The welfare state in Britain should be abolished before it is to late. One only needs to look at the United States of America to see that the continuation of a welfare state is detrimental to society. In America there is a growing population of people who will never see a job in their lifetime.
Yes, the welfare state in Britain should be abolished, because it is a bankrupt system. It would be nice if we could give other people all the money they want, but at some point, there are more people taking money than there are earning it. This is the point Britain is at, and there need to be changes.
There is nothing to support here, you need but only look at the current economic state of the country. To make it simpler, one need only look at the growth in crime and displacement of social classes in Great Britain. The welfare system in Britain is broken, at minimum it needs "reform".
In the United Kingdom millions of pounds every year are spent on the welfare state, much of which directly funding people on the dole or on benefits, the problem is not enough people care anymore about contributing to society and the welfare state seems like an easy option, whereas while Britain was a world trading power.
I have witnessed many people out of work and making no effort to find work and still expecting the state to provide for them.
The problem is the welfare state as it stands is expensive and gives people excuses to be incredibly lazy and it is a growing problem, as I see it capitalism is the answer.
1.) We need to make cuts to taxes, there is a lot of wasted money in public services which all need reforming, with reform comes more money in the government's pocket that can be returned to the taxpayer, with the exception of Health and Education everything else should simply be privatised, with this taxes would be far lower and the average person would be better off, as well as the initial boom to the economy from privatisation.
2.) Taxes for businesses need to be further lowered, massive reductions in corporate tax and income tax would make Britain more attractive to businesses as well as and the government needs to stop interfering with businesses and corporations, they should run 95% freely of the government with only standard regulations.
3.) With the very low taxes and the government staying out of the way of businesses, the UK will have the same effect that Hong Kong had and Singapore had, it will become a hub of international businesses and a breeding ground for new businesses, people are naturally entrepreneurial if you will allow them the freedom to be.
4.) As Britain has now become an international hub for business we will have thousands of new investors, new businesses, people moving to work and people would be setting up all over Britain, including areas that currently have next to no employment, with all the new found business there will be jobs all over the country, pretty much everyone will be able to find work if they make the effort to look for it.
5.) With all the public sector cuts and the new business the revenue the government makes through the considerably lower taxes will be able to fund infrastructure and needed services, councils will earn enough in council tax for infrastructure and parks and public gardens, people as well will nearly all be better off so they will be funding local events to make their communities better as well as making their own homes better this will make the areas nicer as well as put money back into the economy.
Britain spends more on benefits than it receives in tax. This is not sustainable and has already led to massive reductions in public services. The welfare state ceased to be a safety net some time ago and is now a lifestyle choice. Take a walk around any so called deprived area. Look at the number of people who drive, have mobile phones, subscription television and take drugs. Why should people who work hard pay tax for this when they could be funding schools, hospitals and bus services?
The welfare system encourages the poor and stupid to breed faster than the hard working and talented. Their children in turn are stupid, lazy and fecund. They spend money on tattoos which would be better spent on soap and contraception. The problem with the poor is that they are smelly, lazy and expensive.
The welfare state is responsible for family breakdown in the UK. Single mothers are using the benefit system as a sugar daddy to replace the man. The manginas (effeminate men) in the labour party put women on a pedestal and treat the female labour counselors like their mothers and allow them to wear the trousers. They support single mothers through 'legalized parental kidnapping' of the children from the father. Single mothers no longer have to work as they sit on their assess getting fat off their £25,000 a year salary.
If Great Britain continues to spend unseemly amount of money to keep its failing welfare state alive, then its debt will crush it, and then where will Britain be. It will be in a complete economic halt. That means that everything that makes its economy tick will stop and eventually fall. That means that its means of production will be destroyed and millions of its workers will find themselves unemployed. And what started has a simple attempt by the British Government to help its struggling citizens will become the product of its own destruction. And if you don't believe me, and you think everything that I had just said is nothing more than just conservative ruble. Then think of this if a family you knew was giving unseemly amount of its own money to help a struggling family, and while this might seem noble, what happens when they fail to realize that their handouts are actually preventing their neighbors from getting good paying and stable jobs. Than what happens when that families good intentions lands them in bankruptcy. What will you think of them then?
