Hardship and Oppression of Britain's Poor and Sick Set to Continue

[Portrait]

Dearly beloved friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

It is patently obvious to most decent people living in Britain that the present coalition government have been declaring an ideological war upon the poor and sick since they came into power in 2010. Most appallingly their penny-pinching from public services has been coupled with tax breaks for the wealthy and that in times of supposed austerity when even the better-off are grumbling about having to tighten their belts. However, as everyone knows, the rich having to live more frugally is a very different matter from the poor having live more frugally - a few less meals in fancy restaurants and a few less exotic holidays as compared to one less meal each week and having insufficient funds for essential heating in the cold winter season.

Perhaps, one of the cruellest and punitive measures of Britain’s iniquitous Social Security ‘reforms’ has been the ‘sanctioning’ of those in receipt of state benefits. It is frequently the sick and disabled, that is to say the most vulnerable members of society, who have been hit the hardest by these unduly harsh reforms. Even whistleblowers from the Department For Work and Pensions (or should that be, the ‘Department for Punishment and Sanctions’) have told how staff who deal with the jobless and sick are under enormous pressure to find any excuse to withhold people’s payments for weeks at a time. Indeed, new DWP figures have shown that 7,507 sick and disabled had their benefits stopped in the first three months of 2014, as compared with 3,574 over the exact same period in 2013. Amazingly, the DWP continues to to insist that sanctions are only ever used as a last resort when all other options have been explored - well they would say that. Of course, dear friends, the government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayers money by preventing fraud and idleness, but surely something is gravely amiss when labour exchanges become nothing more than sanctioning factories, where staff are put under unbearable pressure to stop people’s vital benefits for trivial infractions. Many good people here in Britain were deeply disturbed by the tragic and unnecessary death of a former soldier who was literally sanctioned into starvation by the DWP. One constantly hears of heartbreaking cases of people shamefully and unjustly struck off and then having to resort to charitable Food Banks just to survive. This is a national disgrace in a country which boasts of being the seventh richest economy in the world - what on earth has happened that such a sad state of affairs is allowed to prevail? Moreover, it seems that in order to hit targets designed to make it look as if the government is tackling welfare dependency, underhand tricks abound within the labour exchanges. For example, I read recently of one man who was sent on some course by the DWP labour exchange and then struck off for not ‘signing-on’, as if the poor chap could miraculously be in two places at the very same time. Let us be perfectly honest, this is unjust and inequitable discriminatory action against a man who is already of extremely slender means.

As if the plight of Britain’s poor and sick was not already bad enough, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Osborne, has plans for another £12bn of cuts after 2015, assuming the Conservatives win the election next year. It does not bode good for Britain’s poor and sick and it admits of no reasonable doubt that they will not fare well under a Tory administration, notwithstanding repeated vacuous promises to protect the most vulnerable in society. This has not happened and can never happen because the a Conservative government must always ingratiate itself to the middle-classes, who have bought into the ‘skivers and strivers’ rhetoric hook, line and sinker and who therefore demand punitive welfare measures for the sick and jobless. In their self-satisfied ignorance they reason that if you drastically cut Social Security, then people in desperation will take any job available. On the contrary, reducing the only funds they have simply drives them further into dependency because it strips them of dignity and robs them of an indispensable foundation on which to build. This results in a want of a positive mental attitude as well as the necessary confidence required to shine at job interviews. People are not automatons and mental health can soon be impacted by stricken circumstances brought about by a punitive and unfair Social Security system where a sanctions culture is rife. In any event, if vital benefits are withdrawn from the poor and sick, then someone else has to support them, unless we leave them to the die in the streets - not everyone has a family who can or will support them. The so called bigger society is a myth and Western countries have little or no sympathy for those poor souls who are, for one reason or another, losers in the struggle to survive.

My prayer, dear friends, is that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church here in Britain will denounce these iniquitous Social Security reforms of the present coalition government a great deal more than they have hitherto. Moreover, it also needs to encourage the Catholic faithful to be more aware of the real plight of the sick and jobless, not the one fed to us by politicians and the ultra right-wing tabloids. Our parish churches should also be places where the poor and sick meet with unconditional acceptance and receive practical help where at all possible.

God bless and thankyou for reading the above.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

In Christos

 

[Cricket2]

Oh, this is so sad. This kind of stuff started happening in the early 80’s in the US. I was at a meeting, in which, (then Archbishop Stafford) was in attendance. Part of the discussion was about the cuts coming to things like care for the mentally ill and disabled. It meant that at least 1/3 of them would land up with no care. They would simply land up on the streets. They did.

