Ruthless Welfare Cuts Causing Untold Misery

[markomalley]

Portrait,

Thank you for finally responding to me. I don’t have time for a proper, complete response, but please see my brief comments below:

Unfortunately, dear friend, there will, owing to man’s fallen estate, always be “excesses and abuses” in any welfare system, however it does not follow that all state social relief of the poor and needy is unhelpful and necessarily leads to lifetime welfare dependency. For many it is a vital temporary safety net if they have fallen on hard times and do not have the wherewithal to support themselves, for others, such as the chronically sick who cannot work, it is there only means of survival, prehaps indefinitely.

I do not dispute society caring for those who are unable to work, particularly those who are unable to work as a result of disability. The fact that there are some who abuse the system does not remove the obligation to do so.

Public charities, dear friend, can only do so much and this is why the Welfare State was created here in Britain to provide the necessary assistance from the cradle to the grave. Prior to the creation of the Welfare State many in Britain were reliant upon the charitable relief of the local Anglican parish, which simply did not have the funds to meet all the demands made upon it from the poor of the parish. As a citizen of the UK I am very proud of our Welfare State, for it has saved multitudes from homelessness and begging and in so doing has acknowledged the dignity of the human person. This is why it is deplorable that the present coalition are savagely cutting the benefits of the poor and vulnerable who so urgently need that vital support to survive.

In modern Britain, dear friend, one could never rely soley upon charitable giving to provide for the multitudes of the sick and unemployed, which is why men need to be provided for by state welfare assistance.

To this, I will provide a couple of other quotes for you to ponder upon:

1. Something attributed to St John Chrysostom: Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first - and then they will joyfully share their wealth.
2. Bl John XXII, from Mater et Magistra: *34. Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. *
3. Too long to post in entirety here, I would commend Msgr Charles Pope’s recent reflection on Pope Leo XIII’s Latitiae Sanctae.

I know that a lot of people in the UK are very proud of their welfare state and, as a US citizen, what you all do is not really any of my business. However, I certainly have no interest in that type of State being emulated over here.

The hackneyed argument, dear friend, about so called punitive taxation driving the wealthy out of the country does not really stand up to scrutiny. We have no way of knowing how many would take the drastic step of leaving these shores to escape “draconian taxes”, probably not enough to make any substantial difference to the welfare budget. Moreover, many well-healed people do have a social conscience, especially if they have come from humble origins and are well aware that there will always be some who are loosers in the struggle to survive. In any event, I think that the government has a duty to educate those that are rich concerning their financial obligation to the less fortunate members of society who, for whatever reason, are genuinely unable to help themselves.

To call that a hackneyed argument is laughable. Great Britain has had a flourishing expatriot industry and offshore banking industry for decades. I cannot count the number of British citizens I have met while living overseas who have left your fair shores due, in large part, to tax policy. Why do you think there is such a flourishing banking industry in Jersey, Guernsey, as well as the Isle of Man?

Let me tell you a little “secret”: the very well-heeled in society support punitive income tax rates for one primary reason: they don’t have to pay them. First, most of their income comes through investment which, in this country at least, is not “earned” income (and is therefore not taxable as “income tax”). It is mostly as the result of investment. Second, they are able to structure their investment income to shield them from having to pay capital gains taxes on most of their investments. This is why a person like Warren Buffet is able to claim that he pays a smaller tax rate than his secretary. No change in income tax rates will alter that situation.

You and I likely are in agreement that the wealthy in this country need to do far better in sharing their wealth with those less fortunate. Speaking for myself, I hear far too little preaching about the imperative for liberality with one’s wealth (reference the Lazarus and the rich man account you mentioned above). And the ones I do hear are usually so weak as to put people to sleep rather than to motivate them to action.

Having said that, I see the result of 50 years of the welfare state in this country: the dehumanization of the poor. Turning them into a faceless “class” that is like a pet that must be cared for. Wholesale increases in public welfare will only exacerbate that situation.

 

[Portrait]

Thank you Portrait for your post.

I am disabled with complex physical and mental health problems and find myself in the crosshairs of this government’s bid to cut benefits to the most vulnerable sections of our society. Nearly 20 years ago I was granted Disability Living Allowance indefinitely because of the severity of my needs. It’s not much, but means I don’t have to choose between, say, going to the laundrette or having a meal. Now the criteria for assessing disability have been changed, and while over the past 20 years my illnesses have got worse, I will no longer qualify. I feel absolutely sick with worry about how I’m going to cope.

