Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
This is an idea that I've been following on various economic blogs these past months (Finland are thinking about this idea as well) and IMO it has a lot of merit to it. From a British perspective, this basic income could be a good thing.

Poverty costs the UK a lot of NHS money, as well as a high social cost, as poor people tend to get ill more, and live less, so giving them more cash would go a long way to alleviate povery, especially child poverty, and of course, food banks would be consigned to the dustbin.

By paying cash into people's bank accounts, and scrapping benefits, the basic income could save the UK government a ton of money, as red tape and wasteful departments go out the window, and yes, I do mean you DWP!

The voluntary sector would get a boost overnight as people could volunteer for things they like to do, rather than be stuck in dead end jobs.

Speaking of dead end jobs, Western Societies face a massive change when automation ends up replaicng low paid, low skilled jobs. Where would these workers go? A basic income could solve this.

Seeing as the trickle down theory has been proven to be a load of horse gak, as the rich tend to avoid taxation these days, giving the masses more money could see more money getting spent on stuff, which could boost the economy.

I think this is a good idea. Go Switzerland!

The issue boils down to: "Ok, I direct deposit money in your account. Enjoy. We are getting rid of food stamps, school lunch, welfare, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, free health clinics, tax rebates and all sorts of other things since you won't need them now that you have money."

And then people spend that money on garbage, and their kids are starving, they have no where to live and can't afford their medications.

In my experience, the social programs will still be needed because some portions of the population simply can't run their own lives.

Even giving people cash to live on, you will still need the social programs to make sure people's kids are getting fed and you will still have people unable to live in homes and medicines getting taken.

I am not saying it is a terrible idea... I think it might be superior to minimum wage issues, but it is one of those 'smarter people than me need to figure out how to do it'. From what I have seen both in my local volunteering community and some experience with FEMA/Katrina work, giving people cash doesn't work and things like free lunch for kids do work. I don't mind spending money on social programs but they need to work.

WHo knows? figure it out Swiss!

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It is a Greek word that means "rule by the common people" and indicates a form of government where the people (that meaning every person allowed to vote) make decisions regarding laws and policies.

If you're going to take that line, then there haven't been all that many democracies in the history of the world, and most of the one's that did exist didn't stick around very long.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

It is not an actual democratic form of government, as the rulers are only a small group of influential people ruling over the rest, rather than the rulers being the people as a whole.

That's unavoidable. Even in a direct democracy you'll end up with elites who effectively rule the democracy, in fact direct democracy has historically offered far fewer protections to the people than representative democracy. And, really, after countries reach a certain size direct democracy becomes logistically impractical.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Ideally, in a democracy, a government should never be able or willing to go against the will of the majority of the people or do anything without the agreement of the majority of the people.

No, that isn't ideal at all. The vast majority of people know absolutely nothing about public policy and lack the time, or inclination, to learn about it. What representative democracy does is provide a definite mechanism for such people to at least communicate their preferences to the people that do know such things.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
It is not my idea. It is my thoughts on the general idea behind infusing capital into the lower and middle classes.

Many large conglomerates moved manufacturing offshore to cut costs, certainly. One of the ideas with a "wage" granted to all is that the cash drives sales which drives demand. This can in turn be used to kickstart more smaller businesses which generally employ and manufacture locally.

Again; my general thoughts on an ecconomic plan which has been created by others who presumably know a lot more and can factor society and historic trends into their models.

But you are advocating for it.

Interestingly "the nation's standard of living — by almost any standard — is better than ever, or close to it." http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/americawants/2011-02-02-standard-of-living-main_N.htm. By your standards this would mean that we have more cash to drive sales, which drives demand which can then kickstart more smaller businesses (which will somehow compete with nations with much lower wage costs, reduced bureaucracy, lack of unions, lack of environmental concerns, etc.).

