Quote:
Originally Posted by Elrazor
My point was that most people have sense enough to sit down and work this out for themselves, and so there is no need for a system.
I think most people do but the State benefits from having more tax payers so isn't it a win-win situation?
Quote:
JC was very clever in using this example in hoping to rustle Cameron.
And so he should. As usual it's those who are the poorest who are hit the worst, and JC ought to be taking Cameron to task over it.
Quote:
The current format worked well as a one-off, however as long as this polite politics continues, Cameron will just pat everything back with his prepared response "blah blah blah blah but you can't have a strong NHS without a strong economy".
****ing broken record isn't he. Avoids every question with this answer.
Quote:
I would guess the food available at food banks would be better than McDonalds/domino's/etc, which if you're a family on the poverty line would be the potential trade off.
Probably, but then that isn't saying too much. I'm a but of a food nazi and I'd like to see some authoritarian control of the **** we allow people to eat, especially children. It's almost depressing seeing them walking around at lunch time with bags of ****ing chips.
Quote:
Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about the Swedish welfare can clarify this if I'm wrong, but as a country that is seen as liberal and progressive, my understanding is the poorest people's welfare entitlement is part-paid my food vouchers, so they are given vouchers they can exchange for fresh food.
How would people react to this type of system in this country as an alternative to food banks?
I think it would be good if the vouchers got highly nutritious food into people's diets. The effects of poverty are crippling in many ways, and improving the country's diet could go a long way to helping mitigate the consequences of poverty.
Without doubt we need to overhaul our food systems. There's too much waste and the CAP is an absolute abortion. I think we need to localise it more and reduce the need for importing and exporting. There are more efficient methods of growing food, such as aquaponics, which could be on all the flat roofs across cities, as well as becoming part of existing farms' production, making a contribution of highly nutritious organic produce to local communities.
Also if we could make an effort to use all the fresh stuff that supermarkets would otherwise throw out, as is done in Scandinavia especially, it could make a big difference to what people reliant on food banks put on their plate.
Quote:
it's a basic human desire and ability, but it's not a "right".
Quote:
Originally Posted by joejoe1337
I'm not coming down either side on this debate but:
a) it's not a human right to procreate
b) even if it were, that right isn't being violated here. Anyone is completely entitled to have as many children as they want, they just have to do so within their means.
Basically, I don't think the whole 'human rights' line of argument is the way to go here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoopie1
1. I don't think anybody is suggesting having people neutered. Simply that the state shouldn't have to pay child benefit etc. for someone to have half a dozen children. The state is already going to be picking up the tab for their education/healthcare.
Aye fair enough; there's no restriction as it is. Poor choice of argument from me.
In terms of what welfare parents receive, well again it all comes back to the point that the best way of dealing with welfare is not to need it in the first place. A more equitable income and wealth distribution is required.
As it is, I'm not so sure the State doesn't want people to have more children - more taxpayers to add to the pot that they want to get their hands on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
The argument about health and the state is a strange one. It's quite a disgusting argument when we consider it might be those who live healthy lifestyles who are the biggest burden on the state. There's not much (if any) upside to the state in older people living for decades with their expensive chronic conditions.
We have to divorce the provisions from the state from any judgement about the lifestyle of those making use of those services or it's not going to work properly. If there's concerns about lifestyles choices then tackle them with other social policy i.e anti-smoking measures are fine but the NHS mustn't treat smokers in a second class fashion.
Does the cost of the extra pension for healthy people outweigh the costs of treating chronic condition sufferers?
Perhaps, in any case, those who do live healthy lifestyles are more likely to be wealthy enough not to rely on the State in their retirement. It's no secret that poverty leads to ill health.