Against child support?

[Fop 1]

I love the way people look down their noses at the "subclasses" on their benefits. If I had a kid and my partner died, I'd be relying on benefits. I've worked my whole adult life and am university educated, but I have no savings and couldn't keep my current job. Would that make me "scum"?

 

Isn't the welfare state something to be proud of? It pulled people out of the slums and gives everyone at least a chance in life. People in here are advocating that be tore apart?

 

Anyway, the UK only invests 20% of GDP in welfare expenditure, that's a lot less than many other European countries. It's probably why Parky prefers to live in germany, where it's closer to 30%.

 

 

The trouble you are clearly having is separating the ideal from the reality.

 

 

It's like the NHS, absolutely wonderful idea, but that still won't stop it being every more second class to private health care in the UK and likely to continue to be piecemeal privatised itself (only without the superior standards of care that the genuine private sector provides).

 

 

Benefits are often designed for that very worthy and needed situation, but are in reality are then take advantage of by a vast majority not in that situation..... and again you're not actually "helping" a child (or the parent, or anyone) if the money given for it is actually being spent on booze, fags and a sky subscription.

[Happy Face 29]

I love the way people look down their noses at the "subclasses" on their benefits. If I had a kid and my partner died, I'd be relying on benefits. I've worked my whole adult life and am university educated, but I have no savings and couldn't keep my current job. Would that make me "scum"?

 

Isn't the welfare state something to be proud of? It pulled people out of the slums and gives everyone at least a chance in life. People in here are advocating that be tore apart?

 

Anyway, the UK only invests 20% of GDP in welfare expenditure, that's a lot less than many other European countries. It's probably why Parky prefers to live in germany, where it's closer to 30%.

 

 

The trouble you are clearly having is separating the ideal from the reality.

 

 

It's like the NHS, absolutely wonderful idea, but that still won't stop it being every more second class to private health care in the UK and likely to continue to be piecemeal privatised itself (only without the superior standards of care that the genuine private sector provides).

 

 

Benefits are often designed for that very worthy and needed situation, but are in reality are then take advantage of by a vast majority not in that situation..... and again you're not actually "helping" a child (or the parent, or anyone) if the money given for it is actually being spent on booze, fags and a sky subscription.

 

Let's throw out the baby with the bathwater then.

[Park Life 71]

I love the way people look down their noses at the "subclasses" on their benefits. If I had a kid and my partner died, I'd be relying on benefits. I've worked my whole adult life and am university educated, but I have no savings and couldn't keep my current job. Would that make me "scum"?

 

Isn't the welfare state something to be proud of? It pulled people out of the slums and gives everyone at least a chance in life. People in here are advocating that be tore apart?

 

Anyway, the UK only invests 20% of GDP in welfare expenditure, that's a lot less than many other European countries. It's probably why Parky prefers to live in germany, where it's closer to 30%.

 

 

Spot on bro.

 

We have healthcare insurance but pay a pittance for Kindergarten. So Parkyesque Jnr can afford ballet and piano muckabouts.

 

For the record the welfare/freeish healthcare state was a bold move and should be preserved at all costs.

[Guest alex]

I love the way people look down their noses at the "subclasses" on their benefits. If I had a kid and my partner died, I'd be relying on benefits. I've worked my whole adult life and am university educated, but I have no savings and couldn't keep my current job. Would that make me "scum"?

 

Isn't the welfare state something to be proud of? It pulled people out of the slums and gives everyone at least a chance in life. People in here are advocating that be tore apart?

 

Anyway, the UK only invests 20% of GDP in welfare expenditure, that's a lot less than many other European countries. It's probably why Parky prefers to live in germany, where it's closer to 30%.

 

 

Spot on bro.

 

We have healthcare insurance but pay a pittance for Kindergarten. So Parkyesque Jnr can afford ballet and piano muckabouts.

 

For the record the welfare/freeish healthcare state was a bold move and should be preserved at all costs.

Probably needs to be reformed a bit though.

[Rob W 0]

well anyone who is against the NHS should be forced to spend a few years in the US of A

[Fop 1]

I love the way people look down their noses at the "subclasses" on their benefits. If I had a kid and my partner died, I'd be relying on benefits. I've worked my whole adult life and am university educated, but I have no savings and couldn't keep my current job. Would that make me "scum"?

 

Isn't the welfare state something to be proud of? It pulled people out of the slums and gives everyone at least a chance in life. People in here are advocating that be tore apart?

 

Anyway, the UK only invests 20% of GDP in welfare expenditure, that's a lot less than many other European countries. It's probably why Parky prefers to live in germany, where it's closer to 30%.

 

 

The trouble you are clearly having is separating the ideal from the reality.

 

 

It's like the NHS, absolutely wonderful idea, but that still won't stop it being every more second class to private health care in the UK and likely to continue to be piecemeal privatised itself (only without the superior standards of care that the genuine private sector provides).

 

 

Benefits are often designed for that very worthy and needed situation, but are in reality are then take advantage of by a vast majority not in that situation..... and again you're not actually "helping" a child (or the parent, or anyone) if the money given for it is actually being spent on booze, fags and a sky subscription.

 

Let's throw out the baby with the bathwater then.

 

Probably better to actually create a system where the baby is actually getting a bath in the first place, and one that is not largely being used as a spar for people that just want to milk the system.

 

But that sort of thinking has no place in real life.

[Guest alex]

I love the way people look down their noses at the "subclasses" on their benefits. If I had a kid and my partner died, I'd be relying on benefits. I've worked my whole adult life and am university educated, but I have no savings and couldn't keep my current job. Would that make me "scum"?

 

Isn't the welfare state something to be proud of? It pulled people out of the slums and gives everyone at least a chance in life. People in here are advocating that be tore apart?

 

Anyway, the UK only invests 20% of GDP in welfare expenditure, that's a lot less than many other European countries. It's probably why Parky prefers to live in germany, where it's closer to 30%.

 

 

The trouble you are clearly having is separating the ideal from the reality.

 

 

It's like the NHS, absolutely wonderful idea, but that still won't stop it being every more second class to private health care in the UK and likely to continue to be piecemeal privatised itself (only without the superior standards of care that the genuine private sector provides).

 

 

Benefits are often designed for that very worthy and needed situation, but are in reality are then take advantage of by a vast majority not in that situation..... and again you're not actually "helping" a child (or the parent, or anyone) if the money given for it is actually being spent on booze, fags and a sky subscription.

 

Let's throw out the baby with the bathwater then.

 

Probably better to actually create a system where the baby is actually getting a bath in the first place, and one that is not largely being used as a spar for people that just want to milk the system.

 

But that sort of thinking has no place in real life.

These metaphors are all well and good but I've yet to see a decent proposal as to how you do that (not just from you, from anyone).

[Rob W 0]

There is also the issue of cost - to police benifits and ensure it ALL is used properly would cost zillions

 

we may just have to accept a certain degree of leakage to the unworthy

[Fop 1]

well anyone who is against the NHS should be forced to spend a few years in the US of A

I suspect sooner or later effectively (if not literally) they will. The NHS needs the sort of political will it took to create it to stand a chance at saving it (all Blair really managed to do in 10 years of reasonable investment during economic nirvana was remove very long and very short waits keeping average wait roughly the same, boost wages a bit, and divert an awful lot of cash and cash cows into private hands), as it stands it is going to effectively end up as second rate private care anyway - which is why the conservatives idea about taking contributions and allowing them to be put into a private scheme was so vigorously attacked..... because you'd be completely insane not to do it if you could afford it.

[Guest alex]

There is also the issue of cost - to police benifits and ensure it ALL is used properly would cost zillions

 

we may just have to accept a certain degree of leakage to the unworthy

I don't think anyone was suggesting otherwise. If the system is easy to fiddle and/or rewards the wrong people often then it has fundamental problems that need addressing.

[Happy Face 29]

I love the way people look down their noses at the "subclasses" on their benefits. If I had a kid and my partner died, I'd be relying on benefits. I've worked my whole adult life and am university educated, but I have no savings and couldn't keep my current job. Would that make me "scum"?

 

Isn't the welfare state something to be proud of? It pulled people out of the slums and gives everyone at least a chance in life. People in here are advocating that be tore apart?

 

Anyway, the UK only invests 20% of GDP in welfare expenditure, that's a lot less than many other European countries. It's probably why Parky prefers to live in germany, where it's closer to 30%.

 

 

The trouble you are clearly having is separating the ideal from the reality.

 

 

It's like the NHS, absolutely wonderful idea, but that still won't stop it being every more second class to private health care in the UK and likely to continue to be piecemeal privatised itself (only without the superior standards of care that the genuine private sector provides).

 

 

Benefits are often designed for that very worthy and needed situation, but are in reality are then take advantage of by a vast majority not in that situation..... and again you're not actually "helping" a child (or the parent, or anyone) if the money given for it is actually being spent on booze, fags and a sky subscription.

 

Let's throw out the baby with the bathwater then.

 

Probably better to actually create a system where the baby is actually getting a bath in the first place, and one that is not largely being used as a spar for people that just want to milk the system.

 

But that sort of thinking has no place in real life.

 

But people in the situation I've described are getting the benefits they deserve. So it works...at only two thirds of the cost of comparative economies. Do people actually complain they don't get enough benefits? I don't think they do, just people who aren't on benefit call those that are bludgers.

 

I'm sure some people do abuse the system, but stopping benefits because some abuse them would be like stopping all paid sick leave because some employees abuse it. Why should I miss out on genuine sick leave because Gemmil stops at home every time his nose runs?

[Fop 1]

I love the way people look down their noses at the "subclasses" on their benefits. If I had a kid and my partner died, I'd be relying on benefits. I've worked my whole adult life and am university educated, but I have no savings and couldn't keep my current job. Would that make me "scum"?

 

Isn't the welfare state something to be proud of? It pulled people out of the slums and gives everyone at least a chance in life. People in here are advocating that be tore apart?

 

Anyway, the UK only invests 20% of GDP in welfare expenditure, that's a lot less than many other European countries. It's probably why Parky prefers to live in germany, where it's closer to 30%.

 

 

The trouble you are clearly having is separating the ideal from the reality.

 

 

It's like the NHS, absolutely wonderful idea, but that still won't stop it being every more second class to private health care in the UK and likely to continue to be piecemeal privatised itself (only without the superior standards of care that the genuine private sector provides).

 

 

Benefits are often designed for that very worthy and needed situation, but are in reality are then take advantage of by a vast majority not in that situation..... and again you're not actually "helping" a child (or the parent, or anyone) if the money given for it is actually being spent on booze, fags and a sky subscription.

 

Let's throw out the baby with the bathwater then.

 

Probably better to actually create a system where the baby is actually getting a bath in the first place, and one that is not largely being used as a spar for people that just want to milk the system.

 

But that sort of thinking has no place in real life.

These metaphors are all well and good but I've yet to see a decent proposal as to how you do that (not just from you, from anyone).

 

ID cards, clearly.

 

The thing is most of the reforms that might work would almost certainly get the Government that introduced them kicked out at the next election.

 

So we're stuck with, at best, wishy washy pseudo-reforms that will do nothing (and not just in benefits, look at public transport etc.).

[Guest alex]

I do think the short-termism (i.e. need to win an election every 4-5 years) is a problem with this and many other things like. Again, I'm not sure what the alternatives are though.

[Fop 1]

I love the way people look down their noses at the "subclasses" on their benefits. If I had a kid and my partner died, I'd be relying on benefits. I've worked my whole adult life and am university educated, but I have no savings and couldn't keep my current job. Would that make me "scum"?

 

Isn't the welfare state something to be proud of? It pulled people out of the slums and gives everyone at least a chance in life. People in here are advocating that be tore apart?

 

Anyway, the UK only invests 20% of GDP in welfare expenditure, that's a lot less than many other European countries. It's probably why Parky prefers to live in germany, where it's closer to 30%.

 

 

The trouble you are clearly having is separating the ideal from the reality.

 

 

It's like the NHS, absolutely wonderful idea, but that still won't stop it being every more second class to private health care in the UK and likely to continue to be piecemeal privatised itself (only without the superior standards of care that the genuine private sector provides).

 

 

Benefits are often designed for that very worthy and needed situation, but are in reality are then take advantage of by a vast majority not in that situation..... and again you're not actually "helping" a child (or the parent, or anyone) if the money given for it is actually being spent on booze, fags and a sky subscription.

 

Let's throw out the baby with the bathwater then.

 

Probably better to actually create a system where the baby is actually getting a bath in the first place, and one that is not largely being used as a spar for people that just want to milk the system.

 

But that sort of thinking has no place in real life.

 

But people in the situation I've described are getting the benefits they deserve. So it works...at only two thirds of the cost of comparative economies. Do people actually complain they don't get enough benefits? I don't think they do, just people who aren't on benefit call those that are bludgers.

 

I don't actually think they are, especially those that don't know how to milk the system or in fact don't want to milk the system.

 

And it's the people abusing the system that are actually, quite literally, taking the bread from the mouths of those that genuinely DO need and deserve the support.

 

 

 

I'm sure some people do abuse the system, but stopping benefits because some abuse them would be like stopping all paid sick leave because some employees abuse it. Why should I miss out on genuine sick leave because Gemmil stops at home every time his nose runs?