Yet despite of our standard of living increase manufacturing has dropped, http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-04-28/why-factory-jobs-are-shrinking-everywhere, and there is more of an impact from trade agreements than income (https://www.usitc.gov/research_and_analysis/documents/Pierce%20and%20Schott%20-%20The%20Surprisingly%20Swift%20Decline%20of%20U.S.%20Manufacturing%20Employment_0.pdf).

 Ouze wrote:
I think it's an interesting idea as well. I'm cautiously in favor of it. My feeling is it will work out pretty well, but we'll see. I also agree with the premise that most people want to work and be productive because, well, almost anyone can technically not work in the US if they really didn't want to. You could go be homeless and go to a soup kitchen and get food stamps and so on. Few people chose to do so on an extended basis.

All the previous trials of the concept seemed to work pretty well and typically showed a pretty predictable pattern emerging; people who worked lots of hours worked less to spend more time with families/friends/hobbies, and people who had been on social security, caring for family, or working very few hours tended to pick up a few extra.

 Overread wrote:
If more than half is coming direct from Tax it sounds like it could fail. The idea of people getting a fixed and guaranteed monthly income is a great idea from a social point of view. It also opens up the job market to allow for a wider range of jobs that can be done but which wouldn't pay enough to support a person without the additional income. So you can quickly see companies employing more people to do minor work and free up others to do their work. A much needed thing in a work market where we are often seeing jobs hard to get and those which are got being overworked.


Thing is where will the money come from. This scheme in a sense needs nearly all its money to come from tax; so in a sense people get a monthly income, but they then have to turn around and put nearly just as much back into government in order to get that money back.

I suspect this money will generate a healthier retail market so there is some area there for taxation on produce sold to generate more money being recycled back into taxes. Plus the assumption that people will keep working - which isn't unreasonable. People generally advance their standard of living to suit their income; boost the income and people will still work to maintain a higher standard of living and to raise it.


It's a very neat idea, but the numbers behind it will be complex and very key to if it works or fails. It will also be interesting to know if it runs only because of external import/export income or purely from internally generated revenue - the former would have a high risk that changes in the global market could have even more dire effects on the home market.

One thing to remember is that the basic income also partially pays for itself; the cost of administering means-tested social security systems, ie what most developed nations have right now, is astronomical - simply removing that whole bureaucracy covers a large percentage of the cost of the BI policy. Covering the remainder can be done in many ways; the bluntest object is obviously a rise in income tax, but there are other options - a Financial Transaction Tax is workable, and though technically regressive as it's "flat", in practice most normal citizens wouldn't even notice the difference; closing the gap between Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax is another option, there's an argument to be made that CGT should exist at some level of discount to encourage investment, but the gap has been increased via lobbying to the point of foolishness; and of course some countries could easily fund a BI policy with a modest reallocation of funding from their bloated Defence budgets.

The other thing to consider are the plausible secondary effects of such a policy. Entrepreneurial endeavour among SMEs, for example, would surely increase with a BI system in place since not only would people starting a new business be putting themselves personally under much less financial pressure during the initial setup and growth 5-year-ish period of the business, but the fear, should you fail, of destitution or the humiliation of being forced to use a welfare system that treats you like a liar and a fraud by default would be gone.

 Overread wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I'm pretty sure that if that came into being in the UK, rent would immediately jump £1700 a month and house prices would treble

That is the other consideration.

Rather like how increasing the minimum wage often sees a rise in living costs. If the min-wage rises by that amount in Switzerland what will happen to the living costs. Will rents rise, goods and produce rise etc... It could even result in the population actually being worse off than before if the rises happen.

It's one of those issues with a free market in that if you give people more money the market will quickly react by not only providing more to buy but also raising the prices of what you do buy to start with. It's one thing in defence of regulated prices by government in that the government can put a stop to such activities. Of course a controlled market has its own problems as well.

