Talk

Advanced search

To be amazed by the amount of people who think the state shouldnt help people?

(334 Posts)
malificent7 Sun 14-Apr-19 08:08:58

I mean with job creation, welfare, regulation of private employers etc.
I hear so many times...its not the state's job to do x, y and z.

So what is the point of gaving a state if it cannot produce conditions for people to thrive?

Of course some take the piss but the state shouldctry to peovide more jobs and less zero hour contracts, they should regulate how the private sector treats employees, they should moderate wages anf provide housing.

Of course, some take the piss but most have a genuine need and the state dosnt want to know.

Iggly Sun 14-Apr-19 09:06:46

Move to N Korea and see how you like it when the state provides everything

? it doesn’t.

Sowhatifisaycunt Sun 14-Apr-19 09:07:51

I believe that too many people tories lack understanding of the poverty trap, the long term effects of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and inter-generational trauma. It’s not that easy to get a well paid job to support your family when your own parents couldn’t give you the skills needed to be a productive member of society. This creates an inherent vulnerability that the state has a responsibility to support so that the next generation has a chance. There’s a real lack of compassion that filters down from those who have plenty to the ‘undeserving poor’.

Taneartagam Sun 14-Apr-19 09:09:54

The UK is an extreme nanny state though. To the extent that the NHS, schools and subsidised school food and other such luxuries are taken for granted and complained endlessly about. I am not British but lived there for a while and not having to pay for doctors and medicine is an amazing luxury. Your children being fed at school? Another luxury. But I got the impression that people have gotten so used to their hands being held that they were unable to think for themselves. Not being allowed to be the judge of when your child needs time off school? That's crazy, and accepted meekly.

Also, a countrys objective should be for the good of the future of the country, not just its existing population. Its existing population should also support and work towards the future of their land too. I think a nanny state cultivates a Me Me Me attitude and an unreasonable sense of entitlement.

Slazengerbag Sun 14-Apr-19 09:10:44

There’s something completely wrong with the system.

Nurses, midwives, teachers etc are having to claim tax credits to survive. How is it even possible that you work for the state in a professional job with a degree and you have to claim benefits to help you survive?

If you’re putting child benefit in to a savings account for when your children are older you don’t need it!

A friend of mine is stuck in a benefit trap at the moment and she can’t afford to get out of it. Because of UC she can’t do a couple of hours overtime or go for a promotion because her benefits will be cut so much she won’t be able to afford to live. It’s not about her not wanting to work more at all, it’s about feeding and clothing her children whilst putting a roof over their heads.

smallereveryday Sun 14-Apr-19 09:18:20

The insistence that all things should make a profit- is where the problem lies.
For a 'state' to be viewed as successful it must make its people feel as though the basic requirements are provided.

These should never be run for profit. The very existence of a 'public good' that has its first and foremost responsibility to shareholders - looking for a return in their investment is completely illogical.

Housing
Education
Public transport
Communications
Energy
Water
Legal representation.
(Probably a few more I can't think about at the moment)

Should not be run for profit. They are services . To provide a service to the states people - accessible for all at cost price.

Everything else is based on want/desire. They have to be paid for according to ability and access to money.

Iggly Sun 14-Apr-19 09:19:02

The UK is an extreme nanny state though

Based on what?

The UK is not a nanny state.

A nanny state implies that people are cared for and have to worry for nothing.

We have foodbanks, rising homelessness, rising waiting lists as the NHS is underfunded, schools are crumbling.

People are dying because of benefit cuts.

People can choose to take their kids out of school - yes they get fined but it’s minimal which is why people do it.

How exactly is that a nanny state? Just because you’re not used to “free” amenities, I would argue you’re wrong (and it’s not free - we pay taxes to fund it)

anunseemlylovefordustin Sun 14-Apr-19 09:19:54

I've been paying my taxes since I started working at 19, nearly 30 years, and having a state that looks after everyone that needs it is EXACTLY why I pay them.

