Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Does the welfare system predispose people to unhappiness?

Charities are fine when they fill in gaps in state provision or are 'extras' (as mentioned above wrt RSPCA etc). However, the problem with charities is the fact that they are open to being used to push an agenda and are therefore vulnerable to being set up/taken over by people with an agenda. Benefits/welfare/call it what you will ought to be universal and not provided to those who 'fit the bill'.
In addition to what others have said it's because I think everyone should be entitled to a basic standard of living and I think the victorian age showed that charity does not do that. You should not have to beg for things that you have a right to.
Yer I get that, and I agree. I guess the constant argument is to what those rights include! Or even if everyone pretty much agrees on a right (such as to not go hungry) to what level they should be met by the state, by charities on a hit n miss basis, or only by individuals and their families themselves.

There's also... something in giving charity, in the gift or time or money, ourselves (not cos we are forced to) that is good for the soul isn't there? I wonder what would happen if there was no tax, but everyone was required to give away 10% (or whatever) of their income to whatever charity(s) they wanted :eek: (unwanted pets would be living the life of bloody riley in this country! :D).
 
The sewers would be blocked in a month and everyone would die of cholera.
Yer I'm not really seriously suggesting it as a course of action. I just wondered where peoples priorities would lie in terms of helping their own and helping others. Sometimes I think tax, and peoples reluctance to pay it, is cos it's forced and cos some people see it as not helping 'them and theirs'.
 
Yer I'm not really seriously suggesting it as a course of action. I just wondered where peoples priorities would lie in terms of helping their own and helping others. Sometimes I think tax, and peoples reluctance to pay it, is cos it's forced and cos some people see it as not helping 'them and theirs'.

The most puzzling thing is the way this attitude often extends to people whose wages are paid by the taxes of others.
 
Regarding the charities thing, I think people have covered the main aspects but I've got a couple of others, some of which may admittedly sound a bit dated.

There's also... something in giving charity, in the gift or time or money, ourselves (not cos we are forced to) that is good for the soul isn't there? I wonder what would happen if there was no tax, but everyone was required to give away 10% (or whatever) of their income to whatever charity(s) they wanted :eek: (unwanted pets would be living the life of bloody riley in this country! :D).

A big problem with this is the use of charity by the rich to ease their conscious, bloat their ego, promote causes of their choosing, increase their power and influence, network, etc. Why should they get to choose? Tax the money out of them instead!

We have heard much about Bill Gates charitable work, yet he still manages to remain the richest man in America if not the world, up $7 billion in the last year.

Then there is the consideration that charities may promote the status quo in various ways.

Religious aspects may also prove troublesome to some, especially when means testing is replaced by moral testing.

Not to mention that charity traditionally filled a void that has since been partially filled in by a sense of inalienable rights, and attempts to go back to the old way is a threat to those rights.

Personally I am most displeased by the way some charity fund raising has involved, including the trend towards direct debits and the use of modern marketing techniques.

And again speaking personally, for some things where state welfare may not be the best option, I am a much bigger fan of stuff like co-operatives than charities, for a number of reasons I wont drone on about right now. But its partly to do with hierarchies, which are one of the roots of evil in my book, I wave my willy at the great deciders.
 
So tax could be seen as a kind of 'agreed' way of preventing a tragedy of the commons, where charity doesn't.

Both ¨charity¨and ¨welfare¨are misnomers really. I well remember the UK government´s campaign to import the stigmatized term ¨welfare¨from the USA.

But I´m still struck by the fact that only Western societies need such recourses. Even here in Mexico, a very poor country which lacks the religious solidarity that Islam provides, the relatively intact family structure stops homelessness becoming the kind of problem it is in the UK.
 
<snip>But I´m still struck by the fact that only Western societies need such recourses. Even here in Mexico, a very poor country which lacks the religious solidarity that Islam provides, the relatively intact family structure stops homelessness becoming the kind of problem it is in the UK.
Great if you're male. Not so great if female.
 
I don´t see why. In fact I think women stand to lose more by the breakdown of the family than men do, at least in Mexico.
When did you last see the men in those countries do the majority of the childcare, housework, or looking after disabled, sick, or elderly relatives?

Oh sorry, I forgot, those things are easy and take very little effort.
 
Both ¨charity¨and ¨welfare¨are misnomers really. I well remember the UK government´s campaign to import the stigmatized term ¨welfare¨from the USA.

But I´m still struck by the fact that only Western societies need such recourses. Even here in Mexico, a very poor country which lacks the religious solidarity that Islam provides, the relatively intact family structure stops homelessness becoming the kind of problem it is in the UK.

That's what I was trying to say - It's social security not welfare.

Can't agree with your second para though - It's good that really poor countries like Mexico have these extended family networks - Still though, imagine how much happier your average Mexican may be knowing there's a social security safety net providing a standard of living that no citizen of Mexico could fall below.
 
When did you last see the men in those countries do the majority of the childcare, housework, or looking after disabled, sick, or elderly relatives?

