Social Welfare State

Kernel

There's an interesting discussion taking place in the Humanities forum about people having the right to reproduce. Of course, I believe that the State should not yet impose any restrictions on people's right to have children, however, I also believe that our current system of Social Welfare is creating an artificial situation in which the underclasses are thriving at the expense of the productive members of the State.

From what I can see, people (even generations of people) who sit on their arses spawning children which they are not fit to look after are creating huge problems both financially and sociologically (crime). This choice should not be supported by the tax payers as represented by the Government. I think Social Welfare should exist as a temporary measure for those who find themselves out of work, or for our pensioners or disabled people (drug addiction is not a disability), and I think that the Government should look at restructuring Social Welfare as such, whilst promoting contraception in order to engineer a more structured and productive society in the future.

In it's simplest form it's a numbers game, and the decent honest hard working people are having less children later in life, whereas the underclasses are having more children earlier, and expecting the State to pay for this. In short, they're out-breeding us, and if such a trend continues the problem will increase exponentially in the future.

What do you all think?

Joey the lips

I can understand you being annoyed. Its hard to sit back and see this but believe it or not these people are in the minority. There is pockets of People who will never work. There is pockets of unmarried mothers who have partners living with them illegally. There is pockets of people claiming sick and disability but there is the opposite

i do a lot of vol work. I am not looking for praise! I have seen poverty.Even today! I have seen people who cannot read or write today! There is no excuse you say but it happens!

Cutting off social welfare after a certain time will not change this. There is no proof it will. There is no proof either to show that Ireland level of social welfare is to high. There is only comparission.

Now to bring a little economics into it! Poverty breads poverty! People do not generally end up in poverty they generally come from poverty! This is a trend many organisations are trying to reverse. Mine included. If you show people a light at the end of the tunnel they will actually struggle to reach that light. They will seak that standard of life, they will have less kids etc.....

But generation after generation is born into poverty. Typical conversation. "My daughter is not going to colleage. My daughter is getting a job in tesco and bringing money into this house" There is many other examples of this. The poorer the education the poorer the standard of living. Ask yourself this question. With the amount of condoms given out by family planning clinics why would anyone have children who are in poverty.

I suggest you research the subject a little further. Its amazing what you will learn. That being said your on the right road questioning it.

Martyr

I agree with most of your comments, Kernel

Condoms shouldn't be taxed at all, but it seems any hint of a removal or reduction and the church are up in arms..bizarrely these people still have alot of authority in this country.

The after morning pill should be made available over the counter without a GP prescription, once again, i'd suspect the church don't want this.

Better education at schools, again..the church have too much authority in this area and want as little as possible.

abortion should be legalised without conditions.

obviously i think our laws are far too influenced by the beliefs of the catholic church system to reflect irish society today, and until that ends, nothing will really change.

catholic church is completely irrelevant.

if they want to preach about God..etc, that's fine, but then decide how the country is run? ...how can they possibly decide what's best?

Joey the lips

Joey the lips wrote: »

But generation after generation is born into poverty. Typical conversation. "My daughter is not going to colleage. My daughter is getting a job in tesco and bringing money into this house"

Getting a job in Tesco isn't poverty. There's plenty of chance of promotion and said person can learn lots of new skills that will allow them to move up the retail ladder. It's a different career path is all.

Poverty is "Why would my daughter bother getting a job sure 'de social' is great and it's payin for the kids and all".

ei.sdraob

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Getting a job in Tesco isn't poverty. There's plenty of chance of promotion and said person can learn lots of new skills that will allow them to move up the retail ladder. It's a different career path is all.

Poverty is "Why would my daughter bother getting a job sure 'de social' is great and it's payin for the kids and all".

A typical excuse made is that we need children to pay pensions for when we get old

tho the way things are going children would have to be paying our debts of for a long time

not to mention theres no guarantee that the child doesn't follow in their parents footsteps and doesn't milk the system in turn themselves

Spudmonkey

Martyr wrote: »

Condoms shouldn't be taxed at all, but it seems any hint of a removal or reduction and the church are up in arms..bizarrely these people still have alot of authority in this country.

The after morning pill should be made available over the counter without a GP prescription, once again, i'd suspect the church don't want this.

I don't think these are the reasons! I think its more because a lucrative lifestyle can be had off the current child benefit scheme.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/social-welfare-should-be-a-last-resort--not-a-career-choice-for-scroungers-1853830.html

I wonder why the Harte family would have such a sizeable family. As Joey said, this may be in the minority, but these are the real-life stories reported to us. When we aren't on the ground, what else are we to believe...

ei.sdraob

Spudmonkey wrote: »

I don't think these are the reasons! I think its more because a lucrative lifestyle can be had off the current child benefit scheme.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/social-welfare-should-be-a-last-resort--not-a-career-choice-for-scroungers-1853830.html

I wonder why the Harte family would have such a sizeable family. As Joey said, this may be in the minority, but these are the real-life stories reported to us. When we aren't on the ground, what else are we to believe...

omfg! that linked article

surely that cant be real? can it?!

:eek:

oO

Spudmonkey

Spudmonkey wrote: »

I don't think these are the reasons! I think its more because a lucrative lifestyle can be had off the current child benefit scheme.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/social-welfare-should-be-a-last-resort--not-a-career-choice-for-scroungers-1853830.html

I wonder why the Harte family would have such a sizeable family. As Joey said, this may be in the minority, but these are the real-life stories reported to us. When we aren't on the ground, what else are we to believe...

I disagree with the article. Putting unemployed people to work like that isn't a solution.

The only way forward is having the dole linked to your old salary. After a year or so you should receive about 50 euro in cash and the rest in food stamps.

irish_bob

Kernel wrote: »

There's an interesting discussion taking place in the Humanities forum about people having the right to reproduce. Of course, I believe that the State should not yet impose any restrictions on people's right to have children, however, I also believe that our current system of Social Welfare is creating an artificial situation in which the underclasses are thriving at the expense of the productive members of the State.

From what I can see, people (even generations of people) who sit on their arses spawning children which they are not fit to look after are creating huge problems both financially and sociologically (crime). This choice should not be supported by the tax payers as represented by the Government. I think Social Welfare should exist as a temporary measure for those who find themselves out of work, or for our pensioners or disabled people (drug addiction is not a disability), and I think that the Government should look at restructuring Social Welfare as such, whilst promoting contraception in order to engineer a more structured and productive society in the future.

In it's simplest form it's a numbers game, and the decent honest hard working people are having less children later in life, whereas the underclasses are having more children earlier, and expecting the State to pay for this. In short, they're out-breeding us, and if such a trend continues the problem will increase exponentially in the future.


an overly generous wellfare system plays an integral part in social breakdown and breeds a culture of irresponsibility and dysfunctionality , it robs people of the incentive to improove thier circumstances through personal achievment , work ethic and the notion of working hard for reward
What do you all think?

an overly generous wellfare system plays an integral part in social breakdown and breeds a culture of irresponsibility and dysfunctionality , it robs people of the incentive to improove thier circumstances through personal achievment , work ethic and the belief in working hard for reward

irish_bob

ei.sdraob wrote: »

A typical excuse made is that we need children to pay pensions for when we get old

tho the way things are going children would have to be paying our debts of for a long time

not to mention theres no guarantee that the child doesn't follow in their parents footsteps and doesn't milk the system in turn themselves

thier is every chance they will follow in the parents footsteps , free loaders breed free loaders

Halla Basin

There should be enough social welfare to keep you barely alive. Food, basically.

Spudmonkey

ei.sdraob wrote: »

omfg! that linked article

surely that cant be real? can it?!

:eek:

oO

Alas it is, well if the independant and daily mail are to believe... unless its some anti-scrounger campaign who got actors to pose for the story...

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I disagree with the article. Putting unemployed people to work like that isn't a solution.

The only way forward is having the dole linked to your old salary. After a year or so you should receive about 50 euro in cash and the rest in food stamps.

Why not? The thing is, you reduce welfare to the long term scroungers, and crime increases. Not like this gave them much of an excuse before. Sorry for stereotyping here but stereotypes came from somewhere...

In fact, sorry, either way I think this will be the case...

Martyr

Some of you believe people on welfare have lots of babies to get paid more money?

Frankiestylee

Working in an off-license for years, I've noticed it's only ever people on social welfare that consistently don't bother taking their change. This used to strike me as odd but since the penny-pinching kicked in with the recession it has begun to annoy me.
Our best customers are also on social welfare and tend to drink everyday, though I wouldn't class them as alcoholics.
It honestly annoys me that some of these lads spend the equivalent of my weekly wage on alcohol alone.
I'm normally one to try my hardest to resist anecdotal evidence etc, but doing the job I do I've seen far too much evidence to suggest that the current welfare system is a joke but I'm certainly not the one laughing.

irish_bob

Frankiestylee wrote: »

Working in an off-license for years, I've noticed it's only ever people on social welfare that consistently don't bother taking their change. This used to strike me as odd but since the penny-pinching kicked in with the recession it has begun to annoy me.
Our best customers are also on social welfare and tend to drink everyday, though I wouldn't class them as alcoholics.
It honestly annoys me that some of these lads spend the equivalent of my weekly wage on alcohol alone.
I'm normally one to try my hardest to resist anecdotal evidence etc, but doing the job I do I've seen far too much evidence to suggest that the current welfare system is a joke but I'm certainly not the one laughing.

alcoholism is inevitable when people become accustomed to institutionalised idleness , as i said earleir , an overly generous wellfare state is one of the main caused of social breakdown and dysfunctionality

Joey the lips

Martyr wrote: »

I agree with most of your comments, Kernel

Condoms shouldn't be taxed at all, but it seems any hint of a removal or reduction and the church are up in arms..bizarrely these people still have alot of authority in this country.

The after morning pill should be made available over the counter without a GP prescription, once again, i'd suspect the church don't want this.

Better education at schools, again..the church have too much authority in this area and want as little as possible.

abortion should be legalised without conditions.

obviously i think our laws are far too influenced by the beliefs of the catholic church system to reflect irish society today, and until that ends, nothing will really change.

catholic church is completely irrelevant.

if they want to preach about God..etc, that's fine, but then decide how the country is run? ...how can they possibly decide what's best?

I think your comments are unfair. the church was never mentioned. Actually through cori the church has called for an increase in welfare.

Frankiestylee wrote: »

Working in an off-license for years, I've noticed it's only ever people on social welfare that consistently don't bother taking their change. This used to strike me as odd but since the penny-pinching kicked in with the recession it has begun to annoy me.
Our best customers are also on social welfare and tend to drink everyday, though I wouldn't class them as alcoholics.
It honestly annoys me that some of these lads spend the equivalent of my weekly wage on alcohol alone.
I'm normally one to try my hardest to resist anecdotal evidence etc, but doing the job I do I've seen far too much evidence to suggest that the current welfare system is a joke but I'm certainly not the one laughing.

With the greatest respect.. A stupid incitful comment. Do social welfare people have tatoos on their forehead that makes them stand out? or are you just being general towards people you dislike and know them to be claiming welfare.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Getting a job in Tesco isn't poverty. There's plenty of chance of promotion and said person can learn lots of new skills that will allow them to move up the retail ladder. It's a different career path is all.

Poverty is "Why would my daughter bother getting a job sure 'de social' is great and it's payin for the kids and all".