At the time there was also a well orchestrated effort to eliminate small farmers, to be replaced by larger corporate farmers. This was done by design by first setting up low interest loans to small farmers so they could afford to expand and then buy large equipment to handle the work load. Then the interest rates where increased (this was part of the plan), so there was no way they could make the payments.

The result, farmers losing everything and having to auction their farms off to the corporate farmers. Now we have nothing but higher and higher prices, less variety, lands being swallowed up in other countries for corp farm interests, thus destroying ways of life for millions of people, increased poverty and greater hunger due to contrived shortages, high prices and denying people the right to even glean the fields.

As long as big business and run-a-muck capitalism are running the show we can expect worse treatment of the sick, disabled and poor. Corporate farms will be the cause of famine not the answer to it, compassion and human decency will continue to go by the way side, prices will go up and quality down. That is what globalization is doing and that is what privatization results in. People need to wake up.

 

[SuperLuigi]

All Labour Party propaganda window-dressed to pull on heart strings.

First all, tax breaks for the wealthy INCREASE government revenue because it grows the tax base. Raise taxes on them, and they’ll be more than happy to leave for somewhere else, and you won’t get their money. Yes, people will be able to gripe in a lonely corner about identity politics and how unfair life is, but that’s it.

Second, as far as the health care system goes, well sorry, but the NHS was DESIGNED to cut costs by denying services. That’s what happens when a nation gets universal health care. The same thing happens in Canada, Ireland and everywhere else the government gets involved.

Third, anyone who REALLY cares so much about the sick, poor, and oppressed, needs to get off their couch, off of the internet and CAF, turn off Manchester United, the NFL or Jon Stewart, get in the trenches and start VOLUNTEERING. It’s 2 PM EST and 7 PM over in the Isles.

So there’s lots of time left to help!

 

[SuperLuigi]

At the time there was also a well orchestrated effort to eliminate small farmers, to be replaced by larger corporate farmers. This was done by design by first setting up low interest loans to small farmers so they could afford to expand and then buy large equipment to handle the work load. Then the interest rates where increased (this was part of the plan), so there was no way they could make the payments.

The result, farmers losing everything and having to auction their farms off to the corporate farmers. Now we have nothing but higher and higher prices, less variety, lands being swallowed up in other countries for corp farm interests, thus destroying ways of life for millions of people, increased poverty and greater hunger due to contrived shortages, high prices and denying people the right to even glean the fields.

A nice sob-story follow-up.

It would have been fine if the American federal government had stayed out of the free market altogether.

The truth is a lot of American farmers today are beneficiaries of record crop prices and along with farm subsidies make a great living.

There’s probably a lot of people who’d love to have 1/4-1/2 the year off and make six figures.

 

[Portrait]

Oh, this is so sad. This kind of stuff started happening in the early 80’s in the US. I was at a meeting, in which, (then Archbishop Stafford) was in attendance. Part of the discussion was about the cuts coming to things like care for the mentally ill and disabled. It meant that at least 1/3 of them would land up with no care. They would simply land up on the streets. They did.

At the time there was also a well orchestrated effort to eliminate small farmers, to be replaced by larger corporate farmers. This was done by design by first setting up low interest loans to small farmers so they could afford to expand and then buy large equipment to handle the work load. Then the interest rates where increased (this was part of the plan), so there was no way they could make the payments.

The result, farmers losing everything and having to auction their farms off to the corporate farmers. Now we have nothing but higher and higher prices, less variety, lands being swallowed up in other countries for corp farm interests, thus destroying ways of life for millions of people, increased poverty and greater hunger due to contrived shortages, high prices and denying people the right to even glean the fields.

As long as big business and run-a-muck capitalism are running the show we can expect worse treatment of the sick, disabled and poor. Corporate farms will be the cause of famine not the answer to it, compassion and human decency will continue to go by the way side, prices will go up and quality down. That is what globalization is doing and that is what privatization results in. People need to wake up.

Dear Cricket2,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

There can be no doubt, dear friend, that Capitalism has fostered an ‘I’m alright Jack’ society which by default entertains disdainful and negative thoughts towards God’s poor and the sick, as if their plight was always of their own making.

Here in Britain there has most definitely been a hardening of attitudes towards the sick and unemployed under the present government. Indeed, even raising the topic of the unfair and inequitable treatment of the sick and jobless will elicit a frosty response and you can find yourself branded a ‘bleeding heart liberal’ for pleading their cause. However, dear friend, it is surely better to have a bleeding heart than a callous heart devoid of any fellow-feeling and compassion.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

In Christos

 

[styrgwillidar]

What can’t go on forever- won’t.