This is certainly an issue, but it's largely one of our own making, at least in the UK. The two main drivers of cost of living increases right now are rent and energy bills, and that's our own fault - we sold off our social housing stock and introduced incentives and aid for home ownership, which combined resulted in a huge number of wealthy buy-to-let landlords gorging themselves on the Housing Benefit that we now have to pay out to huge numbers of people who previously would have been given Council houses. Our energy problems are manifold, but chiefly the issue is privatisation. The key though is that we caused these problems, and that means we can fix them as well if the political will exists to do so(sadly that's presently not the case).

I would posit that increasing the BI annually in line with some measure of consumer price inflation would be manageable enough given the boost to growth we would reasonably expect the policy to generate.

The obstacles to Basic Income policy are chiefly ideological, not economic.

Heroin dealers in the Midwest be like, "oh yeah, lets do it."

 Soladrin wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
At least the Swiss get to vote on stuff like this... Why can't we live in a democracy?

You fething wot mate?

A democracy. You know what that is? It is a Greek word that means "rule by the common people" and indicates a form of government where the people (that meaning every person allowed to vote) make decisions regarding laws and policies. Here in the Netherlands, (and all other European countries) those decisions are made by government officials rather than the people. The only input the people have in the government is to once every 4 years pick a candidate from a small selection on a government-approved list. If enough people pick this specific person he/she then gets a seat in one of the two decision-making organisations of the state. In effect, the inbring of the people in the state is non-existent, and that is the case for all so-called "representative democracies". It is not an actual democratic form of government, as the rulers are only a small group of influential people ruling over the rest, rather than the rulers being the people as a whole. Ideally, in a democracy, a government should never be able or willing to go against the will of the majority of the people or do anything without the agreement of the majority of the people. In the Netherlands and every other European country unfortenately, this is often the case. Switzerland on the other hand has a system where not only get the people to propose laws if they want to, they also get to vote on any government decisions they want to. This eliminates the need for the people to have to vote on every single little thing (which would be a very ineffective form of government for a modern state), but unlike in the Netherlands, it does allow the people to have a direct say in ruling the country if a sufficient amount of people finds an issue important enough.

Yep, cause we've never had a referendum here. Nor can we petition for subjects to be discussed. Oh wait.

Referanda in the Netherlands are only possible since last summer, and even then, many important subjects are still off limits, requirements for a referendum are extremely hard to meet, virtually impossible for most normal citizens, and even if people manage to get a referendum it has no legal binding value whatsoever. The government is free to ignore it, as I predict will happen with the upcoming referendum on the association treaty with Ukraine. In a democracy, the government never should be able to go against the will of the people, and thus ignoring a referendum should not even be possible. The same is true for petitions for subjects to be discussed. Even if the outrageously severe standards for such a petition are met, the government can just choose to ignore the issue and use the "discussion" as an opportunity for an extra tea break. These things are not democratic, they are a farce.

 Soladrin wrote:
I guess we don't follow the law of Putin so we can't be doing it right.

Oh please, just grow up already.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It is a Greek word that means "rule by the common people" and indicates a form of government where the people (that meaning every person allowed to vote) make decisions regarding laws and policies.

If you're going to take that line, then there haven't been all that many democracies in the history of the world, and most of the one's that did exist didn't stick around very long.

No. There haven't been. Ancient Athens and modern Switzerland are the only examples where democracy really took off. In the rest of the Western world, ruling elites under pressure from the ideas of the Enlightenment and French Revolution did see the need for democratic reform, but they were afraid to lose their power if they implemented too much reform. That is why most of the West got stuck with some kind of farcical semi-democracy and pretends it is the real deal.

 dogma wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

It is not an actual democratic form of government, as the rulers are only a small group of influential people ruling over the rest, rather than the rulers being the people as a whole.

That's unavoidable. Even in a direct democracy you'll end up with elites who effectively rule the democracy,

That may be so, but the big difference is that the elites in a direct democracy can never make a decision that does not have the consent of a majority of the people, whereas in a representative democracy, this is possiblem and in fact extremely common.

 dogma wrote:
in fact direct democracy has historically offered far fewer protections to the people than representative democracy.