As a left winger, you would think I am opposed to abolishing welfare. However, you would be wrong. My definition of welfare is cash handouts in the form of redistribution of wealth. It does not cover public services in my view. Otherwise I would be against it.
Basically, there are better things to spend the money on. These include defence, hospitals, schools, infrastructure, research and design, transport e.C.T. E.C.T. Social spending costs the government 30% of all spending; if abolished it would free up the billions to put into more soldiers, more nurses, more job creation schemes and the like. Cutting welfare to nothing would enable more spending on other programs and funds to tax cuts. Of course it would never happen because the Tories support welfare (pensions) as much as the Labour party. If people fall on hard times and are made homeless, the government should provide plots of land known as "common land" for the homeless people to camp on, which of course would cost no money at all.
If not abolished, Then it should be reformed. Food stamps and bare basics only. Things like TV are not essentials.
Job Centres can provide internet access for job searches.
All that is required to survive is a roof, Warmth, Water and food. Plus some basic clothing. This is what should be provided ONLY.
How would any of these one in seven workers eat, drink have somewhere to live etc.?
Also if you look at how the money spent on the welfare state is divided up: http://www.Theguardian.Com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending#zoomed-picture
Job seekers allowance accounts for one the smallest of percentages, 47% of it goes on state pensions (for working people). Theres also things like the disability living allowance which if you abolished the welfare state would see the people too disabled to work not being able to eat etc.
Furthermore theres the argument that giving people a little money helps them get back into work, imagine a homeless person going for an interview? How likely are they to get that job?
I understand that people see the long term unemployed and that your taxes (a very small percent mind) are going to them and more should be done to get people jobs and to eventually force them to take it but people are too quick to judge the poorest in society, those with very little when really they should be judging the people with billions of pound spare and the companies that don't pay high enough wages (£6.92billion of welfare goes on income support, which means it goes on people in work that don't receive enough from their employer to live on)
If there was no welfare state how would these one in seven workers eat,drink have somewhere to live etc.?
If you look at how the money for the welfare state is divided: http://www.Theguardian.Com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending#zoomed-picture
You will find that only 7.6% goes to those on Job seekers allowance. If you were to abolish the whole welfare state that would get rid of state pensions (received by working people), disability allowance (that if people didn't have they would have no other money coming in as they can't work) and a whole host of other things that help out every day working people.
Furthermore there is the argument that giving people out of work money actually helps them get back into work, could you imagine homeless people turning up for interviews and getting the job?
At the end of the day I get that people see some of the long term unemployed just living off benefits which they pay for in taxes and more should be done to find those people jobs and eventually to force them to have take the jobs but people are too quick too judge to poorest in society those with very little, or immigrants, mostly those who come here because they barely make anything in their countries for the work they do. Instead people should be blaming those with billions of pounds to spare and the companies making billions in profits and still not giving people a proper wage. Answer me this how can anyone ever work hard enough to earn a billion pound wage? Are they working so much harder than the people working away in factories for years? Is it fair that people who just got lucky by being born into a rich family or by sitting at a computer investing shares in companies make billions whilst people are still living in real poverty?
To completely abolish something so necessary in such a rich country, would be a tragedy. However, the amount that the British government spends on it may go too far. If you've ever seen the long running British comedy Shameless, you'll know just how out of hand benefits have gotten. The government just needs to scale back and invest more in jobs programs.
The welfare state in Britain should not be abolished. There are still many people that depend on the support to be able to feed their families on a daily basis. Even though they are starting to regain control of the debt crisis, there will always be the need to support their people.
The characteristics of the welfare state are there to make sure nobody that is trying to do their part to stay above water ends up drowning. Abolishing it is either telling the poor and less fortunate that you don't care about them, or that you don't think they're trying hard enough to deserve help. Both are pretty ugly messages.
The welfare state in Britain should not be abolished. There are people who really need it, and if welfare was abolished then they would have absolutely no way to pay for food or anything else. A better thing to do would be to make the people on welfare clean up their cities.