• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

The UK benefits system

sexNcandy said:
We are forced to make assumptions when you don't bring anything into the debate other than "it's not fair, it's distributed all wrong, it's a fucking joke".

You might be learning some economics but clearly not developmental economics. It's not about whether or not you agree with it, it's the rationale behind it.

And again, you just don't know what you are talking about. There must be good reasons why they chose to give some people their own place, maybe it has do with what the other poster said, keeping them separated from other potentially bad influences. Either way, it's not a better living condition than anyone elses really. It's not their place, they can't do what they want with it, they are monitored, there are agents of the state checking up on them, they have to ask permission to do certain things... it's far from ideal. You seem to want the government to allocate them to somewhere shitty and much more modest, out of some desire of revenge or belief that it is just unfair. But rehabilitation has nothing to do with fairness. If giving them a good place is more likely to help them turn the table, (and someone clearly thinks so if this is being done) then by all means do give them a good house and let's hope for the best.

I've lived in shared accomodation for a long time. I had rights, I could do whatever I wanted within what the contract allowed me, I chose the place and neighborhood, I chose the people I wanted to share with, I didn't answer to anybody... it's very different than the situation of some guy who might even have been living near me in a better house but had to continually answer to the state and live within its boundaries. They surely don't get to choose anything.


If you truly think this is so great, then go fucking rob people down the street, go through all the legal procedures and then ask for this special housing, i'm sure you will have the time of your life.
Click to expand...

No you're not forced to bring assumptions in to it at all, you've just decided to because you wish to pigeon hole me. You could have given your opinion and asked about anything further you wished to know about mine.

How is the situation you describe any different from anyone else living in shared accomodation? They can't do what they like with it, they're monitored, they're answerable to the landlord, they have to ask permission to do certain things. If you've lived in shared accomodation where you can just paint the walls or change the carpet you've been living in very different shared accomodation to that which most people do.

That individual example is not, as you well know, indicative of the picture as a whole either. It was taken as an individual example. There are thousands upon thousands of people who have their own place to live paid for by the state whilst not working and are under no particular outstanding circumstances whilst thousands upon thosands work hard and are forced to live in shared accomodation for financial reasons. What is the rationale behind that?
 
parttime crackhead said:
I think before we start talking about benefits we should have a big discussion, in this thread obviously, about tax.

I'll start. I would happily pay more tax to live in a better society. I would pay more tax if it meant no-one was sleeping on the street. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

+1. Yer commie bastard. I blame knock.
 
Shambles said:
Again, isn't that a problem with low wages not with high benefits? Benefits are not high - nobody could conceivably argue that if they are actually aware of the sitution beyond Heil headlines. If wages actually covered the basic cost of living that would be a start. They don't - certainly not minimum wage or anywhere around that level - and to actually encourage people who actively choose not to work cos they're better off not working (or no different) you need to pay them enough to make it worth their while. Who would choose to slog their guts out to be worse off? The jobs you are talking about are bottom of the barrel stuff - not the kinda thing you can expect to climb any ladders in. You end up having to claim Tax Credits anyway so are still a drain on the system and aren't being paid enough to pay tax either. Low wages, not overly generous benefits. Why is it so many people choose to blame those who have least choice over their situation? Living on benefits is not any kinda fun - it's boring as fuck and you can't afford anything without sacrificing something more important that you know is gonna bite you in the arse further down the line.
Click to expand...

Governments have little say in wages. They can try to alter them or even foot the bill themselves, but it usually has disastrous consequences and is counter productive as far as product output goes. It's the market who determines the wages. The benefits can be high or low relative to the wages. The concept of relatively here is central to understanding the problem. The wages are determined by a whole set of economical factors - but also in great part by the productivity of the worker. It is what it is and it's hard to change in the short run.

You believe benefits are already too low - and they are, in a sense. However a good number of people are comfortable enough with them that they won't put in work to get a few quid more. Thus, they need to be lower and force people to get off their ass, even if that comes with costs.

Bottom of the barrel stuff? Maybe, but you can always climb. The world is full of stories of high executives and CEOs who started out scrubbing the floor. You can climb through being good at what you do (like a good sales assistant who is always observing the manager, learns everything and is eventually promoted) or by saving the extra money you get an investing in specialization and education. It's not easy by any means, and it's a long hard road to climb, but it's entirely possible. You might not become the ceo of shell, but it's not that hard to substantially increase your income with enough hard work.
 
