AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Isn't Socialism Great
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Quote:The 10 families who are costing us an astonishing £1m a year between them just in housing benefits

[Image: article-0-0CF4228E000005DC-101_233x423.jpg]
Ten families in England are sharing an astonishing £1million a year in housing benefits, it emerged last night.

The huge sums being lavished on the families by the taxpayer are allowing them to live in streets normally reserved for millionaires.

Five of the families are receiving the maximum payment of £2,000 per week.

It is the first proof that George Osborne was correct when he claimed some households were receiving sums in excess of £100,000 a year.

Last night, the Chancellor told the Daily Mail: ‘It is precisely this kind of shocking waste of public money under the previous Labour government that led to Britain’s debt problems.

‘We are bringing an end to this by putting a cap on the total amount of benefit that a family can receive so the days of £100,000 housing benefit claims are gone.’

The Coalition triggered a furious reaction last year when it unveiled plans to cut the top rate of housing benefit to £400 a week. Chris Bryant, the Labour justice spokesman, said the cuts would lead to ‘social cleansing’, with 200,000 people forced out of the capital.


Read more


A once great country going down the tubes and in need of social cleansing.
I wonder when we in the US are finally going to get the message as well?
yes, what are the billions in welfare for banks and other parasites compared to 1 million for a couple of negroes? that'll surely fix the british budget. ten families of them, that's at least 200 people. 5,000 for each person, according to adam gauss.
John L Wrote:I wonder when we in the US are finally going to get the message as well?

As soon as the people receiving the money stop voting for Democrats.
JohnWho Wrote:
John L Wrote:I wonder when we in the US are finally going to get the message as well?

As soon as the people receiving the money stop voting for Democrats.

This is sort of like the "Cause and Effect" thing JW. The "effect" is the voting part. But the "cause" is what we really need to go after. How do we get the overwhelming majority of people to understand that the "gimmie" society is self-defeating?
The poeple at the housing benefit departement must have their brain examined.
How can a housing benefit could be variable, lower in cheap areas and higher in expensive areas?
A social benefit must be equal to everyone. Those living in posh areas shouldn't recieve more.

How could they create such a non-sens?

Social cleansing? No. That's called "when you are broke and live in one of the most expensive street of London you move to a location you can afford".
I guess I'd become a socialist if the government here gave me $150K for just a house annually.
Are there some excesses in public housing? Perhaps, though it has been vital in preventing homelessness and supporting immigrants in transition. A sensational news story from a British tabloid is no reason to condemn the entire program.
This story isn't about public housing, it about immigrants collecting welfare choosing to live in London's most affluent neighborhood and the government footing the bill.
Ah, I must have misunderstood. Welfare and public housing of course serve the same purpose. Ideally, they should reintegrate people back into the labor market. Flaws in the system, such as the use of public funds to finance a luxurious lifestyle, can certainly be corrected through reforms.
Gommi Wrote:Ah, I must have misunderstood. Welfare and public housing of course serve the same purpose. Ideally, they should reintegrate people back into the labor market. Flaws in the system, such as the use of public funds to finance a luxurious lifestyle, can certainly be corrected through reforms.

Unfortunately, it's a very impersonal, and inefficient, means of helping those in need. Private charities, whether they be religious or not, are the best means of helping the poor. Private charities spend pennies on the dollar, compared to government services. Why are you Collectivists so opposed to private entities doing this, other than your hatred for anything religious?
John L Wrote:...Why are you Collectivists so opposed to private entities doing this, other than your hatred for anything religious?
The reason is obvious. It's only about power - not about generosity or help. When government distributes what private charities have always done - the private giving dries up.

So the government entities do two things... they ruin a charity system that has worked far better than what the government has supplanted it with, and gins up the former charitable donors as wealthy elitists, targets of condemnation who have no compassion, thus fueling the class warfare that ennobles those who cause the problem.
Well Bill, I was sort of hoping Gommi would give us his learned opinion on why he is so enthralled with the State doing it instead. Wink1
The problem is not the validity of housing aid policy.

The problem is that the system seemed to have been designed to allow such abuse. IMO some real rich poeple living in the same area also profited. But they are relatives of politicians so ush-ush. And these negroes could have been brought there, to show that giving housing aid to poeple living in this area was normal. They had to be some poors at least, to justify.