How good a job the state is doing with my taxes is another matter entirely hmm

InspectorClouseauMNdivision Sun 14-Apr-19 09:20:37

I think the DWP needs overhaul.
Instead of just making unemployed turn up once in 5 weeks and show that they sent xxx CVs, they should offer proper requalification crash courses. Especially if someone is unemployed over certain period.
Encourage people to go for an apprenticeship without the losing benefits while doing it since it pays so little (understandably since someone has to be with the apprentice at all times, still better than just college).
Unemployment is 3.9%. If someone is long term unemployed without a disability or caring responsibility etc, they need to retrain. There are skill shortages. Fill that gap.

Disabled, family carers etc are a different league. They should always be helped!
But, lots of people.... Well, kind of expect to be taken care of. Ifykwim.

SnuggyBuggy Sun 14-Apr-19 09:20:41

I remember being young and completely believing the myth of arbeit mach frei and that all I had to do was get a job and work hard. It's bollocks when half of benefit recipients are in work and wages frequently don't match the cost of living.

I've totally changed my view of "unemployed scroungers", work can often just be a total waste of time.

Cornettoninja Sun 14-Apr-19 09:24:43

Yanbu. If you have a country where nobody had to worry about a roof over their heads, clothes on their back, food in their stomach, medicine for their illness and education in their heads then you will find a population with the security to be innovative and ambitious.

On a smaller scale that’s proven when you look at the difference in successes between children from a secure background to children from a chaotic one. Of course there are always the exceptions that prove the rule but for every success story there a numerable others that have tried and only got so far because luck wasn’t on their side.

Problem is that’s a long game and doesn’t translate to four yearly manifestos. A large portion of the country doesn’t want to consider the long term gains and are only interested in the immediate.No sense of delayed gratification in this country.

IceCreamAndCandyfloss Sun 14-Apr-19 09:26:27

Job creation yes but welfare has got to a point where it's a choice to claim to suit a persons choices they make. Personal responsibility should always come first, not the state nannying everything.

BarbarianMum Sun 14-Apr-19 09:27:43

I think the state should provide security, the rule of law, regulation and a safety net but I also think personal responsibility is a thing. And that feckless people will always be feckless and then blame others for their mess.

Zoflorabore Sun 14-Apr-19 09:35:53

As a carer it's an insult to receive approx £65 per week in CA. So many people are carers it's unreal and do so much for that paltry amount.

I also think the introduction of UC is the biggest mistake in the history of state welfare. I thank god I don't claim it but have seen first hand the misery it is causing.

We've all seen the statistics, X amount of children in the U.K. living on poverty. That makes me angry to be honest. There is no need for this in one of the worlds richest nations, similar to the United States where they have huge child poverty.

I don't know what the answer is. I think there will be a major re-shuffle of the benefits system soon though. It isn't working.

YouBumder Sun 14-Apr-19 09:38:04

What I’m amazed at is how some people thought voting for Brexit might make things better.

If people keep voting for the Tories they just plainly don’t give a shit about the vulnerable

Iggly Sun 14-Apr-19 09:38:28

Job creation yes but welfare has got to a point where it's a choice to claim to suit a persons choices they make

If a basic level of income/support were provided by companies such that people had enough to actually earn a living then this wouldn’t be a problem would it??

If a company wants you to work full time then they should have the decency to pay you enough to at least live off.

Instead they don’t. They want all your effort for minimum gain and the actual rewards go to the bosses at the top.

starzig Sun 14-Apr-19 09:41:04

I'm just astounded by people complaining about it. It's good we help people but people expect more and more and talk about what the are entitled to and should get more. People need to be more grateful that our government does help the less 'fortunate'

AliceAbsolum Sun 14-Apr-19 09:41:09

The state will never be able to provide what people want or need. Peddling that lie leads to people being infantilsed.
We give up freedom and money (through taxes) to gain services, if this continues indefinitely we might as well all live in a giant, shite prison.

Oliversmumsarmy Sun 14-Apr-19 09:41:11

Can I point out that some zero hours contracts are great.

Dd works for several companies and picks and chooses her shifts, otoh she did go to an interview where the company were only offering a zero hours contract but you couldn’t work for anyone else, you had to be exclusive to that company.