You can not, and a government can not continuously operate in the red.

Eventually you have to balance the books. The longer you operate at a deficit, and the greater the debt you burden yourself, the harsher and more draconian the correction will be. It’s not a matter of ethics or morality-- it’s a matter of math. If you only have so many resource to go around you either ration them, or figure out ways to increase your income. (I.E. stimulate economic activity)

The US will be learning that lesson at some point. We’ve continuosly kicked the can down the road and lived beyond our means. At some point the cuts to services will have to be drastic. And yes, those we’ve taught to depend on government handouts— i.e. the work and sacrifice of others, confiscation of other’s property and fruit of their effort— will suffer the most.

Read Atlas Shrugged. Study the history of Russia under Stalin until now. The more you confiscate folks property and the more you take from those who produce to give to those who don’t the more you incentivize going Galt.

 

[styrgwillidar]

As long as big business, politicians and -]run-a-muck capitalism/-] cronyism are running the show we can expect worse treatment of the sick, disabled and poor.
…

.

 

[Portrait]

All Labour Party propaganda window-dressed to pull on heart strings.

First all, tax breaks for the wealthy INCREASE government revenue because it grows the tax base. Raise taxes on them, and they’ll be more than happy to leave for somewhere else, and you won’t get their money. Yes, people will be able to gripe in a lonely corner about identity politics and how unfair life is, but that’s it.

Second, as far as the health care system goes, well sorry, but the NHS was DESIGNED to cut costs by denying services. That’s what happens when a nation gets universal health care. The same thing happens in Canada, Ireland and everywhere else the government gets involved.

Third, anyone who REALLY cares so much about the sick, poor, and oppressed, needs to get off their couch, off of the internet and CAF, turn off Manchester United, the NFL or Jon Stewart, get in the trenches and start VOLUNTEERING. It’s 2 PM EST and 7 PM over in the Isles.

So there’s lots of time left to help!

Dear SuperLuigi,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

Let me say first that the true greatness of any nation is measured by its treatment of the poor and sick, the most vulnerable members of society. Oppression of the poor is one of the sins that cries to heaven for vengeance, for it is cruel, tyrannical and unjust - “Woe unto them that make unjust laws, that they might oppress the poor in judgment, and do violence to the cause of the humble of my people” (Isa. 10: 1,2). Incontrovertably, the British governments harsh and draconian ‘welfare reforms’ are a disgraceful oppression of the poor and sick of this country. Their unjust and Dickensian policies have more to do with securing the vote of the chattering middle-classes than genuinely helping men back to the world of work. Cuts to Social Security expenditure will always prove immensely popular with the electorate, especially the wealthy and elderly. Whilst the government here may well be convinced as regards their ‘tough love’ approach to so called welfare dependency, the fact is that their ill-conceived welfare reforms are not working and are the occasion of untold misery to multitudes of poor and sick people.

The hackneyed argument regarding so called punitive taxation driving the wealthy out of the country is the stock answer given by those who begrudge their taxes being spent on the sick and poor. In any case, we do not know how many would actually depart the country of their birth to escape ‘draconian taxes’. Moreover, there are, thanks be unto God, many affluent people who are possessed of a social conscience, especially if they have come from humble origins themselves and recognize that there will always be losers in the struggle to survive who need state support, sometimes indefinitely. However, dear friend, it is quite true that there will always be those selfish and greedy tax exiles who will no longer feel that the country of their birth is rewarding them sufficiently for all their hard work. That people who have financially prospered, often at the expense of the cheap labour, actually want to leave the country is utterly deplorable and deeply saddening. They call them the ‘wealth creators’, but surely the true wealth creators are the poorly paid workforce that require state benefits to top up their meagre wages. Clearly, no wealth would be generated at all without the labour of the workers on the shop floor or factory. In any event, the government has a moral duty to educate the rich and powerful concerning their obligation to the poor and sick in their midst. They should be told that for a civilised society to remain civil some taxes must be redirected to those who have either fallen on hard times or who cannot support themselves owing to physical/mental ill-health. Why would any decent person with a social conscience object to this?

The National Health Service, dear friend, will always be needed by the poor and long-term sick who do not have the wherewithal to pay for their medical care. A progressive affluent economy that does not provide a National Health Service for its poorer citizens should be deeply ashamed.

God bless and goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

In Christos

 

[styrgwillidar]

Dear SuperLuigi,

…

Let me say first that the true greatness of any nation is measured by its -]treatment of the poor and sick/-] respect for the rights and freedoms of its citizens, for all members of society, -]the most vulnerable members of society/-].
…

Dear Portrait,

It boils down to coveting our neighbors goods-- at what point does government taxation cross the line from a just contribution to the running of society to theft of what someone has earned through their own effort?

