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

[malificent7]

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.

I think some people just have real "I'm alright Jack" personalities and it's hard to persuade them to see it differently

Where does it stop though? I have no problem with the state helping those who need it, but not everyone does need, or want, the state to intervene. Where is personal responsibility and the urge to improve your lot if the state is taking care of everything for you?

The point of a state is to provide essential services like defence, police, education. And to have some sort of safety net to support those who, through illness or disability, are genuinely unable to provide for themselves.

The state is not there to hold people's hands, or set up mickey mouse companies to provide jobs, or rewrite people's CVs, provide interview training, dish out "baby boxes" to affluent parents, etc etc etc.

I don't see it so much as taking care but if providing a fair level playing field so you have the opportunity to work and improve and make a life for yourself.

The state taking care of people is exactly what I pay my taxes for.

I think they will promptly show up on this thread, demonstrating the politicical and economic ‘I’m all right, Jack’ism characteristic of Tories.

No one ever thinks they’re going to end up disabled / have a disabled child / have a serious illness / end up old and in a hospice etc etc etc. Most people who don’t agree with a welfare state have never experienced life on the other side of the fence.

Where does it stop though? I have no problem with the state helping those who need it, but not everyone does need, or want, the state to intervene. Where is personal responsibility and the urge to improve your lot if the state is taking care of everything for you?

The issue I have is that people think that they know what the state should and shouldn’t do. Also they don’t see everything that the state does or doesn’t do. So are ill informed.

Personally I think the state should offer a basic (not minimum) level of support across the population. 99.9% of people want to be self sufficient but it’s very difficult to do that when the system is set up such that far far too much wealth is held in the hands of the rich.

People work, have seemingly decent jobs and still cannot earn enough to survive. That isn’t right.

Yet business are seen as too “big” to fail, profit is king etc. The average workers salaries are too low and are indirectly supplemented with tax credits/housing benefits.

Governments should collectively incentivise business to pay decent wages and to makes sure the wealth is a bit more spread. One person does not need a £30m per year salary, despite what they may tell you.

I like to see a balance, because whilst it's great when the state does help out with things and pay money for things, you must remember that everything that we ask them for help for gives them more power. If you're asking them to take responsibility for more and more then you're giving them more and more control over everyone's daily lives.

You may be fine with that. I suppose it depends on your outlook on life. I think both sides have their pros and cons, but personally I would prefer to sacrifice some of the state help in order to protect freedom. I know a lot of people feel differently though.

The most important thing should be supporting people who need help, whilst also, for those who can, help as much as possible to help people back into work, help single parents work if they wish, help young people gain employment, etc. Support, basically, to help people stand on their own where possible, and support where they can't do that physically or otherwise. The Nordic Model is fantastic. I would dearly love to have a government and policies based on that.

The average workers salaries are too low and are indirectly supplemented with tax credits/housing benefits.

Basic economics of supply and demand. If people have more money, then prices rise. We saw it brilliantly with Gordon Brown's handouts in the form of housing benefit, tax credits etc. House prices and house rental costs rose enormously at the same time Brown was throwing money at people. Brown should have imposed some kind of rent/house price control/limits before he splashed the cash, but as he didn't, his bribes to the electorate was just spent on higher rents so the recipients were no better off.

No one ever thinks they’re going to end up disabled / have a disabled child / have a serious illness / end up old and in a hospice etc etc etc. Most people who don’t agree with a welfare state have never experienced life on the other side of the fence.

This. Some people lack the empathy/imagination to put themselves in other people's shoes. Unless you're extremely wealthy, you never know when circumstances might change and you would be grateful for any help you get from the state. Any of us could be left paralysed after an accident or lose our jobs and be unable to find another one. Contrary to the belief of those who watch benefit-bashing programmes on Channel 5, it is not only feckless scroungers who rely on state support.

The state cause resentment by having stupid rules such as Child Benefit now having a threshold that is biased. A household on two incomes with both earning £50k each can still get child benefit with no penalty.

A household where one person earns between £50-£60k will be taxed on any child benefit they claim and if they earn over the £60k it becomes pointless claiming it because you have to pay it in tax. How can a household earning £100k take this benefit with no penalty and a house earning £40k less have to give it up because the expectation is they should need it less?!!

Where is the common sense? I resent the fact that others are eligible for benefits and who clearly bring in more money than we do and we are eligible for nothing. Absolutely nothing, not a bean.