That is the sort of place that gives zero hours contracts a bad name.

Whilst it is great that we offer help to the poorest in society and those that have hit a stumbling block, it has got to the point where help is given and people are now relying on it rather than trying to get off benefits and support themselves.

I think there are a couple of things that are grossly unfair in the system we have now. (Probably more but I only know from what I have come across personally)

One being the situation that FookMeFookYou describes which is absolutely stupid.

The other is to do with education which I have a bee in my bonnet because of the ridiculous and quite unfair rules we have atm.

For example ds (dyslexic) has passed his Maths GCSE but has failed his English GCSE.

We found only 1 college in our area would take him without both English and Maths GCSE. They have these as a separate lesson.

Ds because he has worked a bit with a tradesman was put into level 2 which he completed within 2 terms and had and average score on his tests and assessments of 97.5%.

The issue is ds going the normal route cannot actually go any further because he doesn’t have his English GCSE.
He cannot get an apprenticeship without his gcse English.

So far the only route we have come up with is sending him abroad to qualify in an English speaking country and then comeback to the UK as a qualified professional which the UK will accept his qualification and he then can work here.

As a country there does seem to be a need for qualified workers but we impose such restrictions on our own children that they cannot qualify but will gladly accept people who haven’t had to jump through the hoops our children have to.

I have a few friends who are nurses. They left school at 16 and did day release whilst working on a ward.

Now you have to have a degree to do the same job as a 16year old (and probably similar pay) but there seems surprise all round that the number of people going into the nursing profession has dropped off a cliff. Why would you want to be a nurse if you had a degree and the people who would have wanted to be nurses probably couldn’t get a degree.

I sometimes think the powers that be would prefer the UK people (who didn’t go to fancy schools and universities) to claim benefits whilst they import all the workers from overseas.
Might be cynical but I think someone somewhere is making money out of these ridiculous rules.

GoneForFood Sun 14-Apr-19 09:42:17

Instead of just making unemployed turn up once in 5 weeks and show that they sent xxx CVs, they should offer proper requalification crash courses. Especially if someone is unemployed over certain period

The jobcentre is a joke. I lost my job suddenly in 2013 and went to sign on whilst I looked for a new one - in a small village with no train service and 3 busses per day, not as easy at it sounds. Their help was to send me on a learn direct course so I could get a level 1 maths and English qualification. Even though I have a degree. If I didn’t go on the course I would be sanctioned. Was a complete waste of my time and their funding. Luckily it was only a matter of months before I was back in employment but for a lot of people I can see how they’re set up to fail from the get go.

MrsSpenserGregson Sun 14-Apr-19 09:45:06

Ugh my FIL is like this. Has always had loads of money (worked for the family business in a highly-paid job that was handed to him on a plate and retired aged 45, has a huge multi-million pound property, millions in the bank, tighter than a duck's arse....)

His view is that nobody of working age deserves benefits at all but it's absolutely scandalous that he had to wait for his state pension until he was 65 rather than 60, and that the state should pay all his care home fees should he need care in future....

We are making the annual pilgrimmage visit to the ILs this week. I am looking forward to my annual row spirited debate with FIL about benefits, house prices, pensions etc.....!

Brilliantidiot Sun 14-Apr-19 09:48:26

A pp hit the nail on the head saying everything is driven by profit. In just one example (my own) I work 45 hours a week, in a just above nmw job, I am a single parent. I still qualify for tax credits - because the 'state' recognises that I cannot survive without. Though it's a small amount, it's essential, it pays council tax and the water bill. Everything else comes out of my wages. I currently have £35 in savings - that's from transferring the odd pence change into my savings account and that's saving up to pay for the next course I want to do to enable me to gain a qualification eventually. I may be due to retire by the time I manage it!
I'm being squeezed tighter and tighter at work to save money, doing more and more to save wages, to increase profits. I'm effectively lining someone else's pockets, but then every job seems to be like that. I couldn't afford to take my ex to court privately for maintenance - I tried CSA as it was then, he gave up his job and moved in with his mum. Game over.
And every year prices for everything increase to be paid out, and my wage doesn't increase with it, so someone, somewhere, is pocketing the difference.
I want to be totally self sufficient but I can't physically work enough hours to do so.
What's the answer? I don't know, because I can't see the people driving the profit margins suddenly thinking it's not fair and doing something.
I don't think the state should have to support me, but I have no choice. I'd much rather be able to earn a wage I can live on. I'd rather the state put energy into making a realistic living wage, and making employers pay that, rather than supporting people like me. I'd be the same financially, but it'd be better in the long run for everyone surely?