I never said it was, My apologies for not explaining better though. My point was the child is farmed out to work as soon as possible rather than considering there future. again my apologies for not explaining better, Many schools have identified this. This is actually the principles of scolarships.

irish_bob wrote: »

thier is every chance they will follow in the parents footsteps , free loaders breed free loaders

You have no proof of them being freeloaders and have missed my comments. I hope to god your not equally blessed....

irish_bob wrote: »

alcoholism is inevitable when people become accustomed to institutionalised idleness , as i said earleir , an overly generous wellfare state is one of the main caused of social breakdown and dysfunctionality

Generous my ass. But agree the minority does seem to spend a lot of time in pubs. I also agree that working class areas seem to contain the most people in pubs. But then again the working class does contain the highest proportion of the population and based on statasical analysis a higher percentage of the Rich are alchoholics than the poor. Its just there is more poor so the amount is more obvious. These are all points people miss.


Lastly I have made no bones that i work in this area. If you all think that cutting off welfare will slow this doen why has this not happened in the US where an exact policy is practised! Cutting welfare will only hurt children and cause a deeper poverty rich gap. Believe what you want folks this is provable and factual. Just ask the SVP about the stats it uses!

Kama

In it's simplest form it's a numbers game, and the decent honest hard working people are having less children later in life, whereas the underclasses are having more children earlier, and expecting the State to pay for this. In short, they're out-breeding us, and if such a trend continues the problem will increase exponentially in the future.

What do you all think?

Well, this Social Darwinist perspective has a reasonably long history, all the way back to Roman worries about the proles breeding. One thing is that as people get wealthier, they tend to have fewer children and invest in them more; people who are poorer and more insecure tend to have more children earlier and invest in them less. This took place before welfare states existed, so I don't think it can be attributed entirely to them, although I'd agree they support the behavior. 'The poor are always with us'.

Taking away welfare won't prevent those kids from being born, although it will make their early life be one of greater deprivation.

The other part about fertility and contraception, the social eugenic argument, I'm ambivalent on. Eugenics gets a bad rap since the Nazis (everyone thought it was great stuff before that), and arguably was the foundation of the Nordic welfare states so beloved of the Left, who iirc only really stopped in the 70's; the Finn's got rid of a lot of their swarthy Roma-like population during this time, and it's a rarely-mentioned ugly secret at the foundation of the oft-praised Scandinavian social utopias; among the categories which made you liable was being insufficiently 'socially productive' as well as mentally defective, sure no wonder they have such good group-work nowadays...

Sterilization for women has been ongoing in much population control policy in less-developed countries (like India, a radio for a vasectomy or hysterectomy), with the view of increasing per capita GNP and reducing strain on services from population growth. Ironically, Europe now has declining fertility rates, and countries like France have natalist policies to encourage women to have kids. So it takes a bit of doublethink to on the one hand claim we have a problem of declining population, while otoh complaining that people are breeding too much...of course, they are 'the wrong type of people': we want good middle class women to drop their jobs and breed, while we want the wombs of the underclass sown shut.

To me, its a cart-before-the-horse thing; I don't think people 'of good culture' have jobs and coincidentally breed less, while 'yobs and parasites' don't have jobs and breed more for some reason, but that the culture is more of a consequence of socio-economic position; I'm totally against Murray on this.

So what you want is a welfare system that takes all those young people, educates them properly, sees to their welfare if their parents will not, and create the conditions where they turn into good, taxpaying citizens. Or, if I was libertarian, I'd want their to be no welfare system, so they are forced to work by the relentless force of the market. I think the first works better, and functions more meritocratically; you want something like the Scandy model, with universal childcare to allows mothers to work, and ensure an equal start in life for the progeny. Which requires a generous welfare state, rather than a miserly one.

Kernel

Kama wrote: »

So what you want is a welfare system that takes all those young people, educates them properly, sees to their welfare if their parents will not, and create the conditions where they turn into good, taxpaying citizens. Or, if I was libertarian, I'd want their to be no welfare system, so they are forced to work by the relentless force of the market. I think the first works better, and functions more meritocratically; you want something like the Scandy model, with universal childcare to allows mothers to work, and ensure an equal start in life for the progeny. Which requires a generous welfare state, rather than a miserly one.