Si Ingwe said:
... just make them pay their tax, might be good...
Click to expand...

Or that. complete piss take, they shouldnt be able to avoid tax or whatever they do, i havent looked too much into it but heard about massive companys doing tax avoidance schemes or some shit

and legalize and tax cannabis
 
omen_owen mk2 said:
No you're not forced to bring assumptions in to it at all, you've just decided to because you wish to pigeon hole me. You could have given your opinion and asked about anything further you wished to know about mine.

How is the situation you describe any different from anyone else living in shared accomodation? They can't do what they like with it, they're monitored, they're answerable to the landlord, they have to ask permission to do certain things. If you've lived in shared accomodation where you can just paint the walls or change the carpet you've been living in very different shared accomodation to that which most people do.

That individual example is not, as you well know, indicative of the picture as a whole either. It was taken as an individual example. There are thousands upon thousands of people who have their own place to live paid for by the state whilst not working and are under no particular outstanding circumstances whilst thousands upon thosands work hard and are forced to live in shared accomodation for financial reasons. What is the rationale behind that?
Click to expand...

The key difference being that I can choose to change landlords and live somewhere else if the guy is giving me a hard time. The convict can't just choose to change governments.

And either way, you have a lot more freedom answering to a landlord than to the government. Most landlords i've dealt with weren't very liberal, no, but they almost never came by and never gave me a hard time.

The rationale is that this might be helping said people achieve a better condition in life. Sure, there will be "unfair" cases where people with no intention of putting in work will abuse the system. That's the price you have to pay thought. It's certainly not always that easy to get a place as you make it seem, and the government can choose to alter the rules or cut it out at any time. As opposed to me, having a job and paying my bills and having financial stability.
 
parttime crackhead said:
I think before we start talking about benefits we should have a big discussion, in this thread obviously, about tax.

I'll start. I would happily pay more tax to live in a better society. I would pay more tax if it meant no-one was sleeping on the street. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

A lot of people prefer to live in the street than in any kind of government housing. Everyone could hand over all their finances to the government and it wouldn't change that.
 
sexNcandy said:
The key difference being that I can choose to change landlords and live somewhere else if the guy is giving me a hard time. The convict can't just choose to change governments.

And either way, you have a lot more freedom answering to a landlord than to the government. Most landlords i've dealt with weren't very liberal, no, but they almost never came by and never gave me a hard time.

The rationale is that this might be helping said people achieve a better condition in life. Sure, there will be "unfair" cases where people with no intention of putting in work will abuse the system. That's the price you have to pay thought. It's certainly not always that easy to get a place as you make it seem, and the government can choose to alter the rules or cut it out at any time. As opposed to me, having a job and paying my bills and having financial stability.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's avoiding the point. Why the need for individual housing in so many cases when there are no 'special' conditions. Why not house these people in shared accomodation and use the money saved to spend it on something more productive?
 
omen_owen mk2 said:
Yeah, but that's avoiding the point. Why the need for individual housing in so many cases when there are no 'special' conditions. Why not house these people in shared accomodation and use the money saved to spend it on something more productive?
Click to expand...

I don't know why. Maybe there's a good point that the policymaker thought of but that eludes us. Maybe, and this is more likely, that's not the way it was intended to be but bureaucracy and politicians screwed up the program and gave room to stuff like this. In that case, it would be a mistake of the program to be allowing people who don't need to be living in good houses. However, that doesn't mean it's a bad program and should be discarded, it just means some adjustments should be made.
 
omen_owen mk2 said:
How is the situation you describe any different from anyone else living in shared accomodation? They can't do what they like with it, they're monitored, they're answerable to the landlord, they have to ask permission to do certain things. If you've lived in shared accomodation where you can just paint the walls or change the carpet you've been living in very different shared accomodation to that which most people do.
Click to expand...

I live in shared accommodation like you've described. Oh no I can't paint the walls or lay a carpet, how terrible it is here. That's the same as every single rental property, but someone else lives here. I like living here, it's pretty good. I'm well aware of the sort of areas of Glasgow I would be housed in if I was somehow able to wrangle a free flat on the giro. As much as I hate doing it, I'd rather go out and work than live there.