 

It's like the current incapacity benefit, it's now got to the stage where the Government may have to do something genuinely serious about it...... and before you say "what do you know", I have actually had a period in my life where I could have quite genuinely and legitimately got the full wack from that and at the time being significantly better off for it if I had, but I didn't, and the irony that I was in fact not only not claiming, but actually still paying for people much more fit and capable than I was then wasn't lost on me.

 

A system that benefits those most willing to milk it helps no one as much as it should and lets down everyone, morally and economically.

[Meenzer 15873]

The Germans recognised the bloated nature of their system to some extent with the implementation of the Hartz IV recommendations on unemployment and social security benefits. Huge controversy at first, particularly at the tabloid-driven end of the market, and there's no doubt a lot of "good" people got caught up in the fallout, but the end of their several years of economic stagnation seems to be gradually persuading people of its merits. They've got just the same culture of "sponging" that we have here (to whatever extent you consider it to be real/problematic), anyway.

[Happy Face 29]

I love the way people look down their noses at the "subclasses" on their benefits. If I had a kid and my partner died, I'd be relying on benefits. I've worked my whole adult life and am university educated, but I have no savings and couldn't keep my current job. Would that make me "scum"?

 

Isn't the welfare state something to be proud of? It pulled people out of the slums and gives everyone at least a chance in life. People in here are advocating that be tore apart?

 

Anyway, the UK only invests 20% of GDP in welfare expenditure, that's a lot less than many other European countries. It's probably why Parky prefers to live in germany, where it's closer to 30%.

 

 

The trouble you are clearly having is separating the ideal from the reality.

 

 

It's like the NHS, absolutely wonderful idea, but that still won't stop it being every more second class to private health care in the UK and likely to continue to be piecemeal privatised itself (only without the superior standards of care that the genuine private sector provides).

 

 

Benefits are often designed for that very worthy and needed situation, but are in reality are then take advantage of by a vast majority not in that situation..... and again you're not actually "helping" a child (or the parent, or anyone) if the money given for it is actually being spent on booze, fags and a sky subscription.

 

Let's throw out the baby with the bathwater then.

 

Probably better to actually create a system where the baby is actually getting a bath in the first place, and one that is not largely being used as a spar for people that just want to milk the system.

 

But that sort of thinking has no place in real life.

 

But people in the situation I've described are getting the benefits they deserve. So it works...at only two thirds of the cost of comparative economies. Do people actually complain they don't get enough benefits? I don't think they do, just people who aren't on benefit call those that are bludgers.

 

I don't actually think they are, especially those that don't know how to milk the system or in fact don't want to milk the system.

 

And it's the people abusing the system that are actually, quite literally, taking the bread from the mouths of those that genuinely DO need and deserve the support.

 

 

 

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

[Happy Face 29]

I'm sure some people do abuse the system, but stopping benefits because some abuse them would be like stopping all paid sick leave because some employees abuse it. Why should I miss out on genuine sick leave because Gemmil stops at home every time his nose runs?

 

It's like the current incapacity benefit, it's now got to the stage where the Government may have to do something genuinely serious about it...... and before you say "what do you know", I have actually had a period in my life where I could have quite genuinely and legitimately got the full wack from that and at the time being significantly better off for it if I had, but I didn't, and the irony that I was in fact not only not claiming, but actually still paying for people much more fit and capable than I was then wasn't lost on me.

 

A system that benefits those most willing to milk it helps no one as much as it should and lets down everyone, morally and economically.

 

More fool you tbh.

[Fop 1]

I love the way people look down their noses at the "subclasses" on their benefits. If I had a kid and my partner died, I'd be relying on benefits. I've worked my whole adult life and am university educated, but I have no savings and couldn't keep my current job. Would that make me "scum"?

 

Isn't the welfare state something to be proud of? It pulled people out of the slums and gives everyone at least a chance in life. People in here are advocating that be tore apart?

 

Anyway, the UK only invests 20% of GDP in welfare expenditure, that's a lot less than many other European countries. It's probably why Parky prefers to live in germany, where it's closer to 30%.

 

 

The trouble you are clearly having is separating the ideal from the reality.

 

 

It's like the NHS, absolutely wonderful idea, but that still won't stop it being every more second class to private health care in the UK and likely to continue to be piecemeal privatised itself (only without the superior standards of care that the genuine private sector provides).

 

 

Benefits are often designed for that very worthy and needed situation, but are in reality are then take advantage of by a vast majority not in that situation..... and again you're not actually "helping" a child (or the parent, or anyone) if the money given for it is actually being spent on booze, fags and a sky subscription.