On top of this is the “demonisation” as you rightly say, of the poor. There has been a rise in physical attacks on disabled people, and while it may be difficult to prove that these attacks are linked to the government’s policy, the terms of abuse such as “skivers” have been used in these attacks. So the attackers seem to be taking on board the government attitude.

For the information of our American friends: the Daily Mail is not a “liberal” newspaper - it is a mouthpiece of the government, extremely illiberal in its treatment of the poor, and certainly no friend of the Church.
Living word unity: your perception of the UK government as liberal is somewhat off - while we have a Liberal Democrat party in coalition with the tories, they are nothing like what you might think of as liberal or democrat - they come from a different tradition altogether, and have been subsumed (willingly) into the tories.

I could write more, but the whole topic is really so upsetting and I can feel my anxiety levels going through the roof. For people like me the future has become very dark and uncertain.

Dear ora_pro_nobis,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Thankyou for your contribution to the discussion, dear friend, as it is always good to hear anecdotal evidence from those who are actually affected by the current iniquitous and inequitable reforms. The ultra right-wing press ought to report on more cases of injustice like your own, rather than indiscriminately pouring vitroil on all benefit recipients, implying that they are mostly malingerers who are overstating the gravity of their medical condition. Extreme right-wing rags like the Daily Mail are only fuelling unkind prejudice against the majority of* bona fide* welfare claimants and that is downright disgraceful and something for which they should apologise and repent of forthwith.

You will, dear friend, be in my prayers later this evening and I do hope that you will appeal any unjust decision based on a faulty ATOS evaluation, as many appeals are, not surprisingly, successful. If you have not already done so, I would strongly advise that you contact your local Citizens Advice Bureau or welfare rights group to see if they can be of any help in preparing an appeal or requesting a reconsideration of your case by the DWP.

God bless you and keep close to our Blessed Saviour, who is a Friend who is born for adversity. Remember, that you are not alone and that many of your Catholic brethren are experiencing similar suffering as a result of these wicked benefit reforms. They are unreasonable and unworthy of a civilised society and will, at length, rebound adversely on this coalition government, just as the Poll Tax did on the late Mrs. Thatcher.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Portrait,

Thank you for finally responding to me. I don’t have time for a proper, complete response, but please see my brief comments below:

I do not dispute society caring for those who are unable to work, particularly those who are unable to work as a result of disability. The fact that there are some who abuse the system does not remove the obligation to do so.

I know that a lot of people in the UK are very proud of their welfare state and, as a US citizen, what you all do is not really any of my business. However, I certainly have no interest in that type of State being emulated over here.

To call that a hackneyed argument is laughable. Great Britain has had a flourishing expatriot industry and offshore banking industry for decades. I cannot count the number of British citizens I have met while living overseas who have left your fair shores due, in large part, to tax policy. Why do you think there is such a flourishing banking industry in Jersey, Guernsey, as well as the Isle of Man?

Dear markomalley,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response. First, may I apologise for the delay in responding to your previous post, but it is my custom to have a breather from the boards at weekends.

Indeed, dear friend, men’s hearts must be changed before they will give liberally to those less fortunate than themselves and this is why it is so very important for our clergy to speak of the obligation to God’s poor and vulnerable in their homilies. Moreover, a compassionate government will also not fail to educate the rich and powerful about not begruding a percentage of their earnings being redistributed to the poor and needy.

Those wealthy people who have left this country because they resent having their taxes going to, for example, the UK’s sick and disabled, ought to hang their heads in shame because that is only indicative of their greed and hardness of heart. Again, they need to stop reading the propaganda of the right-wing press and educate themselves regarding the actual plight of their poor and vulnerable fellow British citizens. There are multitudes of genuine cases of need, such as ora_pro_nobis, who rightly deserve national assistance from the state and only an infintisimal number of cases of flagrant welfare abuse, notwithstanding claims to the contrary.

It is, I think, jolly important that we avoid the usual polarized economic debate between those who blame poverty on capitialism, on the ground that it is inherently covetous and therefore ipso facto exploits the poor, and those who blame socialism, on the ground that it perpetuates the dependency culture and undermines the enterprise of wealth creators. Neither position has a monoploy of truth, dear friend. As Catholics it is surely incumbent upon us to oppose in both systems what we perceive to be incompatible with our most holy religion, which empasizes creativity and compassion and refuses to foster either at the expense of the other. Contrary to popular assumption, there is no reason whatsoever why a political Conservative cannot be a caring and compassionate Conservative who is a fierce critic, for example, of unreasonable and unmerciful welfare reforms that are hurting so many sick and vulnerable people.

Here in Britain, dear friend, many of my fellow-citizens are suffering real poverty, and will suffer increasingly, as a result of the coalitions cruel ongoing welfare reforms, and this in a country that has prospered economically. Many affluent people who begrudge their taxes being spent on welfare relief seldom, if ever, visit the decayed and deprived inner city areas of our cities and our probably not cognizant of the sad lot of those who must live in such places. Comfortable Britain and America need to stand in the shoes of the other Britain and America and ponder for a while about the poor damp housing conditions, poor opportunities, the sense of feeling socially excluded, the hard choices that have to made (e.g. between eating and heating in the cold winter season), which are occasioned by reduced and unfair welfare spending. All of this only serves to imprison spirit and spawns many other social problems that then have to be dealt with at further expense to the tax payer. The rich must understand that they are their “brothers keeper” and that those in genuine need must be helped by government assistance, either temporarily or, in some cases of chronic illness, even indefinitely. The only other alternative is to callously refuse to help these people, leaving them to fend for themselves. Speaking for myself, I would be deeply ashamed to be a citizen of country which adopted such an unkind and unmerciful approach to the most needy and vulnerable members of society. Indeed, I cannot see how the good Lord would bless or prosper such a country that despises its poor and lets them get on with it, notwithstanding that they cannot help themselves.

God bless and goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[fakename]

Dear markomalley,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response. First, may I apologise for the delay in responding to your previous post, but it is my custom to have a breather from the boards at weekends.

Indeed, dear friend, men’s hearts must be changed before they will give liberally to those less fortunate than themselves and this is why it is so very important for our clergy to speak of the obligation to God’s poor and vulnerable in their homilies. Moreover, a compassionate government will also not fail to educate the rich and powerful about not begruding a percentage of their earnings being redistributed to the poor and needy.

Those wealthy people who have left this country because they resent having their taxes going to, for example, the UK’s sick and disabled, ought to hang their heads in shame because that is only indicative of their greed and hardness of heart. Again, they need to stop reading the propaganda of the right-wing press and educate themselves regarding the actual plight of their poor and vulnerable fellow British citizens. There are multitudes of genuine cases of need, such as ora_pro_nobis, who rightly deserve national assistance from the state and only an infintisimal number of cases of flagrant welfare abuse, notwithstanding claims to the contrary.

It is, I think, jolly important that we avoid the usual polarized economic debate between those who blame poverty on capitialism, on the ground that it is inherently covetous and therefore ipso facto exploits the poor, and those who blame socialism, on the ground that it perpetuates the dependency culture and undermines the enterprise of wealth creators. Neither position has a monoploy of truth, dear friend. As Catholics it is surely incumbent upon us to oppose in both systems what we perceive to be incompatible with our most holy religion, which empasizes creativity and compassion and refuses to foster either at the expense of the other. Contrary to popular assumption, there is no reason whatsoever why a political Conservative cannot be a caring and compassionate Conservative who is a fierce critic, for example, of unreasonable and unmerciful welfare reforms that are hurting so many sick and vulnerable people.

Here in Britain, dear friend, many of my fellow-citizens are suffering real poverty, and will suffer increasingly, as a result of the coalitions cruel ongoing welfare reforms, and this in a country that has prospered economically. Many affluent people who begrudge their taxes being spent on welfare relief seldom, if ever, visit the decayed and deprived inner city areas of our cities and our probably not cognizant of the sad lot of those who must live in such places. Comfortable Britain and America need to stand in the shoes of the other Britain and America and ponder for a while about the poor damp housing conditions, poor opportunities, the sense of feeling socially excluded, the hard choices that have to made (e.g. between eating and heating in the cold winter season), which are occasioned by reduced and unfair welfare spending. All of this only serves to imprison spirit and spawns many other social problems that then have to be dealt with at further expense to the tax payer. The rich must understand that they are their “brothers keeper” and that those in genuine need must be helped by government assistance, either temporarily or, in some cases of chronic illness, even indefinitely. The only other alternative is to callously refuse to help these people, leaving them to fend for themselves. Speaking for myself, I would be deeply ashamed to be a citizen of country which adopted such an unkind and unmerciful approach to the most needy and vulnerable members of society. Indeed, I cannot see how the good Lord would bless or prosper such a country that despises its poor and lets them get on with it, notwithstanding that they cannot help themselves.