We can point out everything the wealthy have, coveting it, trying to justify theft on behalf of others. But it is theft. Charity extractd at the point of government force isn’t charity.

And when a government is so poorly run that it has vastly over-promised to its citizens what it can afford to deliver, that mistake shouldn’t (and the magnituted at least in the US it can’t) be forced onto innocent folks who have worked hard.

What percentage of taking someone else’s property is just? 20%? 40%? 60%? 80%? The vast majority of these folks worked very hard, they were willing to take risks that others weren’t, try things others wouldn’t, improved society enormously through innovation, and created jobs for thousands.

Running the numbers in the US, we could take everything from the top 5% in the US, not just income but all of their property. It balances the books for 1 year. That’s it. Doesn’t even reduce the deficit.

What can’t go on forever won’t. Math is math. The Cold Equations. Continuing on the path of promising folks more than can be delivered ends up bankrupting everyone. You’re just going to make more folks poor. Or create social unrest by formenting distrust, enmity, jealousy and resentment. Pointing at the supposed greed of the wealthy to mask the greed of the social advocates, who simply want to take from others.

I think that’s the biggest problem in the US government. Most of the folks are civil lawyers, for example Al Gore and John Edwards. They made their fortunes by finding people with money, than finding a reason to take it from them via civil lawsuits. They have no understanding of the process of producing something which answers the needs of the public, of creating a business, managing it, employing people.

 

[Portrait]

Dear Portrait,

It boils down to coveting our neighbors goods-- at what point does government taxation cross the line from a just contribution to the running of society to theft of what someone has earned through their own effort?

snip/

Dear styrgwillidar,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

If, dear friend, we claim to be a civilised country then the state has no option but to provide for the needs of its poorer citizens and those unable to work on account of ill-health, mental or physical. Not to do so is to ride roughshod over *their *rights as men and women made in the image of God. Of course there will be those who trot out the old hackneyed argument that it is the hard pressed taxpayer who has to fund the welfare budget, but there really is no other alternative. We either let the most vulnerable members of society fend for themselves - the cruel ‘sink or swim’ mentality - or we provide for them through the taxation of all working people. Moreover, calling this theft does not stand up to scrutiny because here in Britain people pay into the system via National Insurance Contributions when they are working and even when they are not working (Social Security benefits are taxed at source), albeit at a greatly reduced rate that reflects their status. Thus many who fall upon hard times are only claiming money that they have already paid into the system, sometimes over many years. That is hardly a something for nothing culture. Certainly there are those poor souls who have never worked owing to chronic ill-health, be it mental or physical, perhaps a combination of both. However, who with a modicum of humanity would want to deny these people state benefits and medical care? Why should these people not be allowed to live their lives with some degree of dignity? What about their rights and freedoms? No doubt these poor souls would have worked hard and taken risks if they had been able and capable - and if society had been more sympathetic towards their disabilities, especially those involving mental illness such as acute Social Anxiety Disorder.

Contrary to popular belief, dear friend, a Welfare State is more than affordable in rich economies like Britain and America and it is ultra right-wing propaganda to say otherwise. Moreover, here in Britain there is no bloated benefits culture that is burdening the tax payer, merely a small percentage of people who are exploiting the system, something which has always occurred and always will given man’s fallen estate. Thus according to the British government’s own figures disability fraud is estimated at mere 0.5 % (source: DWP), which necessarily means that only a tiny number are abusing the system. The majority of benefits claimants are in genuine need and have illnesses that preclude them from being a part of the workforce.

Tax avoidance in Britain, dear friend, amounts to a loss of £30 billion pounds as compared to £1.2 billion in terms of Social Security benefit fraud, not that that somehow excuses the latter, but it does help one to get things in perspective a little. The fact is that tax cheating individuals and companies owe Britain billions, money that could be channelled to the vital needs of the Welfare State and NHS. Everyone has to pay their way in tax according to what they earn, especially the rich and powerful who are earning thousands a week. If the tax dodgers paid their dues then the country would have more funds for the sick and needy, many of whom are bereft of the most basic needs such as food, shelter and warmth.