I used that money for our two young kids, the things it should be used for and yet now my husband has gained a promotion we've lost that money. After paying higher rate tax and travel costs to get to that job in the first place we are now worse off. There are people receiving this benefit and they are able to put it in a savings account because THEY DON'T NEED IT.

That's what you get for trying to do better and making life a bit more comfortable.

I agree with thresholds but they should make sense and apply no matter the household circs.

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Show a man how to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

We need to invest in proper education and training reform. Blair had a great opportunity with his "education" * 3 mantra, but blew it on concentrating on universities and degrees to the detriment of proper skills and trades. The schools system needs proper reform, not grade inflation. We need proper colleges teaching proper skills and trades, not mickey mouse degrees. For people who can work, they need proper jobs that are sustainable, not pretend jobs at the whim of the politicians.

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

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

To protect the weak, to provide justice, to defend the nation from outside attack. I am also okay with a state which provides infrastructure, health and education.

Where is the common sense?

It's lacking throughout the tax and benefit system, and as you say, that causes ill-feeling.

Why should workers be the only group who have to pay NIC? People with other income, such as property rental, dividends, foreign income, pensions, etc., don't pay NIC - why?? People can literally spend their life receiving good amounts of money yet never pay a penny in NIC. Where is the logic and fairness in that? NIC used to be an "insurance" based system where you paid in to secure benefits. Now, the world has changed, the rules have changed, and people can get benefits, including pensions, without ever paying a penny in NIC. It's just so wrong on so many levels. It's basically nothing more than another tax on workers/employees.

Along with student loan repayments, workplace pensions, etc., no wonder that "workers" who are seeing more and more of their pay deducted on their payslips, are starting to be more resentful.

I agree with SileneOliveira and am really opposed to a nanny State.

I think the bigger problem is the daftness of some of the rules around things. It makes sense that baby boxes, for example, are given to everyone because it's cheaper than means testing them. That's logical.

However, it's also cheaper to not means test child benefit (plus you have the associated issue with NI credits for SAHP and the potential for abuse), but it was politically popular to means test it. They didn't want to make too big a cost for means testing so put a random line that means people can claim it when their income is vastly more than other people who can't. It's stupid.

There's no logic in a lot of the decisions. Scrap the age limit for widows payments because it's accepted that a widow or widower is just that, not only when they are over 45, but the completely slash the amount so it's actually not going to touch the side of losing the second income even for the 18 months it's given for.

There are always a small number of people who will try to abuse the system or try to claim something they're not genuinely entitled to. Unfortunately a lot of others use this tiny minority as a reason why the state shouldnt help the many many others who are genuinely in need. For example there were 1 or 2 cases of people fraudulently claiming they were in grenfell tower when it burnt down.....does that mean all the genuine victims arent entitled to anything...?!!of course not!

"No one ever thinks they’re going to end up disabled / have a disabled child / have a serious illness / end up old and in a hospice etc etc etc."

And if they do, many of them will still be capable of compartmentalising things so that they see themselves as the "deserving" needy and the rest as undeserving. I went to a primary school in a very deprived area and most of the kids' parents were "slash all public services" Tories, despite receiving benefits themselves. There's been years of propaganda from the Daily Mail etc to that effect. The Mail and co never come out and say that they don't believe the State should help people, just that it should only help "decent people", not scumbags. It's just that, funnily enough, almost everybody falls into the "scumbag" category.

Your idea of what a state should be is something it hasn't been for 99.9% of people, ever since states of any sort existed.

I'm not arguing with you on what the state should do, I'm just pointing out that the people on the other side have infinitely more precedent to justify their idea of the role of the state. It's your ideas that are the absolutely massive exception to the historical norm. (And not just the historical norm, I'd guess the vast majority of people on the planet today don't think it's the government's job to prevent them from starving if they can't fend for themselves. This is not their ideological view of how things should be, it's just their political reality.)

For example there were 1 or 2 cases of people fraudulently claiming they were in grenfell tower when it burnt down

Actually, 14 to date and more in the pipeline. That's excluding those who were illegally subletting their flats within the tower who aren't currently being prosecuted. Benefit related fraud is a lot bigger than people want to believe and needs to be acted upon. Of course, those genuinely entitled deserve all the help they need. But downplaying the scale of fraud helps no-one.

My nephew's wife is Ukrainian. She is horrified at how many people in Britain live on benefits because in Ukraine you have to work. It made for an interesting discussion. I believe that we need to support those unable to work, because of disability for example, but it did make me wonder how many people could work if there was no alternative.
My DD with MS works when she can, but it is great to know that when her health takes a nose dive she can be supported by the State.

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

? it doesn’t.