God bless and goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Several criticisms of your ideas:

(1) Being against right-wing propaganda and being in favor of “educating” the rich about the plight of the poor. Isn’t that a contradiction?
(2) Not seeing the already deep corporate interests that actively favor welfare (analyzing corporations/society as homogenous groups instead of heterogeneous individuals).
(3) Why can’t the poor be taken care of by their families, private associations, etc.mises.org/daily/5388? And why reform the UK system when clearly the Taiwan system must be superior since their poverty rates are only like 5% (measured, I think, in absolute poverty measurements) nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Asia-
and-the-Pacific/Taiwan-POVERTY-AND-WEALTH.html.
(4) Why always use “dear friend” or sign every post with “best wishes”? I mean, it just seems disingenuous or cloyingly nice -either way bad. I know this is a curmudgeonly criticism, but seriously, if you already have something to contribute to the conversation, then you are implicitly respected as friendly while if you are wrong, then no amount of niceness will change the fact that we disagree passionately.

 

[Portrait]

Dearly beloved friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. This will be my final post but may I just thank everyone for their contributions and responses to this discussion.

Britain should be jolly proud of its Welfare State as it has provided a safety net to multitudes of people who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own, as well as the long term chronically sick and disabled. However, since Mr. Cameron’s coalition government came into office there has been an unrelenting and shameful demonisation of the sick and unemployed, who are routinely accused of being ‘scroungers’ or "workshy’. This is a national disgrace and should not be happening in a progressive country of the West. That a very small number of people exploit the welfare system is something that I would not stop to deny, but to talk of a burgeoning benefits culture where benefits abuse is rampant is nothing more than hysterical ultra right-wing propaganda. Moreover, there is a tendency by some extreme right-wing rags, such as the UK Daily Mail, to grossly overstate the incidence of benefit abuse and fraud by highlighting flagrant and rare cases of system abuse that no man would defend. Of course it is right that dishonest and feckless individuals who swing the lead and milk the system are weeded out and brought to book, but we must guard against an uncharitable mindset where there is almost a presumption of abuse by all benefit claimants. How sad that many British people have fallen hook, line and sinker for the exaggerations and rhetoric of smug middle-class social commentators and journalists, who try and convince us that our taxes are paying for a vast army of benefits ‘cheats’. To help redress the balance, the government needs to educate the rich about the true plight of the sick and unemployed, showing them that they should not begrudge their taxes being spent on those who are genuinely deserving (the vast majority). In a civilised society those who are too sick to work cannot be left to fend for themselves - a ‘sink or swim’ approach should never be tolerated, especially by professing Catholics.

The present UK coalition government have forced through some of the most punitive and harsh measures, via the Welfare Reform Bill, that the sick and disabled have experienced in my lifetime. Sadly, dear friends, the poor and sick are being used as scapegoats for the reckless spending of the rich and powerful a few years ago and that is downright despicable as well as a grave injustice. How can this be defended and why should God’s poor and the most vulnerable in society have to carry the can for a financial crisis which was decidedly not of their making? Moreover, it is unacceptable that the sick and disabled are financially disadvantaged, as it is not their fault that they are chronically unwell and cannot support themselves. Surely we have entered a wholly different morality when we rob the poor to pay for the misdeeds of the rich. Instead of all the national vitroil directed against the sick and jobless, let us go after the financial hierarchy who led us into the present calamitous financial mess, including CEO’s and Bankers, and make them pay. The unemployed and sick are already among the poorest in Britian and therefore ought to be protected by law and not subject to any welfare cuts, just as the UK pensioners already are.

Sadly, dear friends, politics today is, I fear, all about winning and keeping the middle-class vote and not noble principles. There are very few convictional politicians left and those that do exist must tow the party line and be silent about what they regard as blatant injustices. These are very dark days for Britain and I am deeply ashamed that there has been a hardening of attitudes towards the sick and unemployed. The urgent need of the hour is for more sympathy and compassion, not less, especially from those who name the name of Christ. We cannot assume that the families of the unemployed and sick will provide for their relatives, as they themselves may not always be in a position to help and in some cases, where there has been a break down in relations, they may not even want provide any relief anyway. As for charitable agencies, yes they do indeed have a vital part to play but they cannot possibly pay all the benefits to every UK welfare claimant. This is why the welfare budget cannot be starved of its resources and why it must be always funded by the taxpayer, who may one day be in desperate need of it himself.