InspectorClouseauMNdivision Sun 14-Apr-19 09:50:43

Why would you want to be a nurse if you had a degree and the people who would have wanted to be nurses probably couldn’t get a degree.
I don't know about other states, but where I am from (EU) nurses must have undergraduate degree.

@GoneForFood that's ridiculous. Level 1 maths🙄
Also sorry. My post was supposed to say 2 weeks, not 5.

MrsSpenserGregson Sun 14-Apr-19 09:55:33

@Brilliantidiot great post.

I think there is a big difference between larger and small employers. The problem for a lot of smaller employers (like me!) is that anything much above NMW means the business won't survive. Absolutely the big employers should pay more than £8.21 per hour, but for someone like me, who runs a very small business, pays herself NMW and employs one part-timer, I simply cannot afford more than £9 per hour ... if I paid more than that, my business would go under, so that would be two of us out of a job.

It is horrific that people in full-time work need government top-ups to survive, but I am really glad that the government does provide this. I would love to see the large multinationals paying more tax, and I absolutely do believe that there should be extra tax bandings for higher-rate tax payers depending on income. It's absolutely not fair that someone earning £200,000 per year pays the same rate of tax as someone earning £38,000 per year (or whatever the threshold is now for higher rate income tax in the UK).

Cornishclio Sun 14-Apr-19 09:56:28

In a free market economy the state should not have to create jobs but I question how well this type of economy and capitalism is working when 99% of the wealth is held by only a tiny fraction of the people. Governments try and address this with tax credits, child benefit, winter fuel etc etc but it is a drop in the ocean and open to abuse. I do think that as well as our political system being broken so is our economy where large companies get away with paying low salaries and government has to subsidise. I think there needs even tighter controls on companies not less so they can't get away with giving their executives 10% pay rises and low grade workers 1%. Yes everybody has the chance to improve their lot but some are in a better position to do that. Difficult to justify money for evening classes when you need all the overtime you can get and have to choose between food and energy costs. I speak in a privileged position as we have not had redundancy or illness to cope with, don't live hand to mouth and are early retired on good pensions. I think the simple matter is either the government needs to get better at managing our taxes or taxes have to rise. Brexit will make it all worse, ironic really as most who voted for it thought it would make their life better and are least able to cope with job uncertainty, rising prices and less state help.

brummiebadass Sun 14-Apr-19 10:00:06

One of the key points of me stepping away from my relationship with my MIL was the day she declared that he didn't believe in the welfare state. She wasn't born in the UK, and was very poor as a child. Her family in her home country are now very comfortable and gave benefited very much from political change to a more supportive state.
She has lived here for many years. She's a baby boomer so she and my FIL were able to buy a house etc on relatively low wages, and retired on gold plated final salary pensions. That opportunity just doesn't exist anymore, but she just doesn't see that.
Sadly my FIL had dementia for several years before he passed away. In that time she made full use of the NHS and social services (but it was never good enough). She complained very loudly about having to contribute towards his care costs.
Several of her kids have needed to claim benefits over the years to survive after redundancy etc. She very kindly subsidised this by organising cash in hand work for them, as obviously they money that we're claiming was not enough to survive hmm.
She also gave each child a deposit towards a house. Which was fantastic. So why would people need housing benefit?
The cognitive dissonance she displays is utterly astounding, and she has similar views around other key issues. So I choose to spend very little time in her company as she makes me so bloody angry!

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »