I try to avoid the comforting rage provided by so many Daily Mail stories, featuring (and I know not why these people choose to expose themselves to the public ire) the latest feckless woman and her brood of bastard children she believes are 'entitled' to all the good things in life at the expense of others, but it's not easy.
It is clear that if you reward people for irresponsible behaviour, that is what you will get, and having five children by four different men is the height of irresponsibility. To what extent the policies that have led our society to this place were intentionally aimed at undermining the family is a matter for debate. It is certainly the case that the Fabian intellectuals of the 'progressive era' saw families as the enemy. It was families that perpetuated all the human traits they held responsible for holding back progress to their promised land, and thus it was necessary to use education and social engineering to get hold of the next generation and inculcate the 'right' ideas. It is also true that this agenda has been helped along by legions of useful idiots and well-meaning philanthropists, unaware of the bigger picture.
The question is; what do we do about it? Taking it as essential to dramatically reduce the welfare state, we are left with the problem of all those hungry little bastards. It is no doubt true that their predicament is not their fault. Neither is it the fault of the average tax-payer, who has heretofore been expected to pick up the tab. At a higher level, without doubt it lies with the social engineers who purposefully and patiently undermined our society, but the fault lies immediately with the parents, primarily the mothers - the fathers also, whoever and wherever they are. The only way we can reduce this problem humanely - and I will not countenance enforced sterility, or other state-imposed limits on fertility, for this is surely worse than the present situation - is to hold people responsible for their actions, and kill the entitlement culture once and for all.
Within any such root-and-branch reform, there must be a separation of those that have paid in and those that have never done so. There may need to be a prolonged period of adjustment, so the welfare junkies can adapt to their new circumstances (welcome to the real world), but whatever happens, we cannot as a society afford to keep rewarding people for their irresponsibility, for one because it is immoral to take tax money from other people who are more responsible, and for two because our society will collapse without the family.
It is clear that if you reward people for irresponsible behaviour, that is what you will get, and having five children by four different men is the height of irresponsibility. To what extent the policies that have led our society to this place were intentionally aimed at undermining the family is a matter for debate. It is certainly the case that the Fabian intellectuals of the 'progressive era' saw families as the enemy. It was families that perpetuated all the human traits they held responsible for holding back progress to their promised land, and thus it was necessary to use education and social engineering to get hold of the next generation and inculcate the 'right' ideas. It is also true that this agenda has been helped along by legions of useful idiots and well-meaning philanthropists, unaware of the bigger picture.
The question is; what do we do about it? Taking it as essential to dramatically reduce the welfare state, we are left with the problem of all those hungry little bastards. It is no doubt true that their predicament is not their fault. Neither is it the fault of the average tax-payer, who has heretofore been expected to pick up the tab. At a higher level, without doubt it lies with the social engineers who purposefully and patiently undermined our society, but the fault lies immediately with the parents, primarily the mothers - the fathers also, whoever and wherever they are. The only way we can reduce this problem humanely - and I will not countenance enforced sterility, or other state-imposed limits on fertility, for this is surely worse than the present situation - is to hold people responsible for their actions, and kill the entitlement culture once and for all.
Within any such root-and-branch reform, there must be a separation of those that have paid in and those that have never done so. There may need to be a prolonged period of adjustment, so the welfare junkies can adapt to their new circumstances (welcome to the real world), but whatever happens, we cannot as a society afford to keep rewarding people for their irresponsibility, for one because it is immoral to take tax money from other people who are more responsible, and for two because our society will collapse without the family.
6 comments:
We certainly do need to stop this nonesense.
This woman actually beleives that she is entitled to life the high life at our expense. My mind boggles at that.
*Applauds wildly*
Great post. I've been thinking about how to blog on the subject of the Mainly Fail's latest hate figure but every time my thoughts turned to the self satisfied cow and her lack of any feelings of guilt or empathy towards those being robbed by the state to give her the toys for her brood, the Mediterranean holidays and a bigger pair of tits the red mist descended and anything approaching coherence was temporarily beyond me. You've said it all so I hope you'll forgive me for simply quoting you en bloc.
AE, I will certainly forgive you (I've made a couple of minor amendments btw). I wanted to add, but didn't, that this is not about widows and orphans, who I'm happy to dip my hand in my pocket for. In fact it's for people who take advantage of ordinary people's compassion for the less fortunate.
Ta. Akubra doffed in your direction.
Dear Trooper Thompson
The only solution to the problem of ‘welfare junkies’ is to dismantle the benefits trap; the system which penalises those who do actually earn money, either by presenting them with effective marginal tax rates close to 100% and in some instances above, or by encouraging them to not declare earnings and thereby become ‘criminal’. These are people with incomes near subsistence level, faced with withdrawal rates close to 100% of their marginal income above £5 per week – a figure which hasn’t changed in decades. The benefits trap has evolved over many years and many governments to create the underclass we observe today. It obviously suits whoever is in control that this continues, otherwise it would be changed and marginal withdrawal rates reduced: compared with 100% even the 50% bemoaned by the rich would be welcomed by the poor.
Two possible solutions:
1 Abolish all income taxes, including both national insurance taxes. The poor would have to seek charity from local sources. Income tax requires gross state intrusion into private affairs, which is why states like it so much.
2 Replace all benefits with personal allowances and a flat tax which is negative when income is below the taxpayer’s total allowances. Everyone faces exactly the same marginal tax rate irrespective of income.
Any shortfall of tax revenues over expenditure will require government to downsize. This is why it won’t happen – see above.
DP
DP,
certainly the benefit trap must be ended, and I agree with the points you make. Possible solution number one has a lot of appeal, not so much in respect to solving the problem of this post as in general principle. It would force a major reduction in the role and scope of the state that would be most welcome. Number two I would counsel against, on the grounds that it would produce similar distortions as the present system of perverse incentives.
A major part of the problem is the culture of entitlement, which has replaced the traditional stigma of being on welfare. The positive flipside of that coin was the greater sense of self-worth of the independent man or woman, poor perhaps but respectable.
Unfortunately, I doubt if this government has the moral courage or conviction to do much more than posture, cut a few benefits and then give them back in the face of the howls of anguish. For moral courage you need principles, after all.
Post a Comment