In closing, dear friends, I would say that this whole debate is not about merits or demerits of socialism or capitalism, it is about justice and compassion and I would venture to say that no society will attain social peace if its government imposes iniquitous and inequitable measures against the sick and unemployed.

God bless and thankyou all for your participation in the discussion.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

 

[CrossofChrist]

Dear friend,

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

Whilst it is true that some kindhearted people, even among the wealthy, are sympathetic to the plight of God’s poor, who are suffering as a result of the current UK welfare reforms, there has undoubtedly been a hardening of attitudes. Many of us are horrified by news stories that regularly appear showing how the needy and vulnerable are being endlessly squeezed and marginalised to pay for the misdeeds of the wealthy and powerful. The irresponsible people that got into the present financial mess do not have to worry themselves about harsh government medical assessments or savage welfare cuts.

Failure to consider the poor is a dereliction of duty and, dear friend, a most serious sin which, according to our Lord’s parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (St. Luke 16: 19-31), does have eternal consquences. The sin of the rich man was not so much his dress and diet, but his thinking of and providing only for himself. It is not even said that he spoke harsh words about Lazarus being a ‘scrounger’ or ‘freeloader’, it is that he shamelessly displayed no concern for this poor chap and took no steps to care for him, which he was quite able to do had he so wished. Here was a genuine and deserving object of charity if ever there was and yet he missed a golden opportunity to be an agent for good. It is not enough that we do not trample on or oppress God’s poor; we shall still be found unfaithful stewards in the Day of Judgment if we have refused to help or relieve them - even on the grounds that we considered other issues of greater importance. The reason for the fearful doom of many will be “I was hungry and you gave me no food”.

It is, dear friend, so very difficult to understand how those well-off Catholics who read the Gospels, and profess to believe them, can be strangely insensitive and unconcerned as regards the necessities and miseries of the poor and afflicted.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Seeing you are done with the discussion, I don’t know if I should respond. But what the heck!

I think a big problem is the entire system in countries that have a history of classical liberalism, like America and Great Britain, along with France. The welfare system treats the poor as an after thought, and in short keeps them poor. This makes those who are middle class or even lower-middle class who work hard think that the poor are lazy and slacking off. When in reality the problem is the poor, who don’t want to be poor and want to provide for their family, themselves, etc etc, get punished for trying to work out of the system because they lose benefits. So the poor think the rich and anyone not poor is oppressing them. So the result is class conflict. France is different because they have a huge welfare state, but just have a history of class conflict with the French Revolution and stuff. I’m not trying to give the rich a break, since they clearly do take advantage of the poor often. I’m just trying to be balanced and show both sides.

 

[Jimmygill88]

Prayers for those affected, but I have to admit that once you started talking about the right wing press I almost thought it was satire. Granted, I am not from the U.K, but every now and then an article from the Guardian or Daily Mail is brought to my attention, and they’re hardly conservative.

I understand the pain caused by cutting on welfare spending, and wish it were not so, but from what I read in your post it seems to indicate that you haven’t examined the issue any amount beyond “giving to the poor is good and taking from the poor is bad.” And that’s undoubtedly true. But it’s not all that is true.

But while it is necessary that we support the poor as we reasonably can, and it’s admirable to even sell all one’s possessions and donate to the poor, it is not admirable to sell all your neighbor’s possessions and give to the poor without his permission. I’m not just talking about taxation here - a reasonable amount of taxation for the support of the poor is fine, a high amount of taxation for support of the poor could be argued (and with consent of the taxed is inarguably fine) - I’m talking about borrowing large amounts of money with no intention to pay it off.

There are, essentially, two functions of government:

1. To keep the country from falling into disarray: infrastructure, defense, food inspection, etc.
2. To better the country in ways that private citizens generally won’t do, or won’t do sufficiently (helping the poor, research grants, education, etc)

Both are critically important, but type 1 must be met. You can try to cut type 1 budgets and make do with less, but when it comes down to it if your government doesn’t do type 1 stuff, it fails as a government, and your country dissolves, and you lose type 2 anyway.

So then there’s type two stuff. And the government must do as much as it can with a reasonable tax rate after satisfying type one stuff to do it. But the problem is that neither your government nor mine is taxing as much as it’s spending. The UK has a deficit of about 170 billion pounds per year. Tax revenue last year was about 556 billion pounds, if I calculate correctly (I could only find it in percentage of gdp so there’s some fuzziness here). That means that in the UK tax income would need to increase by about 30% to become financially stable. Or, spending has to be cut.