Unfortunately, dear friend, the sick and unemployed of Britain are increasingly seen as a soft target and the present government have gone after them to raise a bit of money to make up for the reckless spending of the rich and powerful a few years ago. It is the rich and powerful who are responsible for the deficit, not the sick and unemployed. Why, therefore, should this deficit be filled from the pockets of the poor and sick who are already of very slender means? Moreover, what justification is there for employing punitive measures, via the ‘welfare reforms’, against the sick and disabled because of the misdeeds of the rich and powerful? Instead of directing all this national vitriol at the sick and jobless, why are we not hauling over the coals those at the top of the financial hierarchy who led us all into the present calamitous financial mess in the first place - including, but not limited to, CEO’s and Bankers?

Finally, dear friend, the vast majority of British people are jolly proud of the Welfare State and are possessed of enough humanity and decency to see that it provides a safety net for those who through circumstance, unemployment or disability, are unable to care and provide for themselves. Who knows if we ourselves will need the state support at sometime in the future when chronic illness, mental or physical, precludes us from working?

God bless and thankyou to you and other contributors to this thread for their replies. Thankyou, dear friends, for your time and may I wish you all a jolly splendid and relaxing August weekend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

In Christos

 

[styrgwillidar]

Portrait-- the state doesn’t provide for other people. The citizens do. The state only takes resources from its citizens and distributes them. If it continues to try and pay out what it doesn’t have it ends in disaster. For everyone.

You advocate forced charity, which isn’t charity at all.

By saying the state should do something, you refuse to acknowledge who is actually making the sacrifices, where the money has to come from.

So you have the same attitude that many do-- a lack of gratitude for the sacrifices of others, the demands you’re making on them to cough up their goods, their property, their money. Without a shred of appreciation for them, without acknowleding the sacrifices you demand, indeed expect from them as a matter of course.

Every rich man I know was willing to do something I wasn’t. They were willing to risk everything they owned on an idea or concept. They were willing to work long hours at virtually no pay, mortgaging their homes and emptying their banks accounts. Over the years they became successful, employed 100s of people. Often sacrificed their own standard of living to make payroll, denied their families things to ensure they kept their commitments with their laborers. Fought through all the red tape and regulation of government. After many years, if they’re smart, if they’re diligent it finally paid off. It’s only in the later years that they truly start being able to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Now, I, who wasn’t willing to do any of that (hence why I’m not wealthy and probably never will be) should be able to demand they contribute to my upkeep? How much? How much is reasonable for me to demand from say, LeBron James, a wealthy ball-player. But he worked his buns off from the time he was a kid. Sacrificed time he could have put into other things. Always at the risk that any injury could end it all. Raised by single mother, in a bad area but he managed to avoid the traps that ensnare many young men.

What does he owe me? What right do I have to say-- give me your money? Spend it on me, instead of the mother that raised you, the friends that supported you, the Church that nurtured you, your own family? GIve it to me!!!

Why aren’t we hauling the CEOs and Bankers over the coals? Because we aren’t capitalists. Our governments are cronyists. The banks should have been allowed to fail in accordance with capitalist principles. The CEOs and Bankers not only would have lost personal fortunes, no one would hire them again. But our politicans and heads of corporations are in bed together. It is our fault for electing the people we do.

The banks should have been allowed to collapse. The smaller better run institutions would have bought the assets at a fraction of their face value. That would have allowed them to negotiate the loans with the debtors (more space for a profit). They would have reaped the reward for good decisions, gotten stronger and larger- and the consumers, the public would have benefited.

 

[styrgwillidar]

“Tax avoidance in Britain, dear friend, amounts to a loss of £30 billion pounds as compared to £1.2 billion in terms of Social Security benefit fraud.”

Ok Portrait. Define tax avoidance. Here in the US it generaly means money the companies would have paid if the laws were different. They haven’t done anything illegal, just some folks don’t like the incentives created by the government in the law.

Those laws which allow the “tax avoidance” are put in place by politicians claiming they’re to inecentivize specific types of economic activity to create jobs.

So, here it’s a perjorative term that acknowledges companies are operating legally in their shareholders interests.

Now, if you mean companies are leaving Britain to operate somewhere with lower taxes that kind of shows you the actual affect of high tax rates. Folks who risk a lot, do so based on the potential benefit. You can’t really ask someone to take a high risk of losing it all, than say-- but if it pays off I’ll take 80% from you.

Additionally, in the US corporations are bound by law to operate in their shareholder’s interests. You know, keep the CEO from just doing whatever he wants with the money from a lot of middle-class folks who don’t have much and are counting on the CEO to make prudent decisions. If you create a situation where operating in one environment will mean 50% of the gross profit goes to the government, and operating in another only 20% goes to the government— the CEO is legally bound to make the higher return. He isn’t operating a charity in the interest of the government. He is looking out for the folks who’ve put their money at risk in his company.

Whether you’re a robber or a government pointing a gun at someone demanding their money-- that they earned through their efforts-- your selected victim will naturally want to protect what they’ve earned. Folks tend to avoid bad neighborhoods for that reason, no one’s a big fan of getting mugged no matter how needy the mugger is.

When the mugger runs out of victims, his family starves. When the government runs out of contributors and producers the government and the society collapses.

There’s a kid’s folk tale involving killing the golden goose.

 

[clintonm]

For me it boils down to a rather simple concept. You cannot claim moral superiority when your system demands theft in order to operate. We are commanded not to steal, there have never been exceptions.

 

[Portrait]

Dearly beloved friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

The practice of Christian charity can never be a substitute for the Welfare State and its humane provision for those who are unable, for one reason or another, to procure a competent maintenance of themselves. Moreover, to rely entirely upon the charitable giving of the public would never be satisfactory since there would simply never be enough money to provide for all the essential needs of the nation’s poor and sick. At a time when the charities and ordinary working class people are struggling to keep their heads above water, it is simply wishful thinking to imagine that charitable giving will fund all the high private sector housing costs and the utility bills and basic housekeeping expenditure of Britain’s sick and unemployed poor. Indeed, as Cardinal Nichols said in an interview with The Times, when he was Archbishop of Westminster, “Charity isn’t an alternative to public service”. This is why it is imperative that any move in the direction of America’s uncaring and callous system, which leaves the poor and most vulnerable to fend for themselves or at the mercy of charity, should be steadfastly resisted and denounced in the strongest terms. That approach cannot be tolerated in any civilised country with a healthy economy like Britain or America; a modern progressive country does have a moral obligation to provide for its most vulnerable citizens and to ensure that they can live lives with some degree of dignity as men and women made in the image of God.

The British governments continuing draconian and inhumane ‘welfare reforms’ are, dear friends, directly responsible for the cruel hardship endured by vast multitudes of my fellow citizens, including many sick and vulnerable people. The sick and jobless have been subject to punitive and clumsily targeted cuts to vital Social Security entitlements and are suffering untold misery as a consequence. There is no need for Dickensian Social Security policies that only demonise people and engender social unrest by widening the chasm even more between the rich and poor. Incontrovertibly, the present governments political agenda is to reduce public spending not because it needs to be reduced, but because those who head the modern Conservative party in Britain have an ideological belief in implementing tax cuts for the higher echelons of society at the expense of the social safety net. - it seems to me that ‘cronyism’ and capitalism are jolly good bedfellows. How can that ever be morally defensible, let alone equitable? If that is not an example of the sort of cruel oppression of the poor that cries to Heaven for vengeance, then what it is?

Thankfully, dear friends, the vast majority of the British public are immensely proud of our Welfare State provision, which since its inception has been a safety net to so many who have fallen on hard times, including people who had previously worked jolly hard. Unlike the bizarre viewpoint of strygwillidar and clintonm above they decidedly do not see a percentage of taxation being channelled to the needs of the sick and vulnerable as being a form of theft. Indeed, if this ‘forced charity’ was a form of stealing, then it is most odd that the Catholic Church here in Britain has not condemned it as such, for there can indeed be no exceptions for the sin of theft. On the contrary, the Catholic Church here in Britain has always supported the provision of the Welfare State for the nation’s poor and vulnerable citizens, along with charitable giving, which is essentially going that extra-mile, as when people give freely to their local ‘Food Banks’. To quote again the former Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Nichols, “Charity isn’t an alternative to public service”. Moreover, as I remarked above, charity can never be an alternative because there would always be a massive short fall charitable funds to meet all of the daily needs of Britain’s sick and poor. Taxation for the Social Security budget does provide for all of those needs and can continue to do so, notwithstanding the ultra right-wing propaganda that suggests otherwise. The silly tax is theft myth, would have the mentally ill left to fend for themselves and their complex psychiatric problems left untreated and it would have even more homeless persons on the streets of our cities than there are now, many of whom would most probably soon develop mental health, drug and alcohol related problems. It admits of no doubt that if you stop vital housing benefit a great many vulnerable people will become homeless and will be rendered even more unfit for work than they were already. Again this would be, in a civilised society, a cruel and indefensible oppression of the poor. However, most decent people of all social classes are happy to pay taxes to prevent this sort of thing becoming a grim feature of modern Britain, thanks be unto God.

Finally, dear friends, I would not stop to deny that some individuals are disgracefully exploiting the Social Security system but that is not reason to have no Social Security at all. The point is that is only an infinitesimal number who are abusing the system and the vast majority are bona-fide claimants who are in genuine want.

No society will attain lasting peace if its government imposes draconian and unfair measures against God’s poor and the sick in mind or body. Yes, the Welfare State must be paid for, but most decent people would concur that it is a price worth paying if that means remaining a civilised society in which the most vulnerable citizens are continually provided for, thus allowing them to their difficult lives with some degree of dignity.

God bless and thankyou.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

In Christos

 

[Jerurussia]

Why aren’t there individual health care accounts for each person? WHY IS THE GUBBERMINT IN THIS MIX AT ALL?!? You ceded control like babies and now are crying about it. Guess what? America is even more vicious, and in 2015, it will be illegal to pay for tests and procedures out-of-pocket. HEIL HILLARY 2016! Hillary’s health care conference when Bill was president decided to jail sick people who went outside the gubbermint health care system. Envy us our baby-ism. We out-babied you. Real Catholics will fill the prisons with their refusal to pay their IRS healthcare abortion/abortifacient tax under our new weaponized IRS. You wish you could out control-freak the USA! USA! USA!

 

[Portrait]

Why aren’t there individual health care accounts for each person? WHY IS THE GUBBERMINT IN THIS MIX AT ALL?!? You ceded control like babies and now are crying about it. Guess what? America is even more vicious, and in 2015, it will be illegal to pay for tests and procedures out-of-pocket. HEIL HILLARY 2016! Hillary’s health care conference when Bill was president decided to jail sick people who went outside the gubbermint health care system. Envy us our baby-ism. We out-babied you. Real Catholics will fill the prisons with their refusal to pay their IRS healthcare abortion/abortifacient tax under our new weaponized IRS. You wish you could out control-freak the USA! USA! USA!

Dear Jerurussia,

Cordial greetings and a very warm welcome to the world of CAF. Hope that you will find your time here profitable and spiritually enriching. Thankyou for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Unfortunately, dear friend, both America and Britain is now run by callous neo-capitalists and thus the sick and poor who are not serving the rapacious profits required by modern business and the wealthy are treated with disdain and cruelly oppressed. Thus if you fail to become sufficiently wealthy and then fall on hard times through no deliberate fault of your own, then you can expect to be regarded as vermin and a burden upon the ‘hard working tax payer’.

Such has been the hardening of attitudes towards the poor and sick, that people now believe that inflicting grinding poverty on the most vulnerable where they must choose between food, home, or energy for warmth and cooking, is now deemed morally, politically or economically defensible. The fact that this sort of thing is happening in progressive Western nations is utterly shocking and we should be hanging our heads in shame for allowing it to happen. It quite simply makes me feel ashamed to call this civilisation and disgusted by those who have brought it about. The true measure of any country’s greatness is how it treats it sick and poor citizens, for they are the most vulnerable and powerless.

If, dear friend, those who can afford to pay tax are not required to do so, then clearly there will be insufficient revenue to pay for vital Social Security benefits. The Conservative tax cuts to the wealthy and a reduction in staff at the Inland Revenue work in unison to ‘shrink the state’ (their own motto). Shrinking the state means giving less to the poor and sick.

Of course, dear friend, the usual line of reasoning trotted out to defend this unrelenting oppression of the most vulnerable, is that Social Security spending is just unsustainable and therefore must be savagely cut. This is an urban myth that many have bought into because they have been duped by right-wing propaganda about having to be ‘tough on welfare’ and ‘having to make some difficult decisions’. If the government were serious about wanting to reduce the Social Security bill, then they would tackle tow of its largest elements, namely tax credits to top up inadequate wages and the massively expensive housing benefit expenditure for private sector housing. This means that people’s tax and corporate business tax props up the profits of companies who refuse to pay a living wage and the property values of property owners. The welfare budget could also be cut drastically by building affordable social housing for the poor and working poor, thereby putting a halt on the profiteering of avaricious private landlords who are milking the system of billions. Cruel cuts to the Welfare budget will always prove popular with the electorate but they hit the most vulnerable members of society, causing them untold misery and plunging them into deep despair, often rendering them totally unfit for the world of work. It is headline winning policy of the very worst type and is unworthy of a progressive country.

Much is nonsense is spoken in contemporary Britain, dear friend, regarding benefit fraud, but it is not ‘benefit scroungers’ who wrecking the economy here, rather it is big business and tax dodgers. Benefit fraud represents 2% of the estimated total annual fraud in Britain. Public sector fraud, which includes benefit fraud, is £20.3 billion a year, so within this category it accounts for just under 8%. The majority of this £20 billion is tax fraud which costs the economy £14 billion annually, that is 69%.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

In Christos

 

[styrgwillidar]

Finally, dear friends, I would not stop to deny that some individuals are disgracefully exploiting the Social Security system but that is not reason to have no Social Security at all. The point is that is only an infinitesimal number who are abusing the system and the vast majority are bona-fide claimants who are in genuine want.

Portrait, it isn’t a matter of fraud, it’s simple math. These systems are unaffordable – what can’t go on forever won’t.

A government has a responsibility to all it’s citizens to operate efficiently and affordably.

When a government goes broke, it is unable to meet any of it’s commitments to its people-- Health Care, Defense, Social Security-- all of them. It risks having society descend into anarchy. Making tons of promises you can’t fulfill is immoral.

How do you personally propose the government provide these services that you insist are a core function? Affordably? On a path which can be sustained?

What tax rate is fair?

 

[Portrait]

Dearly beloved friends,

Thankfully the bizarre opinion that tax for Social Security is a form of theft is not a widely held viewpoint, save perhaps among some American conservatives and libertarians. What is very shocking is that these people will happily accept paying taxes for goods and services, but not taxes for Social Security benefits for the sick and jobless, who are allegedly doing nothing and are thus getting a free ride from the system. However, this means that they put a greater value upon goods and services than they do on people made in the image of God. How very sad that those who profess the holy religion of Christ can embrace such a harsh and un-Christian viewpoint. Many those suffering severe mental afflictions are simply not able or capable and thus could not hold down a job even if they dearly wanted to. Therefore it is unreasonable to expect them to work, take risks or pay their way. If we are to remain a civilised society then we have no alternative but to provide for these people by meeting their essential living and health needs. We cannot assume that their families will look after them, for many people have no families and even if they do they may be alienated from them for all manner of reasons. It is unacceptable to leave these people to fend for themselves in a fallen world where they could easily be exploited.

The big problem, dear friends, with this whole preposterous theory is that it assumes that we have rights but no responsibilities, especially towards the less fortunate members of society. It uncharitably assumes that the state has no duties to the poor, sick and even the children of the unemployed. However, we do have responsibilities to others in society and the government exists to enforce them, at least in a civilised country. Our common humanity unites us and this means that when one member suffers we all suffer. How can we rest and enjoy full stomachs and adequate housing if the streets outside of our home are full of the destitute and the mentally ill? The world in which the silly view that tax for welfare is theft prevailed would be a cold and empty one where people sit alone counting their money, totally oblivious to poverty, hunger and misery in their midst. Sadly this warped theory thinks in terms of isolated individuals who have a responsibility to paddle their own canoe, even if they are neither able nor capable, for example on account of acute mental illness. It is has more in common with a survival of the fittest mindset than with a compassionate Catholicism that always seeks to alleviate the suffering of the poor and sick, whether by government or the individual - yes there is room for both state relief and individual charitable giving.

Finally, dear friends, let me say that the vast majority of the sick and unemployed are deeply ashamed of having to be reliant upon state benefits to survive. Many would like nothing more than to earn their living if only they could, but cannot do so for a variety of reasons. For these people the Welfare State enables them to lives their lives with some degree of dignity and keeps them from the indignity of utter destitution, at least at the moment. Let us not begrudge a portion of our taxes being redistributed by central government to the poor and vulnerable in our midst. May we not, through a hardening of attitude, become strangely insensitive to the suffering of our less fortunate brethren, thinking that it is not the business of the state to provide for them.

God bless and this will be my final post in this thread. Again, thankyou to all who have contributed, even those with whom I must profoundly disagree.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

In Christos

 

[styrgwillidar]

Dearly beloved friends,

In Christos

Portrait, no doubt your intentions are good, but you repeatedly post long diatribes without addressing people’s points.

You refuse to address the issue that governments are going bankrupt in providing entitlements. Cuts are not being made out of anything other than basic math.

You refuse to address the issue that it isn’t the government’s money. It is money being taken from others. What is a just amount to take from someone to support others?

You seem to be of the opinion that all money/property belong to the government, they just allow people to keep some portion of it. I disagree. By placing the government between the contributor of charity and the receiver of charity you eliminate the option for someone to give willingly, to feel a personal responsibility for charity by putting forward the perception it’s the governments problem. I don’t need to be doing something, that’s the governments job. You also destroy the recipients sense of gratitude for the charity they’ve received. He doesn’t see it as being extracted from his neighbor, denying his neighbor to enjoy the fruit of his own labors, the recipient instead sees it as something he’s entitled to. That it is something the government must provide to him.

I’m out.