That is a very unclear and hard to measure statement, I would think. Could you elaborate on it?

 dogma wrote:
And, really, after countries reach a certain size direct democracy becomes logistically impractical.

That is not true. Switzerland manages just fine, and with the internet, any such argument becomes completely moot. And surely if even huge countries like the US or Russia manage to hold elections, they could manage to organise referenda in the same fashion.

 dogma wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Ideally, in a democracy, a government should never be able or willing to go against the will of the majority of the people or do anything without the agreement of the majority of the people.

No, that isn't ideal at all. The vast majority of people know absolutely nothing about public policy and lack the time, or inclination, to learn about it. What representative democracy does is provide a definite mechanism for such people to at least communicate their preferences to the people that do know such things.

Which is not democracy. A democratic government receives its mandate from the agreement of a majority of the people. If a democratic government goes against the will of the people, it loses its mandate as a democratic government, making it democratic no longer.
Also, people that have no knowledge or interest in politics tend not to vote at all, both in representative and direct democracies.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
$72 billion sounds like a lot of money but actually it's about 0.4% of the US GDP, under 5% for the whole year.

Unless I'm missing something here though, this would have to come out of the Federal budget, right? Of which this would be the single largest expenditure at 864 billion.

GDP (gross domestic product) is everything produced by a country, not federal budget.

I am aware what GDP is.... However, if we are going to be giving our citizens something like this, it would come out of the Federal budget.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

No. There haven't been. Ancient Athens and modern Switzerland are the only examples where democracy really took off.

Most people living in Ancient Athens couldn't vote. Indeed, the Athenians who could vote can be thought of as a ruling elite.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

That may be so, but the big difference is that the elites in a direct democracy can never make a decision that does not have the consent of a majority of the people, whereas in a representative democracy, this is possiblem and in fact extremely common.

Sure they can, it has happened plenty of times in states that attempted to function as direct democracies. Ancient Athens is actually a pretty good example of this, I'm sure it has happened in Switzerland too.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

That is not true. Switzerland manages just fine, and with the internet, any such argument becomes completely moot. And surely if even huge countries like the US or Russia manage to hold elections, they could manage to organise referenda in the same fashion.

Switzerland is a tiny country, and even it doesn't operate as a purely direct democracy. Swiss citizens don't have a say on every matter of state, having to poll ~6 million people whenever a decision needed to be made would be madness. I can't even begin to imagine doing the same with with ~220 million people.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Which is not democracy. A democratic government receives its mandate from the agreement of a majority of the people. If a democratic government goes against the will of the people, it loses its mandate as a democratic government, making it democratic no longer.

That doesn't fit any definition of democracy which has practical relevance.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Also, people that have no knowledge or interest in politics tend not to vote at all, both in representative and direct democracies.

Sure, but politics is not the same thing as policy. The number of people who understand politics, and vote, is much larger than the number of people who understand policy.

 skyth wrote:
Pure democracy runs into the problem of the tyranny of the majority.

As opposed to the representative democracy that runs into the problem of the tyranny of a minority? Damn!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Pure democracy runs into the problem of the tyranny of the majority.

As opposed to the representative democracy that runs into the problem of the tyranny of a minority? Damn!

Notice I mentioned a constitutional republic, which solves that issue. A pure represenrative democracy still has the problem of the tyranny of the majority.

There's nothing wrong with a balance of powers that also includes a body that is a true representative democracy. There's no reason you can't have a judicial branch, an executive branch and a legislative branch where only the legislative branch has direct voting by the people.

So just like if the US congress passes a law, a law passed by "the tyranny of the majority" can still be overturned by the judicial branch as unconstitutional.

nkelsch wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
This is an idea that I've been following on various economic blogs these past months (Finland are thinking about this idea as well) and IMO it has a lot of merit to it. From a British perspective, this basic income could be a good thing.