More likely, both. Raising taxes by that much isn’t feasible. We’re talking about the net worth of most of the world’s richest people (who amassed that wealth over a long time) per year. So raising taxes might be necessary, but it won’t ever be enough. The only other option is to cut spending.

And you can only cut type 1 so much. Once you cut it to where needs are met with minimal waste (which for the most part appears to be true, at least over here), if that’s insufficient, then you have to cut type two. You can start eliminating education, and research grants, and aid to the poor, etc. All of which are critically important. And none of which anyone actually wants to cut.

But there’s this magic idea here: you can’t spend money you don’t have, even if you really want to. You can pretend to for a while, you can pull tricks to make it work for a while until the tricks implode and you have to deal with the money you spent while you didn’t have it. You can borrow, as we are, but the way our governments are doing it, it’s just way to die more slowly, because you really do owe that money. It’s making things worse for your children so that you can pretend it’s ok now.

And so, as sad as it is, and whether or not these people really need all they money they’re being given or not, that money simply isn’t there. Cuts have to be made. They should be made to make things as painless as possible, but they have to happen, and they have to come from programs that are actually good. Programs that are necessary.

I suggest this video on why being conservative sucks. I don’t agree with everything he says, of course, and it is from a U.S. perspective, but there it is.

The Guardian and the Daily Mail are political polar opposites. The Guardian is Left Wing the Mail is rabidly right wing

 

[Jimmygill88]

In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.100

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need.

Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, 48
​

Sadly, it won’t do anybody any good if a State’s economy collapses under the weight of public debt. It also won’t do anybody any good if a State, in seeking to avoid such a collapse, imposes such draconian taxes on those who are at the upper end of the economic spectrum determine that the benefits of being a citizen of that country are no longer worth the expense and quit that country.

Sadly, it is the poor who end up suffering: first, because of government dependency and second, when that largesse is withdrawn because it is no longer available.

Remember: limiting emigration from a country is a violation of human rights. Even for the well-to-do.

The late Pope was a good man. But he was no economist

 

[manualman]

I hear in the OP the same sort of close-minded judgement and refusal to listen that he/she accuses the UK government of.

In fact, this is the greatest problem in politics today: everybody prefers to demonize the other side rather than listen to them, consider whether they might have SOME good points and look for common ground.

On the political left the narrative is always that the right are money grubbing monsters ready to sell grandma to the dog food factory for another $1.50 in income. On the right, it’s always that the left is trying to steal money from those who’ve earned it in order to buy votes from a dependency class that will perpetuate their hold on power (cloaked in a veneer of false charity, of course).

The truth is that BOTH sides make good points that need to be considered. The right is RIGHT that modern government is spending an all time high amount of GDP on “entitlements” of various sorts that simply can’t be perpetuated forever. The left is CORRECT that cuts usually seem to bite hardest on those who really need them the most rather than those who really are bilking the system for personal gain.

The challenge is to stop accusing each other of demon possession and start figuring out how to reconcile both of these valid complaints.

Surely the left must not be so naive as to think that welfare policies that will allow a comfortable life without work won’t be exploited mercilessly. You’d have to be utterly ignorant of human nature not to see that.

Surely the right can be made to see that society DOES owe a duty of brotherhood to our fellow man, that we really are an interconnected community rather than just a group of individuals responsible only for ourselves?

Why is this so hard?

 

[Reep]

My take is that it is not the government’s job to take from some and give to others. Taxpayers are not Good Samaritans. We–every one of us–need to get off our duffs and help the needy. Saying “Go to the government. Be warmed and filled,” just doesn’t cut it.

If you have five minutes, here is my YouTube video on this very subject:

**Taxpayers as Good Samaritans? Not really. **

 

[Lord_Keynes]

This all takes me back to pondering the age old question:

“If the milk snatcher would have been given the chance to end the NHS and privatize all health care, would she have done that?”

Hmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[Abu]

Jimmygill88 #28 Apr 27, '13, 1:12 am
The late Pope was a good man. But he was no economist.

Bl John Paul II, because of his superb faith and intelligence, knew much more about economics and the common good than many economists.

The “anthropological error” at the heart of socialism, as Pope John Paul II described it, has not disappeared. Many who hold positions of power still believe “that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil” (Centesimus Annus, n. 13).