I'm not sure what you mean by monitored. My landlord can come round for an inspection if he gives me 2 days notice, I've never actually had a landlord bother to do an inspection though.

StoneHappyMonday said:
+1. Yer commie bastard. I blame knock.
Click to expand...

Haha. You're right btw, it is knock's fault.
 
StoneHappyMonday said:
Source? Because you are talking bollocks right?
Click to expand...

You seem to have a lot of trouble interpreting what i'm saying. I care for the homeless just as much as you do, in fact maybe I care more since I pretty much always give them a good amount of change. Hungarian homeless are my favorites, they are usually very nice and the ones who will use the money to drink are very upfront about it.


My statement doesn't come from a dislike of homeless people. It's a fact that has been proven time and time again by pretty much any government program in the world that tried to house homeless people. They will usually not adapt to the new way of life, viewing it as too rigid and demanding. They highly value the ultimate freedom they have in living in the street. Of course this isn't true for everyone, there's a lot of people who would be glad to have government housing and don't have access to it, being forced to be homeless. But it would be impossible to entirely eliminate homelessness unless by force, because some of them would still choose the street over government housing. There is the point I tried to make, in a lot more words to try to make it clear to you.
 
I think I preferred you in that P&S thread, tis all. You know, the best thread on (current) BL. Let's keep it to ourselves though eh.

PS I still think you're talking bollocks about homeless people NOT preferring a roof over their head but, y'know. Mwah etc.
 
sexNcandy said:
You seem to have a lot of trouble interpreting what i'm saying. I care for the homeless just as much as you do, in fact maybe I care more since I pretty much always give them a good amount of change. Hungarian homeless are my favorites, they are usually very nice and the ones who will use the money to drink are very upfront about it.


My statement doesn't come from a dislike of homeless people. It's a fact that has been proven time and time again by pretty much any government program in the world that tried to house homeless people. They will usually not adapt to the new way of life, viewing it as too rigid and demanding. They highly value the ultimate freedom they have in living in the street. Of course this isn't true for everyone, there's a lot of people who would be glad to have government housing and don't have access to it, being forced to be homeless. But it would be impossible to entirely eliminate homelessness unless by force, because some of them would still choose the street over government housing. There is the point I tried to make, in a lot more words to try to make it clear to you.
Click to expand...

then you prove it, where are the links to these studies the world over?
 
StoneHappyMonday said:
I think I preferred you in that P&S thread, tis all. You know, the best thread on (current) BL. Let's keep it to ourselves though eh.

PS I still think you're talking bollocks about homeless people NOT preferring a roof over their head but, y'know. Mwah etc.
Click to expand...

What i'm saying is that one way or another i'm coming across to you in a different way than i intended to. We probably share a lot of opinions on these issues, but the way i'm writing mine might be making that hard to see.

I'm not talking out of my ass, this comes naturally to me since I've had many teachers who coordinated projects like that in different countries and who told the class their conclusions.

Si Ingwe said:
then you prove it, where are the links to these studies the world over?
Click to expand...

This is weird, its just something that is natural to me. But yea, it should be easy enough to prove, I just don't have it at hand. I remembered an economists article I read some time ago and I looked it up. Here it is.

http://www.economist.com/news/europ...ppling-very-visible-problem-how-help-homeless

"That may not be enough, say rough sleepers. A new showcase shelter is modern and comfortable, but others are Dickensian. Several homeless people said that they would prefer to spend the night outside, no matter how cold the weather, than to face potential violence or being robbed of their meagre possessions."

So there's that too, a lot of government housing programs aren't properly done, even when they have more than enough funding, the homeless feel safer in the street than in there.

I've also had a teacher who studied the field extensively tell me that after a certain number of years in the street people get so used to it that it's very hard for them to adapt to living in a house in a more controlled environment and they end up resenting the loss of freedom.

parttime crackhead said:
Lol, very good.

I'm not saying we should force people to sleep inside who don't want to. I'm saying everyone who wants to should be able to.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely.
 
lets talks about taxation ptc ;)

no-one is going to willingly sleep under Waterloo Bridge in winter. No-one. Simple.

edit- unless of course the other option was Dickensian!

Poverty drives people onto the streets & poverty plus habituation to an itinerant lifestyle keeps them there. If we gave them decent housing & decent jobs with a decent wage, they'd not choose homeslessness.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top