Poverty costs the UK a lot of NHS money, as well as a high social cost, as poor people tend to get ill more, and live less, so giving them more cash would go a long way to alleviate povery, especially child poverty, and of course, food banks would be consigned to the dustbin.

By paying cash into people's bank accounts, and scrapping benefits, the basic income could save the UK government a ton of money, as red tape and wasteful departments go out the window, and yes, I do mean you DWP!

The voluntary sector would get a boost overnight as people could volunteer for things they like to do, rather than be stuck in dead end jobs.

Speaking of dead end jobs, Western Societies face a massive change when automation ends up replaicng low paid, low skilled jobs. Where would these workers go? A basic income could solve this.

Seeing as the trickle down theory has been proven to be a load of horse gak, as the rich tend to avoid taxation these days, giving the masses more money could see more money getting spent on stuff, which could boost the economy.

I think this is a good idea. Go Switzerland!

The issue boils down to: "Ok, I direct deposit money in your account. Enjoy. We are getting rid of food stamps, school lunch, welfare, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, free health clinics, tax rebates and all sorts of other things since you won't need them now that you have money."

And then people spend that money on garbage, and their kids are starving, they have no where to live and can't afford their medications.

In my experience, the social programs will still be needed because some portions of the population simply can't run their own lives.

Even giving people cash to live on, you will still need the social programs to make sure people's kids are getting fed and you will still have people unable to live in homes and medicines getting taken.

I am not saying it is a terrible idea... I think it might be superior to minimum wage issues, but it is one of those 'smarter people than me need to figure out how to do it'. From what I have seen both in my local volunteering community and some experience with FEMA/Katrina work, giving people cash doesn't work and things like free lunch for kids do work. I don't mind spending money on social programs but they need to work.

WHo knows? figure it out Swiss!

There will always be a tiny minority that does dumb things, but that's true for most things in life, and shouldn't be allowed to torpedo, what IMO, is an excellent idea.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
By your standards this would mean that we have more cash to drive sales, which drives demand which can then kickstart more smaller businesses (which will somehow compete with nations with much lower wage costs, reduced bureaucracy, lack of unions, lack of environmental concerns, etc.).

Yet despite of our standard of living increase manufacturing has dropped, http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-04-28/why-factory-jobs-are-shrinking-everywhere, and there is more of an impact from trade agreements than income (https://www.usitc.gov/research_and_analysis/documents/Pierce%20and%20Schott%20-%20The%20Surprisingly%20Swift%20Decline%20of%20U.S.%20Manufacturing%20Employment_0.pdf).

And yet manufacturing is not the be-all and end-all. Many western nations now have massive service sector industries replacing the old manufacturing sector. The point regards local manufacturing works well for affluent areas where local, boutique producers can sell a more premium product; look at areas with a healthy middle class and see how many 1-5 workshop/store businesses there are around per head of population. And as before; manufacturing is not everything; greater affluence leads to greater industry in many sectors.

Nor is wealth that well evenly distributed; while standards of living are generally much better than they were, "spare cash" is still sparse in large sectors of the population, hence a dearth of companies operating there.

I'd be more inclined to back this idea if it was for fulltime work/pensioners/those unable to work that have earned their stamp.

Not to unemployed benefits claimants otherwise it would be a charter for the bone idle.

Support all hard workers and volunteers, no matter the grade.

Obviously see if it works for the Swiss. It's horrendously expensive there though. I know two fulltime private teachers over there and they can afford a postage stamp sized apartment.

Just waiting for the Scots to vote for this in next!

As I understand the idea it does include full time workers and pensioners, etc. The idea is to provide a universal dole that gives everyone a basic minimum standard of living.

 skyth wrote:
Notice I mentioned a constitutional republic, which solves that issue.

