The expanding bureaucracy quote isn't need, then? Shame.
It's horrible. I mentioned the free market, and that kind of ideology prefers minimal government.
About the money being in private vs public hands - I'm leaning towards it being with the government because frankly, the government is slightly less corrupt than the private hands the money would end up with.
When money is transfered in the private sector, there is always choice. If your money ends up in the hands of someone wealthy and powerful, it's because you allowed it. When you pay tax, you have no say in where the money goes. Would you prefer to spend your money, or do you want the government to spend it for you, and be paid for the privilege?
Its too late for prevention, so support is needed until the country/economy is stable enough for prevention to be viable
It's never too late, people just need to cut back. Of course many are doing that now, but the lessons will be lost in the next boom, and the hurt will repeat. Support isn't needed. Without it, we could start with a clean slate, and be better off for it. Prevention doesn't require stability - in fact people tend to become responsible during instability. This cutting back certainly helps, because it is required the economy to sustainable levels. Now is
the time for prevention. What to do with the unemployed? Well, the crash has told them that their jobs are not sustainable, so they should look elsewhere, rather than collecting benefits and waiting for a recovery, and then a return to yet another unsustainable job.
People choosing sustainable jobs etc - Again, I agree. But it can be difficult.
It's difficult because we have been groomed to expect to much. The majority can not get a good job, the majority can only get a mediocre job. The majority can't afford a big house, 3 cars, private schools etc. Society teaches all of the wrong lessons.
The living month to month mortgage etc thing fits my older sister to a T - She got engaged, bought and mortgaged a house and had a kid, and now all she and her fiancee do is row. And the rest of their life is screwed because of it.
Summarises the life of many people. Few people consider the cost of divorce, the responsibility of a mortgage, unemployment, the cost of children etc. These are all serious financial obligations, and when the financial climate heads south, all of these people living on the threshold are in for a world of pain. They're just lucky that the recent crash was stopped short through manipulation, rather than letting it run its course and achieving balance.
Back at school we got nothing about what would happen AFTER school until around march, and then it was forced on you - In the whole 'plan the entire rest of your education out now or you'll fail' kind of way
It's a significant problem. How many people need to recite Shakespeare or do trig calculations? I do think a certain amount of academic education is healthy, but education should mainly focus on the real world. It's quite amazing that someone can become a Physicist yet not know how to pay their bills. It's even more amazing that so many people are willing to slave to get and maintain a job, yet have no care in the world for how they spend that income. Again, we're being taught the wrong things. However, there are many who benefit from an ignorant society, and it would not be in their interest to see more appropriate education. There is also the problem of who and what is taught. Mathematics is easier, since 2+2=4, but real world education is highly situational, and just who is qualified to teach it?
About families on benefits - I think with this bit it's good to make a distinction between people who ended up on benefits through their own ****ups and people who have no choice, most notably the disabled. Is it right that is a person becomes disabled to the point where they can't work, they should lose their kids? Hell, I'd go so far as to say it shouldn't happen period, at least not until the people who ****ed up have a chance to get back on track. I agree about the large number of people on benefits (Most notably jobseekers) who don't try or want to get off them, and a system should be in place to stop it - but again, distribution problem there.
At the very least. Many benefits in many developed countries are quite ridiculous. Everyone on benefits should be put to work. I'd prefer welfare abandoned altogether, and then have voluntary donations for the "deserving". They would be supported and we would feel better about ourselves, as well as removing the unproductive sponges; or these people don't receive the support they need, they perish, and then we discover we aren't as generous as caring as we thought. In fact, many people may support welfare as saves them having to make the choice. I wonder just how many people would hold onto the money and look the other way. Many, if not most, I imagine. Welfare could exist only to make us feel better about ourselves. Many charities count on this desire.
I will say that, at least in my experience, kids who grow up knowing they don't have money to burn tend to be much better as far as managing finances is concerned
Yes, because they know how to budget, and know how little they really need to get by. One simple solution is to remove easy credit, and then almost everyone can experience this. Financial skill would skyrocket overnight if credit was removed. Either that or they go on welfare
.
I'm still in favour of the benefit system, but it should stop completely once you stop trying.
The problem is that for many there is no incentive, other than pride. Why work for someone else, when you can receive a little less but do not work? If benefits were removed, this wouldn't be an issue. There would be less government needed, and more money kept in private hands. Again, people can choose what they do with it, and if they want to support others they can.
I have a question to anyone who is in favour of welfare: why can't I choose whether or not I support someone else? I'm sure most people who believe in welfare also believe we live in a supportive society. If so, why would we need welfare from taxes, rather than donation? Charity seems to do okay, so I'm sure there will be reasonable support for the needy. So why is forceful donation through taxes necessary? Why can't we cut out the corrupt politicians and inefficient bureaucrats? Another argument for the free market.
. This is why my own personal philosophy mimcs nature.