Bl John Paul II taught in Centesimus Annus, 1991:
CA 42. ‘Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?
‘The answer is obviously complex. If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.
‘CA 43. The Church has no models to present;’

Reaffirmed also by Bl John Paul II is the ‘fundamental human “right to freedom of economic initiative.” ’ (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (On Human Concerns), Encyclical, 1987, #42), and since initiative = enterprise, it is clear what the Pope means.

 

[Portrait]

Bl John Paul II, because of his superb faith and intelligence, knew much more about economics and the common good than many economists.

The “anthropological error” at the heart of socialism, as Pope John Paul II described it, has not disappeared. Many who hold positions of power still believe “that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil” (Centesimus Annus, n. 13).

Bl John Paul II taught in Centesimus Annus, 1991:
CA 42. ‘Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?
‘The answer is obviously complex. If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.
‘CA 43. The Church has no models to present;’

Reaffirmed also by Bl John Paul II is the ‘fundamental human “right to freedom of economic initiative.” ’ (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (On Human Concerns), Encyclical, 1987, #42), and since initiative = enterprise, it is clear what the Pope means.

Dear Abu,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Jolly good to see you on the boards again, dear boy, and hope all is well with you.

It is, I think, jolly important to avoid the usual polarized economic debate between those who blame poverty on capitalism, on the ground that it is inherently covetous and therefore necessarily exploits the poor, and those who blame socialism, on the ground that it perpetuates the dependency of the poor and undermines the enterprise of wealth creators. Neither position has a monopoly of truth. As Christians it is incumbent upon us to oppose in both systems what we perceive to be incompatible with our most holy religion, which emphasizes creativity and compassion and refuses to foster either at the expense of the other. Contrary to popular assumption, there is no reason whatsoever why a political Conservative cannot be a caring and compassionate Conservative who is a fierce critic of, for example, inequitable and unjust welfare reform that hurts multitudes of sick and vulnerable people.

There is, dear friend, a huge gulf between those who are feckless and opt for welfare as a lifestyle choice and those who are genuinely precluded from working owing to chronic illness or disability. It is manifestly unfair and unmerciful to expect the latter to work or subject them to harsh and inhumane work capability assessments that are simply not fit for purpose and which are the occasion of untold misery. This has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism, but everything to do with compassion and social justice.

The vast majority of the sick and unemployed are proud and aspirational and would gladly earn their living if only they could. Alas, dear friend, the present British government appears to be waging a sort of ideological war against the unemployed and sick by their harsh and punitive welfare reforms. Moreover, they are aided in this by the propaganda of the right-wing press, who take a perverse delight in fuelling and manipulating the prejudices of the chattering middle-classes by divisive talk of “skivers and strivers” and a burgeoning benefits culture. How sad that their readers seem to lack the ability to think for themselves and to critically analyse the truth between the rhetoric and lies. It does seem that those who are comfortably well-off like to believe the worst about those who have fallen on hard times or who are to unwell to be part of the workforce. Moreover, they will not, or cannot, concede that some poor souls will, for all manner of reasons, be loosers in the struggle to survive, especially where there are serious mental health issues involved. There is still this unkind presumption of malingering or that the sick are grossly overstating the gravity and extent of their condition. How very sad that such hard attitudes still continue to exist in a progressive country of the West!

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[severus68]

Dearly beloved friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Many of God’s poor in the UK are currently being adversely affected by the governments ruthless welfare cuts, including many sick and vulnerable people who have no voice.

Unfortunately, dear friends, it appears that a large section of the British public have fallen hook, line and sinker for the propaganda put out by the ultra right-wing press, which is fuelled by the present government’s ideological war against the unemployed and chronically sick. The fact that such propaganda is widely believed is surely evidence that men no longer have the ability to think for themselves and to critically analyse the truth between the lies and rhetoric. The extreme right-wing press always likes to feed and manipulate the ignorant prejudices of the wealthy and privilleged by angrily talking about a bloated welfare culture, it helps sell their rags.

It is, dear friends, very easy to demonise the sick and unemployed who have the sad misfortune to find themselves reliant upon welfare relief. Using divisive phraseology such as “skivers vs. strivers” is downright inexcusable and almost implies a presumption of malingering on the part of many thoroughly decent people who already have much to contend with. The fact is that the vast majority of the sick and unemployed are proud and aspirational and would gladly earn their living if only they could. Men must distinguish between not wanting to work and not being able to work on account of a chronic illness. Only a very small precentage of hardcore unemployed actually choose welfare dependency as a lifestyle choice, but if you were to believe everything put out by, for example, the UK Daily Mail, you might be pardoned for concluding that welfare abuse had reached endemic levels. This sensational tabloid highlights unique and rare cases of benefit fraud, which no man would defend, and then deduces from them that benefit abuse is a common occurence, at great cost to the hard-pressed British tax payer. That is a jolly massive leap, but its what the chattering middle-classes like to believe and its what sells newspapers.