So… a tyranny of the past, where long-dead people can impose their wills on currently living people that will be forced to obey a constitution that was written before they were even born .
That seems AWESOME! Almost like “ruled by an evil necromancer”-awesome, but not quite.

 notprop wrote:
I'd be more inclined to back this idea if it was for fulltime work/pensioners/those unable to work that have earned their stamp.

Not to unemployed benefits claimants otherwise it would be a charter for the bone idle.

Support all hard workers and volunteers, no matter the grade.

Obviously see if it works for the Swiss. It's horrendously expensive there though. I know two fulltime private teachers over there and they can afford a postage stamp sized apartment.

Just waiting for the Scots to vote for this in next!

The entire point of the policy is to replace all the clunking, onerous, often unfair means-tested welfare bureaucracy with a single, universal, no-conditions payment to everyone regardless of circumstances. Deciding to withhold it from the unemployed defeats the point on multiple levels - you're not getting rid of the existing benefits system, just bolting another(expensive) entitlement on to it so you make no savings from the existing system; you're not eliminating all the issues with means-tested welfare that mean low-income folk often end up losing money by working more(as just a few extra hours can see you lose more than your additional earnings from your benefits AND you end up with extra taxation to deal with), nor are you putting as much money as you could have in the hands of the social group most likely to spend it immediately, ie the poorest, and so the economic benefits of the policy for society as a whole would be diminished because less money would be circulating and less people would be enabled to move from unemployment to self-employment without fear of future destitution; and finally, without universalism you undermine both the ethical basis for the policy(ie, the idea that everyone is entitled to a basic standard of living that lets them survive with some dignity) AND you create an opening for the policy to be undermined and dismantled over time as we've seen with existing welfare programmes(afterall, if we're not giving it to the unemployed it's hardly fair to give it to the wealthy, so we have to figure out what band of income is "hard working" enough to be entitled to the payment but not already so well rewarded that giving them extra while denying it to the poor is grotesque, so it'll have to be means tested and oh look you just invented Tax Credits and we're back where we started).

Further, your objection is based in a faulty premise; benefit fraud in this country is less than 1%(and remember, that number is the upper estimate, the actual number of proven cases is far, far lower), indeed it costs the taxpayer less than clerical errors and mistaken overpayments, and further still the idea that we have a problem with substantial numbers of long-term unemployed is a complete myth, most claimants find a job within 3-6 months and the percentage who claim for more than 3 years is minuscule. Now, there are almost certainly some small number nationwide who genuinely just want to be, as you put it, "bone idle", but they're hardly significant, and neutering a policy that would help hundreds of thousands of people on the lowest incomes and provide a general economic boost for everybody in order to spite some tiny, tiny minority of skivers is completely mental IMO.

As I say help the lowest incomes of workers - good, all for it.

Benefits - bad, sod 'em.

If someone can travel half way around the world and get a job cleaning the streets/flipping burgers/driving vans/anything then everyone here can. Decent wage for all, no incentive not to work for it.

Except, Y'know a better life and more spending money. This "They wont want to work" is bull considering that most people stay on welfars less than a year.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Except, Y'know a better life and more spending money. This "They wont want to work" is bull considering that most people stay on welfars less than a year.

What kind of welfare? The majority seems to be on AFDC for more than a year, with ~27% on it for 2-5 years.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

 notprop wrote:
As I say help the lowest incomes of workers - good, all for it.

Benefits - bad, sod 'em.

If someone can travel half way around the world and get a job cleaning the streets/flipping burgers/driving vans/anything then everyone here can. Decent wage for all, no incentive not to work for it.

I'm going to have to bow out of this conversation now, because I'm afraid I don't have the necessary temperament to respond to this post politely beyond this.

Yeah that's US Welfare not the Cot to grave, house included welfare that is available in some parts of Europe.

 notprop wrote:
Yeah that's US Welfare not the Cot to grave, house included welfare that is available in some parts of Europe.