 

Let's throw out the baby with the bathwater then.

 

Probably better to actually create a system where the baby is actually getting a bath in the first place, and one that is not largely being used as a spar for people that just want to milk the system.

 

But that sort of thinking has no place in real life.

 

But people in the situation I've described are getting the benefits they deserve. So it works...at only two thirds of the cost of comparative economies. Do people actually complain they don't get enough benefits? I don't think they do, just people who aren't on benefit call those that are bludgers.

 

I don't actually think they are, especially those that don't know how to milk the system or in fact don't want to milk the system.

 

And it's the people abusing the system that are actually, quite literally, taking the bread from the mouths of those that genuinely DO need and deserve the support.

 

 

 

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

 

No it's just basic maths, there's a finite amount of cash in the pot, the more people take out of it the less there is for everyone.

 

Which quickly becomes the situation where you HAVE to know how to milk the system to get what you need IF you genuinely do need it.

 

The less abuse in a system the easier, more open and more generous that system can be...... as it stands the current system is failing everyone, taxpayers, those that genuinely do need support, and even those abusing the system in a way too.

[Fop 1]

I'm sure some people do abuse the system, but stopping benefits because some abuse them would be like stopping all paid sick leave because some employees abuse it. Why should I miss out on genuine sick leave because Gemmil stops at home every time his nose runs?

 

It's like the current incapacity benefit, it's now got to the stage where the Government may have to do something genuinely serious about it...... and before you say "what do you know", I have actually had a period in my life where I could have quite genuinely and legitimately got the full wack from that and at the time being significantly better off for it if I had, but I didn't, and the irony that I was in fact not only not claiming, but actually still paying for people much more fit and capable than I was then wasn't lost on me.

 

A system that benefits those most willing to milk it helps no one as much as it should and lets down everyone, morally and economically.

 

More fool you tbh.

 

Maybe, I made my choice based on my own principles and lived with it.

 

But if you design a system that benefits the least common denominator the most, then you're basically building a system to fail from the start. It's tragedy of the commons really and it will happen every time until the system is changed.

[Happy Face 29]

I love the way people look down their noses at the "subclasses" on their benefits. If I had a kid and my partner died, I'd be relying on benefits. I've worked my whole adult life and am university educated, but I have no savings and couldn't keep my current job. Would that make me "scum"?

 

Isn't the welfare state something to be proud of? It pulled people out of the slums and gives everyone at least a chance in life. People in here are advocating that be tore apart?

 

Anyway, the UK only invests 20% of GDP in welfare expenditure, that's a lot less than many other European countries. It's probably why Parky prefers to live in germany, where it's closer to 30%.

 

 

The trouble you are clearly having is separating the ideal from the reality.

 

 

It's like the NHS, absolutely wonderful idea, but that still won't stop it being every more second class to private health care in the UK and likely to continue to be piecemeal privatised itself (only without the superior standards of care that the genuine private sector provides).

 

 

Benefits are often designed for that very worthy and needed situation, but are in reality are then take advantage of by a vast majority not in that situation..... and again you're not actually "helping" a child (or the parent, or anyone) if the money given for it is actually being spent on booze, fags and a sky subscription.

 

Let's throw out the baby with the bathwater then.

 

Probably better to actually create a system where the baby is actually getting a bath in the first place, and one that is not largely being used as a spar for people that just want to milk the system.

 

But that sort of thinking has no place in real life.

 

But people in the situation I've described are getting the benefits they deserve. So it works...at only two thirds of the cost of comparative economies. Do people actually complain they don't get enough benefits? I don't think they do, just people who aren't on benefit call those that are bludgers.

 

I don't actually think they are, especially those that don't know how to milk the system or in fact don't want to milk the system.

 

And it's the people abusing the system that are actually, quite literally, taking the bread from the mouths of those that genuinely DO need and deserve the support.

 

 

 

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

 

No it's just basic maths, there's a finite amount of cash in the pot, the more people take out of it the less there is for everyone.

 

Which quickly becomes the situation where you HAVE to know how to milk the system to get what you need IF you genuinely do need it.

 

The less abuse in a system the easier, more open and more generous that system can be...... as it stands the current system is failing everyone, taxpayers, those that genuinely do need support, and even those abusing the system in a way too.

 

 

Not really.

 

Prison places is basic maths. There's a finite number of places and the system is failing.

 

I've never heard of anyone that works in Child support being asked to start knocking people back.