IMO UK needs a revolt like in Egypt or Tunisia...
Gommi Wrote:Flaws in the system, such as the use of public funds to finance a luxurious lifestyle, can certainly be corrected through reforms.
what luxury? just look at the pic. scratches at the door, a $ 1 lock, and a chocolate man wearing nothing but a pair of pants, i hope he covered the private parts as it is custom in uk. doesn't look like a venerable english gentleman's club to me. london is so expensive that 100,000 rent per year for a home for a family of 10 is cheap.
Fredledingue Wrote:...The problem is that the system seemed to have been designed to allow such abuse.
No, because that same system allows charitable giving. It is the socialist redistributor crowd who pick and choose what part of the system to use and what part to destroy. Have no doubt. When these socialists gain control of providing sustenance for the downtrodden - they increase the number and dependency of the downtrodden.

This is not done out of a quest for any moral high ground or regard for those who are the object of charity or welfare. These people can look at history and see the people are worse off after their seizure of parts of the system. There is no logical argument they can really make that what they have done is working or moral.

What keeps them abusing the system is the intended consequences of their abuse. The misuse of the system is what gives them the power to stand at the apex of the masses and rule as elites. If they didn't harm the recipients and keep them down, they would be like Karl Marx, who lived a powerless life and lived and died in squalor. The philosophy doesn't work without the pyramid scheme of abuse and active grasping for power. They imagine themselves to be elites - but without the power grab and abuse of the downtrodden, they would live as inconsequentially as Marx did. They may call themselves elites - but would live their drab lives in their parents basements in their underwear.

Marx and Engels were failed philosophers. Marxism was just the excuse. It was Lenin and Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Tito, and Mussolini who rode the abuse of the defenseless into power. They inspired Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Il-sung, Ngo Dinh Diem, the Pathet Lao, The MPLA, the Marxist FRELIMO regime, and encouraged countless other despots and elitists to put their heels to the throats of the people.
WmL, I agree with you on socialism and how it works.
In this case, a socialist system in pace alowed for abused, and was designed to work the way you describe.

But social welfare, housing aid is not always socialism. You can do it with minimal impact on freedom and on the economy.
For that you need a system free of socialist mentality. Just rational poeple and rules adapted to the needs.

In Belgium it's the opposite: It's not the tenants who get housing aid, it's the owner. The owner get directly the money. Moreover if the rent is above a treshold, he gets nothing. This treshold is very low, but because the money come directly from the governement, the owner gain in safety. He will always be paid.

You see WmL, this is the good side of the system.

Now in the same Belgium, the governement is building apartements and distribute them to those in need at a rent way lower than the market. It's well known here, that they give it to their friends and relatives, or against a backsheesh.
This is the socialist side of the system.

And indeed it's wellknown that if you want to live in such social lodgment, you must at least be member of The Parti (Socialist). Or to know the Parti poeple personaly.
Fredledingue Wrote:...In Belgium it's the opposite: It's not the tenants who get housing aid, it's the owner.Socialist). Or to know the Parti poeple personaly.
Tell me the tenants don't get additional money for sustenance support while their lodging is provided free. Whether the owner gets the rent directly from the government or indirectly from the government to the renters to the owners is a total wash. It's just fewer hands to go through.

The only benefit is imaginary. If the renters had to forward the government check, they have a feeling of participation, and when the owner fails to kill the rats or buy the heating oil, they can withhold the rent to force his hand. When they are cut out of the transaction, they have no power and are mere supplicants to the owners.

This allows the government to play a more direct hand at controlling owners... more control over basic day-to-day economic activities. They are not historically good at doing that. ...Just more rats and less heating oil. The free market is best, and the people holding as much control over their own lives as possible a weak second best. The government replacing the free market is never good.
Fredledingue Wrote:And these negroes could have been brought there, to show that giving housing aid to poeple living in this area was normal. They had to be some poors at least, to justify.
Exactly, this must have been a "mixed housing" initiative. Governments often encourage people of different economic and cultural status to live together. I now realize that the news story completely misrepresented the situation.
WmL It's interresting for the owner because he's got the garantee that he will be paid. If the tenant has to pay himself, the owner will never get his money. The system make sure the poeple don't divert rental money for something else.
Both the owner and the tenant are free to terminate the contract early or upon expiration if they don't like it anymore. The governement doesn't control that. It only gives money when conditions are met.

gommiThe socialists hate the idea that poors live in a certain areas and the rich elswhere. But it's like that. You are not striving to get rich just to keep on living in the same ghetto.
I'm sure these economic immigrant didn't chose their location. Usualy they don't know where to go and move where they are told to. They didn't say "Well, after all, we decided that we prefered the loft on Picadilly avenue".
Pages: 1 2 3 4