Thanks for the comments guys, some interesting points made. My main thinking in this issue is akin to Kevin Myers controversial article on charity to the third world. By having such a social welfare system, are we not artificially encouraging and supporting the over-flourishing of underclasses, and isn't this causing social problems all throughout Ireland in the form of anti-social behaviour, crime and an unsustainable pressure on our exchequer?

It's a complex issue, to be sure, when we think back to the tenement housing days, whereby the poor also had a lot of children (and struggled to support them themselves). I think a lot of people are having children in this State who cannot support them and should not be in a position to be parents anyway. Social Darwinism as you say Kama, survival of the fittest in the gene pool. I think we've artificially allowed a situation whereby the unfit are more inclined and even encouraged to propagate due to our welfare State. If people had to pay a tax of €1000 per child, how many unfit mothers would be pushing prams in their pyjamas all around the country? I really think our country is going down the toilet, and it's down to non-PC reasons, but perhaps I am just overly cynical and as you say, the problem has always been there.

turgon

Whilst I agree with the general thrust of Kernel's argument, I dont like the idea of the state having some kind of breeding policy. This is the way Kernel phrases his argument. I dont believe in class numbers; I dont believe in forcibly controlling who has children; I do believe in responsible parenting.

At the moment the plethora of child-based social welfare schemes (child benefit, single parent supplement, uniform grant etc) make the decision to have a child, or keep a child, much easier to take. People don't need to worry about how suitable they are to become parents because the state will pay a lot of the bills anyway. It wont impact their lives overly much because the bottom line wont change dramatically.

This is bad for a number of reasons. If you decide to have a child, or keep a child, you should sit yourself down and make out a plan. Do you really want this child? Can you afford it? Would you current surroundings be good for your child? Of course a lot of people wont be too concerned and all they will care about is the financial side. So with the government effectively removing this roadblock, people no longer have to care.

I don't think it needs to be emphasized that more caring parents beget 'better' children.

So fundamentally it should come down to responsibility. The state should not be holding your hand, really. If you have a child outside of a solid relationship and end up a single mother, is that somehow anyone else's fault but yours and your partners?




So what is the solution? Firstly there is no point in cutting lots of child welfare for current recipients. People have had children under these schemes and its very likely the only reason some of these people had kids was because Social Welfare was there to foot the bill. Making big cuts in SW is only going to drive these kids further into poverty.

I would suggest taking a date one year from now, and from that date have many of the child schemes end or be several cut. No single parents supplement. Very little back to school allowance. Very little child benefit. Thus in the following months when people go to have kids, they will realize that they will be on their own. The government will not pay for this baby.

There is no point dragging abortion into this debate. Adoption services and contraception are already there for the taking. Promote these. And fundamentally, tell people that if they want a child that is their responsibility, not the tax payers.

Martyr

turgon wrote:

There is no point dragging abortion into this debate. Adoption services and contraception are already there for the taking. Promote these. And fundamentally, tell people that if they want a child that is their responsibility, not the tax payers.

no point? "there for the taking"

1. Abortion is illegal in Ireland.
2. Women need a GP prescription for after morning pill.

Adoption? right...
Do you not think it would help to remove those restrictions and atleast give women the option? Freedom to choose.

And condoms are taxed, i've no clue why..
The Church says a reduction will only promote promiscuity. :rolleyes:

What about your health? You know, STD's like AIDS and Syphilis.
Teen pregnancies..people have sex, ok? and that's just life.

No amount of rhetoric from the church about family values and sex is gonna change a thing.

Promoting better education about sex, taking care of yourself and the responsibilities of bringing up a child in the world would go a long way.