[Happy Face 29]

I'm sure some people do abuse the system, but stopping benefits because some abuse them would be like stopping all paid sick leave because some employees abuse it. Why should I miss out on genuine sick leave because Gemmil stops at home every time his nose runs?

 

It's like the current incapacity benefit, it's now got to the stage where the Government may have to do something genuinely serious about it...... and before you say "what do you know", I have actually had a period in my life where I could have quite genuinely and legitimately got the full wack from that and at the time being significantly better off for it if I had, but I didn't, and the irony that I was in fact not only not claiming, but actually still paying for people much more fit and capable than I was then wasn't lost on me.

 

A system that benefits those most willing to milk it helps no one as much as it should and lets down everyone, morally and economically.

 

More fool you tbh.

 

Maybe, I made my choice based on my own principles and lived with it.

 

But if you design a system that benefits the least common denominator the most, then you're basically building a system to fail from the start. It's tragedy of the commons really and it will happen every time until the system is changed.

 

What do you mean by least common denominator? Surely a system should try and benefit the least well off as much as possible. Do you see yourself as the least common denominator? You made the choice not to claim, I assume you could afford not to.

[Fop 1]

Not really.

 

Prison places is basic maths. There's a finite number of places and the system is failing.

 

I've never heard of anyone that works in Child support being asked to start knocking people back.

 

The economy is finite, tax revenue is finite, the amount you can therefore earmark for benefits is finite.

 

The more that is taken out of the pool by people that don't need it (and could be supporting themselves in other ways), leaves less for those that absolutely do need it.

 

As I said it's basic maths.

 

 

 

 

It still the same thing with prison places, there's a finite amount of cash, so there is a finite number of prison places, which leads arbitrary to shorter sentences which have nothing to with justice, rehabilitation or public safety, only lack of £££'s.

[Fop 1]

I'm sure some people do abuse the system, but stopping benefits because some abuse them would be like stopping all paid sick leave because some employees abuse it. Why should I miss out on genuine sick leave because Gemmil stops at home every time his nose runs?

 

It's like the current incapacity benefit, it's now got to the stage where the Government may have to do something genuinely serious about it...... and before you say "what do you know", I have actually had a period in my life where I could have quite genuinely and legitimately got the full wack from that and at the time being significantly better off for it if I had, but I didn't, and the irony that I was in fact not only not claiming, but actually still paying for people much more fit and capable than I was then wasn't lost on me.

 

A system that benefits those most willing to milk it helps no one as much as it should and lets down everyone, morally and economically.

 

More fool you tbh.

 

Maybe, I made my choice based on my own principles and lived with it.

 

But if you design a system that benefits the least common denominator the most, then you're basically building a system to fail from the start. It's tragedy of the commons really and it will happen every time until the system is changed.

 

What do you mean by least common denominator? Surely a system should try and benefit the least well off as much as possible. Do you see yourself as the least common denominator? You made the choice not to claim, I assume you could afford not to.

 

Those most open and willing to abuse the system, not those most in need (necessarily).

 

As I said at the time I'd have been better off if I had (and would have had a generally much, much easier and nicer time in a non-financial sense too), and if I'd purely thought of my own selfish benefit the the choice would have been clear. Maybe most people would have and should taken that option, that's up to them, I'm just saying I've been there and am not just theoretically postulating on the realities of it.

 

But it still goes back to it being those most willing to milk the system getting the most benefit (in both contexts) from it, NOT those most in need of the system.

[Guest alex]

I'll stick my neck out here Fop and say I honestly don't believe a word of that. I think you're just making it up for the sake of this argument. Perhaps your cynicism in humanity has rubbed off on me a bit

[Happy Face 29]

Not really.

 

Prison places is basic maths. There's a finite number of places and the system is failing.

 

I've never heard of anyone that works in Child support being asked to start knocking people back.

 

The economy is finite, tax revenue is finite, the amount you can therefore earmark for benefits is finite.

 

The more that is taken out of the pool by people that don't need it (and could be supporting themselves in other ways), leaves less for those that absolutely do need it.

 

As I said it's basic maths.

 

It still the same thing with prison places, there's a finite amount of cash, so there is a finite number of prison places, which leads arbitrary to shorter sentences which have nothing to with justice, rehabilitation or public safety, only lack of £££'s.

 

 

Now who's being idealistic. It's all borrowing anyway. If you think the crippled mother of 7 living in a boot will be given mansion and toys for all her kids if only all the 16 year olds in Byker would have a pang of conscience you're out your tree.