By ¨those countries¨ I assume you mean Mexico?

Yes, women do most of the caring here. But that doesn´t alter my point. If the family breaks up, the woman still has to do all the caring, only now she has to do it without any money.

I can see how you might argue that the breakdown of the family affects men worse than women in the West. But in Mexico (and in other places that you think of as ¨those countries¨) it would be the women who suffer most.
 
Can't agree with your second para though - It's good that really poor countries like Mexico have these extended family networks - Still though, imagine how much happier your average Mexican may be knowing there's a social security safety net providing a standard of living that no citizen of Mexico could fall below.

Of course you´re right. I should have said that Mexico needs ¨welfare¨less than Western societies. But all societies need social security. In fact, after the vote, the establishment of welfare states was the most significant achievement in human history.
 
By ¨those countries¨ I assume you mean Mexico?<snip>
Not exclusively Mexico, I was talking about countries with next to no social safety net, in the form of financial support or state-provided services.
 
I wonder what would happen if there was no tax, but everyone was required to give away 10% (or whatever) of their income to whatever charity(s) they wanted :eek: (unwanted pets would be living the life of bloody riley in this country! :D).

I heard the other day that the British give more money to the Donkey Sanctuary than any other charity :eek:
 
I heard the other day that the British give more money to the Donkey Sanctuary than any other charity :eek:
That's because people assume that the NHS and social services cover all the needs of disabled, elderly or long term sick people. In any case, which would seem more deserving? The case of a halfstarved donkey with overgrown hooves and slit nostrils or a person in the final stage of Alzheimers (who may be doubly incontinent, aggressive, and verbally abusive)?
 
In my experience of living in different countries and visiting different cultures, I believe you have a choice between social support and cohesion, and personal liberty and tolerance.

You can either do what you like, live how you want to live - and experience less social cohesion and weak family support structures; or you can have strong family structures and social cohesion but little tolerance for idiosyncracy and personal choice.
 
<snip>You can either do what you like, live how you want to live - and experience less social cohesion and weak family support structures; or you can have strong family structures and social cohesion but little tolerance for idiosyncracy and personal choice.
In that case, I know which one I'd choose.
 
I heard the other day that the British give more money to the Donkey Sanctuary than any other charity :eek:

When I win the lottery I want to buy it up and turn it into a pet food factory that gives the product away free to cat and dog homes. Just to mess with a particular kind of person's head.
 
I heard the other day that the British give more money to the Donkey Sanctuary than any other charity :eek:

I don't think so - this Guardian article from 2006 says the Donkey Sanctuary received £20m in donations:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/apr/24/voluntarysector.charitablegiving

Oxfam has a turnover of £385m - though this includes shops etc.. but I'm sure the big charities like this and cancer charities will have far in excess of £20m in donations. (And may get government grants and the like)

http://www.fmwf.com/media-type/news...ew-barbara-stocking-chief-executive-of-oxfam/

The Donkey Sanctuary does get a high level of donations compared to other charities but I doubt we give more to that charity than to any other.
 
I don't think so - this Guardian article from 2006 says the Donkey Sanctuary received £20m in donations:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/apr/24/voluntarysector.charitablegiving

Oxfam has a turnover of £385m - though this includes shops etc.. but I'm sure the big charities like this and cancer charities will have far in excess of £20m in donations. (And may get government grants and the like)

http://www.fmwf.com/media-type/news...ew-barbara-stocking-chief-executive-of-oxfam/

The Donkey Sanctuary does get a high level of donations compared to other charities but I doubt we give more to that charity than to any other.

Can't remember what I heard as wasn't really listening, but it may have been in relation to child abuse. Maybe they give more to donkeys than kids charities :hmm:
 
Can't remember what I heard as wasn't really listening, but it may have been in relation to child abuse. Maybe they give more to donkeys than kids charities :hmm:

From the Guardian article I linked to:

the NSPCC receives just £2m more in donations than the RSPCA.

Also

The Dogs Trust receives around £34m in donations every year and Cats Protection around £27m. But how did donkeys get to be such good fundraisers?

So donkey sanctuary not even the biggest in the animal charity world.

No indication in the article how much the RSPCA gets in donations though,
 
From the Guardian article I linked to:



Also



So donkey sanctuary not even the biggest in the animal charity world.

No indication in the article how much the RSPCA gets in donations though,

oh well, not sure where programme I was watching got their figures from
 
Even here in Mexico, a very poor country which lacks the religious solidarity that Islam provides, the relatively intact family structure stops homelessness becoming the kind of problem it is in the UK.

By this 'extended family', do you mean the drug gangs that helpfully adopt street children who have been abandoned by their families and offer them meaningful employment in the fields of street crime and prostitution?

[
 
By this 'extended family', do you mean the drug gangs that helpfully adopt street children who have been abandoned by their families and offer them meaningful employment in the fields of street crime and prostitution?

It was not them I had in mind, no.

Why do you ask? Do you mean to imply that the family structure is not strong in Mexico?
 
Back
Top Bottom