Purits said on page 4: There needs to be a safety net but there also needs to be a sense of personal responsibility.
When I was young there was shame in being on benefits. Now it's "I know my rights!
We need rights and responsibilities.
This point seems to have been partly overlooked, but those who mentioned Scandinavia might be interested to know that when I moved to Scandinavia, I attended a course to learn the language. It was compulsory to also have some lessons about the lifestyle and there was a strong message about the above.
With every right, we were told, there comes a responsibility. So your children have a right to a free education, but the parents have the responsibility to ensure their children attend. There is a right to medical healthcare, but a responsibility to not abuse the system.
I believe this balance used to be more accepted in the UK. It seemed to me that it began to be undermined in the Thatcher era. Greed became acceptable, where before it was, at least in public, frowned upon.
There will always be some who behave antisocially. But when they are treated with decency, it is less likely to become entrenched behaviour. There are people in society who struggle. You can tell them they are worthless or you can demonstrate decency and try to help them. People here who end up in prison are educated and supported. Once they are out, they continue to be supported. It costs a lot, but they are far less likely to fall back into the destructive cycles that put them there in the first place.
In the long term, the whole of society benefits because there is less crime. This has been shown to be the same in any place where there is greater equality. Some of the most violent places on earth are the places where inequality is greatest.
Similarly providing good health care means there is less illness throughout. The poor man who can't get treatment for his TB can blight many other lives than his own.
And for those who sit with their hand held out? What role models do they see? Super rich celebrities who avoid paying tax because they can afford someone to tell them how. Rich politicians who obviously didn't arrive in Downing Street on merit, but through their old school network and parents who could afford to help them.
Do you see why those people might feel angry? And of course, they have learned the language of rights, without the backdrop of responsibility. Those at the top have the same language, but they are still lauded and understood. "Well if you had all that, wouldn't you want to do the same? They worked hard for that." Well they may have done, but they could not have done so without the support of the society they live in.
I'm all for Scandinavian type egalitarianism. It was more like that in the UK in the post war years I believe. Ironically, it has been shown that where there is huge inequality, everyone is less happy, even the rich. Society is more stable when everyone at least has enough to live with a reasonable level of comfort.
The jealousy argument is old, by the way. We have a six figure income and are happy to pay tax because we appreciate knowing that we live in a country where nobody has to live in poverty. Yes there may be some undeserving in that number, but I would rather that than that any child or person who was genuinely unable to help themselves fell through the net.