Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
This is a genuine question as my comprehension isn't at its' finest today.
Am I reading this correctly Daniel, seems you are saying that housing benefits can be overly generous and can provide people a better quality of life than they could make through working as they remove the cost of housing as an 'issue', which in turn allows them to live in areas their earning potential wouldn't allow them to?
If I am we agree twice in two days, bet you feel dirty now  |
That is exactly what I'm saying, and I'm indeed feeling very dirty indeed.
Quote:
|
You're very right of course, the purpose of any welfare state should be a safety net to ensure a minimum standard and quality of life, nothing more and definitely nothing less.
|
Yes, and we probably disagree on what the minimum standard should be. Personally, I am convinced there are many people that will probably never get back into work, and paying them the absolute minimum and have them live in ghettos (which we have plenty of as it is) is not a society I want to live in (if only cause they will nick my telly). Paying people the equivalent of the average wage before tax just so they can live in a nice house isn't on though.