It doesn’t really matter what is said here. The insufferably wealthy leaders of the Western world are determined to destroy the welfare state and any argument will do.

Until the welfare state was formed, the rich lived in tax-free intergenerational wealth splendour. Sadly, for the last hundred years or so, the rich have been forced to pay taxes to support the people they exploit and those who fall between the cracks of the system that keeps the rich wealthy.

Capitalism is a fear-based system. Those who play the game are well rewarded, while those who do not are doomed to lifelong debt, fuelled by the fear of homelessness and starvation. Welfare alleviates the poverty of those who do not measure up to the capitalist system – and we can’t have that, can we?

Intergenerational welfare is the flipside of intergenerational wealth.

Yahoo, I can actually agree with Suse!

Of course contraception should be a 2 way street, the blokes should be chemically rendered impotent while picking up their welfare cheques, the sane as the ladies, that is just as important.

Of course Killarney has it all wrong as usual. Girl, "The insufferably wealthy leaders of the Western world" don't have to do a damn thing to destroy the welfare state. The bludgers, the Ne'er-do-wells & the bleeding hearts are doing that for them, much more quickly than anything they could do.

Add the assistance of the left & Labor, & it won't be much longer now. Greece here we come. Democracy will go with it of course.

Democracy with welfare has it's own built in destruction. Once one of the major parties decides to buy the bludger vote, & the bludger element realise they can simply vote for a living, that working is entirely optional, collapse is inevitable. It is just a matter of time before the vote buying taxpayer money runs out.

Have a look at the website Your Life Choices some time. It is full of bitching welfare recipients, mostly age pensioners, who continually want more handout. There are other sites catering to other whingers, who do nothing but complain they don't get enough.

Communism collapsed & millions starved because it did not reward productivity enough. Bread & circus destroyed Rome, as it will any community that does not demand responsibility to match entitlement

hasbeen

'it won't be much longer now. Greece here we come.'

For the record, until its economic collapse, Greece had the second lowest per capita welfare spending budget in Europe, but the highest military budget.

You wouldn't know it though, with the incessant cacophony of neoliberal media wankery proclaiming that it wuz the welfare wot did Greece in. As the West sinks deeper and deeper into military debt to finance its endless war on Islam and anything else that defies the Washington consensus ... well, as you say, Hazza - Greece here we come.

That's almost poetic, Killarney.

I have to admit I'm genuinely torn on this one. Over the years I've seen so many situations where innocent kiddies are saddled with appalling parents. While I've never called for sterilisation--actually a common refrain among the working class generally, and not just the professional class--I have thought it's a shame parents aren't obliged to show their credentials as parents prior to conceiving.

I'm against Johns' 'penultimate solution' because so far as I can see it's purely ideological, though in that case it's also contradictory. How does Johns square his government intervention with his beloved libertarianism? I can see why his mates are squeamish.

Having conceded as much, rather than blaming the generationally disadvantaged, or welfare, the spotlight should perhaps be on jobs, or rather the lack of them. There are nowhere near enough jobs to go around and nothing to repair the critical dearth of self-esteem suffered by these people.
The generationally disadvantaged are commonly isolated; geographically, educationally and socially. They are in the gutter and commonly given over to drug abuse, crime, violence and maladjustment generally.
Johns' solution does nothing to address their plight, fostered by the system that propagates it, which offers little in the way of an alternative lifestyle. They either remain on welfare and die of attrition, or they're driven onto the streets. Either is acceptable for Johns and his elitist class of spoiled rich.

These people do not live off other people's earnings; the overpaid live of them!

An alternative solution might be to limit household income, beyond which point one of a couple must cease work, creating job opportunities for others. The like's of Johns could have his pay stopped, or taxed progressively beyond a 'decent' threshold, compromising his incentive to go on working so that another could take his place.

I am sick of these smug bastards sitting back in the lap of luxury, drawing kudos from the chronically disadvantaged.
It's a complacent disease from Johns' professional class right down to cashed-up bogans. You are not there by merit! But the luck of the draw!

Squeers, by limiting the amount of high value work (that few are able to do) done in the country, such a restriction would actually make less work available for everyone else, as funding people's wages would become more difficult.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen
>>Democracy with welfare has it's own built in destruction. Once one of the major parties decides to buy the bludger vote, & the bludger element realise they can simply vote for a living, that working is entirely optional, collapse is inevitable. It is just a matter of time before the vote buying taxpayer money runs out.<<

You're making two false assumptions:

• You assume that bludging is what most people want to do. In reality it's not even what most unemployed people want to do!

• You assume most people's voting choices are entirely selfish. In reality that's not the case at all. I've always voted for the party that I think would run the country/state better. Haven't you?

The real problem isn't a lack of incentive, but rather a lack of opportunity.