to work.

The generations you speak of may be caught up in a cycle of poverty, bad housing, low education and skills leading to apathy, low expectations and depression that probably makes them virtually unemployable. Maybe that's the case with these neighbours, or maybe they have health problems. Invalidity even covers depression and alcoholism!!!!! But I think these people need help and support. I’m sure that’s not how they wanted their life to turn out.

I agree there are people in our society with mental health and behaviour issues who are probably never going to be able to effectively contribute. But if we take away their dole they may just turn to crime. Again, support is needed.

And I’m quite sure there are people out there defrauding the system. Our politicians for example!!! £4000 a year dole money is nothing compared to those chancers! 'Working' does not autimatically equal 'decent'!

Things were terrible and unfair before the Welfare State. There still room for imptovement, but I think the benefits outweigh the difficulties

This is a wonderful statement, full of vision and social conscience.

PLEASE become politically active - we NEED people like you in local (and national!) politics!
My only comment would be that you might need to steel yourself to cope with the depths of deceit and deception you will meet.
The key to life, as Bruce Springstein says, is to hold fast to the vision whilst you lose your illusions.
Yours is a vision of which I personally approve, and perhaps we might try to hold fast to it together, eh???

Thank you for posting this; for anything it might be worth to you to know, I agree.

[glitterglitter]