If there is any injustice being perpetrated today, dear friends, then it is against the sick and disabled of Britian. Many of the long term sick are being declared ‘fit for work’ after attending a work capablilty assessment, carried out by ATOS Healthcare (the company contracted by the government to carry out medical tests on Britain’s sick and disabled). These flawed tests were, it is true, introduced by the Labour government in 2008, but the present coalition has rapidly expanded their use. However, ATOS has faced severe criticism after it emerged that a staggering third of decisions that went to appeal were overturned. Whilst it is true that ATOS does not make the final decision about a person’s fitness for work, the ‘health professional’s’ report and test results are used by the ‘decision maker’ at the DWP (the UK government department responsible for welfare benefits). The actual evaluation process used by ATOS is seriously defective because it relies upon a computer-based tick system that cannot begin to address the numerous health issues with which people can be afflicted. For example, most sick and disabled people have a series of illnesses that accompany the prominent one. Moreover, there is very little scope to discuss complex mental health problems, such as acute Social Anxiety Disorder, and thus the DWP decision maker could be misled into thinking that a chronically sick person is actually fit for work, when in actual fact they clearly are not. Needless to say, this can be the occasion of much distress to the client and can result in exacerbating the symptoms of an existing illness, thus rendering the client even more unfit for work than he was in the first place. Thus the process is counter-productive and only serves to make it appear that the government is tackling the benefits culture, when in actual fact it is only making people more unwell.

The bad news for Britains sick and disabled, dear friends, is that ATOS Healthcare have, just this month, began a £400m, five-year contract undertaking tests for the new Personal Independence Payment (PIP), which replaces the old Disability Living Allowance and determines whether people require extra money to help cope with their disability. These are times of great anxiety for many here in Britian, and I genuinely fear that many legitimate clients will not be awarded the vital money that they so much need and deserve. This is a demeaning, harsh and faulty system of evaluation, the sole purpose of which is to cut the benefits bill at all costs, not help people back into work. That this sort of thing is taking place in a progressive and prosperous country is a national disgrace and makes me almost ashamed to be British.

God bless and thankyou for taking the time to read the above.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

I agree with you that the cuts affect most those who really need the assistance.

 

[severus68]

Thank you Portrait for your post.

I am disabled with complex physical and mental health problems and find myself in the crosshairs of this government’s bid to cut benefits to the most vulnerable sections of our society. Nearly 20 years ago I was granted Disability Living Allowance indefinitely because of the severity of my needs. It’s not much, but means I don’t have to choose between, say, going to the laundrette or having a meal. Now the criteria for assessing disability have been changed, and while over the past 20 years my illnesses have got worse, I will no longer qualify. I feel absolutely sick with worry about how I’m going to cope.

On top of this is the “demonisation” as you rightly say, of the poor. There has been a rise in physical attacks on disabled people, and while it may be difficult to prove that these attacks are linked to the government’s policy, the terms of abuse such as “skivers” have been used in these attacks. So the attackers seem to be taking on board the government attitude.

For the information of our American friends: the Daily Mail is not a “liberal” newspaper - it is a mouthpiece of the government, extremely illiberal in its treatment of the poor, and certainly no friend of the Church.
Living word unity: your perception of the UK government as liberal is somewhat off - while we have a Liberal Democrat party in coalition with the tories, they are nothing like what you might think of as liberal or democrat - they come from a different tradition altogether, and have been subsumed (willingly) into the tories.

I could write more, but the whole topic is really so upsetting and I can feel my anxiety levels going through the roof. For people like me the future has become very dark and uncertain.

Praying that your situation improves. God bless.

 

[Portrait]

I agree with you that the cuts affect most those who really need the assistance.

Dear severus68,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou. These are times of great anxiety and stress for those in receipt of welfare benefits.

God bless, dear sister.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[severus68]

Dear severus68,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou. These are times of great anxiety and stress for those in receipt of welfare benefits.

God bless, dear sister.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Dear Portrait,

On this, I agree with you. I do try to be fair.

God bless.