Instead most of comments would suggest "well, it's the womans responsibility, if she's pregnant, it's her problem"

And this is exactly the attitude I've heard from alot of fellas who left girls standing with a baby, brushing off the responsibility..and most of them are not "scroungers"

turgon

Martyr wrote: »

Do you not think it would help to remove those restrictions and atleast give women the option? Freedom to choose.

I do think it should be legal. What I am saying is that the system can be changed without legalizing abortion, even thought that may be the ideal. If you are going to have abortion as the means by which to change the system such change isnt going to happen for a long long time.

I think youve taken me wrong here. I agree with what youve said.

Martyr

i know legalising abortion won't solve the problem, but yes i think it should be an option for all women and not just those who can afford to get it done abroad or in some "underground" abortion clinic in dublin.

Gully Foyle

Charming. :rolleyes:

Martyr

can you elaborate please.

Joey the lips

Kernel wrote: »

Thanks for the comments guys, some interesting points made. My main thinking in this issue is akin to Kevin Myers controversial article on charity to the third world. By having such a social welfare system, are we not artificially encouraging and supporting the over-flourishing of underclasses, and isn't this causing social problems all throughout Ireland in the form of anti-social behaviour, crime and an unsustainable pressure on our exchequer?

It's a complex issue, to be sure, when we think back to the tenement housing days, whereby the poor also had a lot of children (and struggled to support them themselves). I think a lot of people are having children in this State who cannot support them and should not be in a position to be parents anyway. Social Darwinism as you say Kama, survival of the fittest in the gene pool. I think we've artificially allowed a situation whereby the unfit are more inclined and even encouraged to propagate due to our welfare State. If people had to pay a tax of €1000 per child, how many unfit mothers would be pushing prams in their pyjamas all around the country? I really think our country is going down the toilet, and it's down to non-PC reasons, but perhaps I am just overly cynical and as you say, the problem has always been there.

I heard kevin myers talking on this I dont actually agree with him. Kevin Myers believes that the social welfare system encourages poverty because it encourages people to do nothing. I agree this is the view but this is not the reality. There is a lot kevin myers misses. For example and i pick this because it will become something in the next few years. There is a massive amount of women who are lone parents! Equally I am sure we all know loan parents that have fella incomes coming in illegally. Does this mean the system encourages this? No fraud encourages this and the lack of social welfare inspections encourage this.

So you see that just becase someone apears to be poor they are actually more better off. This is where the system is wrong. Equally. If I am drawing sick I am entitled to x amount. say 230 euro however if I work I earn 400 euro but I poy 200 euro in child care and petrol/travel expenses so I am actually better off on the dole. This is another of kevin myers comments. But what kevin fails to see the person is having the hindsight to judge the system and act. Its the system that is wrong not the person.

Joey the lips

Believe what you want folks abortion has nothing to do with it and should not be an issue.

turgon

Joey the lips wrote: »

Its the system that is wrong not the person.

I think they are very interdependent. Those that are defrauding the system, say by drawing the dole while working, are only using the bad system as a means by which to exercise their bad morals to get ahead. If either the system or the people were wholly good there wouldnt be any problem.

Gully Foyle

Martyr wrote: »

can you elaborate please.

No, nothing you said in particular. Just this whole thread in general.

Húrin

Joey the lips wrote: »

I also agree that working class areas seem to contain the most people in pubs. But then again the working class does contain the highest proportion of the population and based on statasical analysis a higher percentage of the Rich are alchoholics than the poor. Its just there is more poor so the amount is more obvious. These are all points people miss.

The working class and the welfare class - the OP's target - are not the same people.

turgon

Gully Foyle wrote: »

No, nothing you said in particular. Just this whole thread in general.

Perhaps Gully Forlye would honour us with his reason he thinks this thread is ridiculous.

Joey the lips

Húrin wrote: »

The working class and the welfare class - the OP's target - are not the same people.

True but I dont see many people on welfare living in blackrock or kiliney(mis spell) so imo it applies.