David Cameron suggests cutting housing benefit for under-25s

[Doggy Styles]

Anyone who has ever tried to cook sunday lunch with a 5 year old helping will know that in some cases someone being paid not to work it best for everyone involved.

Society needs to stop creating losers and the way to do this is to create good quality jobs for people rather than offering them the choice between two kinds of soul destroying poverty.

OK, genuine question. What is "society", and how does it "create good quality jobs for people"?

[lilelvis2000]

When are people going to realise that we do not have the money!

I heard that David Laws has suggested a government spending limit of 35% of GDP, I think we are currently spending 50%, this just cannot go on.

We need serious spending cuts, so far we have had none.

Start with a thorough review of what we spend our money on and how we do things, we ran an empire covering a quarter of the globe with a civil service a fraction of what we have now.

We then need a long term plan to pay off the debt, that is after we have eradicated the deficit, the debt needs to be paid off over say 20-30 years.

I blame the baby-boomers.

[AtW]

You're right AtW, my post was a bit harsh. I'm sorry.

You will be.

[AtW]

I think he needs those Tax Cuts to get re-elected; with the same old Tory tax cut dirty election trick that they always use.

That's why they are increasing taxes now to cut them later, very cunning plan.

[DodgyAgent]

Can we have an economic system that can provide jobs for everyone capable of work, because or finance based economy can't? Then we can hammer the workshy together.

First of all that statement is "stereotypical socialist" that simply smacks of an entitlement mentality (it is someone else's duty to create "me" a job) If someone has no money coming in it is astonishing how quickly they can find work.

[DodgyAgent]

A
Society needs to

This is the essence of the problem i.e that it is someone else's.

[Old Greg]

First of all that statement is "stereotypical socialist" that simply smacks of an entitlement mentality (it is someone else's duty to create "me" a job) If someone has no money coming in it is astonishing how quickly they can find work.

Nice rant. If everyone tried harder, would there be jobs for all? Is an increase in unemployment caused by an increase in laziness?

It is true that certain factors will combine - one of them is effort, one is capability, one is experience, one is luck - to mean that certain individuals will be more likely yo work than others. It is therefore true that those who try least hard are more likely to be unemployed. This tells us something about individuals' employment status, in essence their relationship with the phenomenon of unemployment. But it does not tell us about the phenomenon of unemployment itself - how expanding production leads to credit booms and then an inevitable bust.

You may have your own theories about the phenomenon of unemployment and perhaps you can share them if you can get past your silliness (but bless you anyway), but any attempt to deal with worklessness purely looking at the individual without looking at the phenomenon is a smokescreen.

[lukemg]

Whole system is screwed by short term thinking geared around election schedule but key principles remain.
If you want higher taxes to pay for a bloated public sector and high benefits - vote labour.
If you want to at least try to get a grip on the finances and reduce some of the bills, vote the other mob.
It won't make a huge difference but still seems like a no brainer if you have a half decent job.
Also - forget these daily wail tales of easy street for benefit scrotes, they are bumping along on the bottom rung and it aint a good long term prospect for anyone used to better.
There aren't the huge numbers of basic jobs for these people anyway, pay them enough to keep them quiet and the rest of us get on with it I say.

[DodgyAgent]

Nice rant. If everyone tried harder, would there be jobs for all? Is an increase in unemployment caused by an increase in laziness?

It is true that certain factors will combine - one of them is effort, one is capability, one is experience, one is luck - to mean that certain individuals will be more likely yo work than others. It is therefore true that those who try least hard are more likely to be unemployed. This tells us something about individuals' employment status, in essence their relationship with the phenomenon of unemployment. But it does not tell us about the phenomenon of unemployment itself - how expanding production leads to credit booms and then an inevitable bust.

You may have your own theories about the phenomenon of unemployment and perhaps you can share them if you can get past your silliness (but bless you anyway), but any attempt to deal with worklessness purely looking at the individual without looking at the phenomenon is a smokescreen.

Unemployment in the UK within the type of society we have is to do with more than "laziness". A lot of unemployed people lack aspirations and confidence so like many human beings they follow the path of least resistance. Brought up and educated by a system that discourages any form of self reliance that in turn wrecks aspiration and confidence people are left to live within a spiral of welfare dependency and poverty.

The left seem to think that paying people to not work somehow purges them of guilt (for being themselves affluent, well educated or delivering tulip public services), when actually the cruellest thing of all is to trap people into welfare dependency.

So let us firstly throw out the notion that welfare is a benefit and let us be "cruel to be kind" and force people out to work and let everyone enjoy the confidence and aspirations that the rest of us enjoy.

It is too easy for the left to blame society for not creating jobs for people this is because it is the left who are to blame for unemployment not anyone else.

[Scoobos]

That's why they are increasing taxes now to cut them later, very cunning plan.

Is that sarcastic or not? I call incorrect use of rolleyes.