It was just a response to hotsauceman1- they're from the states as well, and I was curious which type of welfare they were talking about. I know lots of folks on different types of government assistance, and poverty is a hard rut to climb out of once you're in it as far as I'm aware.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 notprop wrote:
Yeah that's US Welfare not the Cot to grave, house included welfare that is available in some parts of Europe.

It was just a response to hotsauceman1- they're from the states as well, and I was curious which type of welfare they were talking about. I know lots of folks on different types of government assistance, and poverty is a hard rut to climb out of once you're in it as far as I'm aware.

There is literally no point. Anyone who can look at the evidence and claim benefits are an incentive not to work has either fallen victim to #'s 2, 3 & 4 and requires persuasion of a type and length that can only come from someone they know personally IRL, or else...well, Rule 1 and all that. Either way a forum post isn't going to change their mind because they don't want to hear it.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 notprop wrote:
Yeah that's US Welfare not the Cot to grave, house included welfare that is available in some parts of Europe.

It was just a response to hotsauceman1- they're from the states as well, and I was curious which type of welfare they were talking about. I know lots of folks on different types of government assistance, and poverty is a hard rut to climb out of once you're in it as far as I'm aware.

There is literally no point. Anyone who can look at the evidence and claim benefits are an incentive not to work has either fallen victim to #'s 2, 3 & 4 and requires persuasion of a type and length that can only come from someone they know personally IRL, or else...well, Rule 1 and all that. Either way a forum post isn't going to change their mind because they don't want to hear it.

I don't think I took a position on whether or not they're an incentive not to work did I? And I believe hotsauce is firmly in the, "They're not" camp. So I'm unsure of what you're talking about, as I was just trying to get some more data into the thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you want me to Share my opinion I've seen people who really need it just to survive or get by, and I've seen people abuse it as well. I'd assume the abuse is in the minority.

Abuse is a relative term.

I've seen comments that since someone has a refrigerator, they are abusing welfare...

 skyth wrote:
Abuse is a relative term.

I've seen comments that since someone has a refrigerator, they are abusing welfare...

***Edit***: Unemployment is not a form of welfare. My mistake.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
To be more specific, drawing unemployment for the full 99 weeks when a previous employer agreed to hire them back(at a wage that is more than unemployment), and then after the 99 weeks going to work for that employer anyway. He was quoted as saying, "I've worked hard all my life, it's about time I had a break."

I'm sure that makes up a huge percent of those on welfare.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
To be more specific, drawing unemployment for the full 99 weeks when a previous employer agreed to hire them back(at a wage that is more than unemployment), and then after the 99 weeks going to work for that employer anyway. He was quoted as saying, "I've worked hard all my life, it's about time I had a break."

I'm sure that makes up a huge percent of those on welfare.

Whoops, My mistake. Unemployment is not welfare. That's what I get for typing before thinking.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 notprop wrote:
Yeah that's US Welfare not the Cot to grave, house included welfare that is available in some parts of Europe.

It was just a response to hotsauceman1- they're from the states as well, and I was curious which type of welfare they were talking about. I know lots of folks on different types of government assistance, and poverty is a hard rut to climb out of once you're in it as far as I'm aware.

There is literally no point. Anyone who can look at the evidence and claim benefits are an incentive not to work has either fallen victim to #'s 2, 3 & 4 and requires persuasion of a type and length that can only come from someone they know personally IRL, or else...well, Rule 1 and all that. Either way a forum post isn't going to change their mind because they don't want to hear it.

Oh dear "powerful people" and "underdogs". Even the title is cringingly unconvincing.

Most people in the UK are happy with a welfare state. A helping hand when needed is only right. What is not right is a system that allows whole life indolence (or otiosity if you prefer, it's all the rage)
at the expense of the tax payer. There have been up to 3M people unemployed in the UK for a few decades. Over that period we have had an estimated influx of 5M migrants, most of whom have found work. There really wouldn't be so many people out of work unless they had been enabled to do so.