|
Post by spaceflower on Feb 27, 2015 0:10:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 27, 2015 0:59:46 GMT
As far as I am aware - and I might be totally wrong so correct me if I am - people can only get benefits for drug or alcohol addiction if they are already in a treatment program. Okay I am intrigued so going to try and find out if this is true
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Feb 27, 2015 12:12:55 GMT
I look at the amount of tax I pay and it's not an insignificant sum. I have worked hard during my life, I've worked long and unsociable hours and I'm by no means unique.
This is my money that I have earned ( and every other taxpayer can say the same ) and it is taken off me.
I have no objection to supporting people who, through no fault of their own, need help and support, indeed I'm part of a charitable organisation dedicated to doing just that. That is what any decent human being should do.
I would, however, like to hear any possible argument that would justify or condone the giving of money to people who have engaged in a course of actions that are so excessive they threaten their ability to work and thus support themselves.
Smoking does not stop anyone from seeking work, nor does enjoying the occasional drink, nor does being overweight. There are many people who are overweight or who drink or who smoke and the vast majority of these people either work and contribute taxes or they actively seek work.
It is morally indefensible to actively support anyone who is using that support to destroy themselves. Hard earned taxes should and must be used to support those who need support. They should never be used to fund the means of destruction for those who are engaged in the self destructive process.
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Feb 27, 2015 14:14:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 27, 2015 15:25:13 GMT
This argument can be used to mean suicidal people should have to pay for their own medical treatment. Why should taxes be used to support people who purposely harm themselves? It's a mean-spirited argument from a mean-spirited government who only have time for strong successful people.
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Feb 27, 2015 17:23:17 GMT
It's almost like they are a think-tank of how they can destroy the economy! All cutting "expense" and jobs does is to create less movement of money within the population, leading to stagnation. The only people really harming the economy are those who either sit on great piles of money or shovel it abroad, taking it effectively out of the system. By targeting the real problem of the rich, they'd end up putting a gun against their own heads!
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 27, 2015 22:27:48 GMT
i've not been able to find out if people are eligible for benefits due to addiction without seeking help first as whenever I google I get contradictory results. I do not have a problem with alcoholics or drug addicts getting benefits provided that they ARE prepared to try and address their addiction (which, let's be honest, is not an easy task). I do not think that any favours are done to anyone by allowing someone to claim long term for an addiction without offering help but - sometimes the help is not so easy to come by. I went to hospital three months ago and begged for admittance because I felt that my drinking had reached a level that was killing me. I was sent home with a handful of leaflets. Not helpful.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Feb 28, 2015 0:12:30 GMT
Exactly. The help needs to be there - to penalise people without having adequate help in place is wrong. But I wonder how many people we are taking about here? How many really can't work because of obesity? Once again it strikes me that the government is looking for just another headline grabbing scapegoat. It is morally indefensible to actively support anyone who is using that support to destroy themselves. Hard earned taxes should and must be used to support those who need support. They should never be used to fund the means of destruction for those who are engaged in the self destructive process. What about the NHS? Should public money be spent on people who become sick because of unhealthy lifestyles and refusal to give up smoking/drinking too much/junk food etc?
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 28, 2015 17:27:35 GMT
Remember too that substance abuse and mental illness often go hand in hand and fuel one anoter
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2015 22:04:56 GMT
My dad is obese and he has diabetes type 2. Co tray to what many people may think, he got the diabetes first and because it wasn't discovered for years, he became obese and suffered other lasting damage which makes it impossible for him to work. How do you even judge why that person became obese and whether they are really able to do something about it by themselves? And while I know and have known people with eating disorders who seek help, these people often relapsed. Even those who are severely anorexic sometimes have to wait to get treated.
As usual, it is the weak people and the poor ones they target. People who, often enough, have worked and have paid taxes while the rich ones too their money to Swiss banks, making their country lose more money in taxes that were not paid than addicted people cost the country.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 28, 2015 22:49:01 GMT
I am inclined to agree. I think help should be made available but I do not see how anyone benefits from cutting off addicts and making them homeless. They will get a fix one way or another and crime or begging will be their only other route. Best to HELP them
|
|
|
Post by jayme on Feb 28, 2015 23:18:06 GMT
Also, when you take away people's benefits, they no longer have money to spend, and then more businesses fail and people lose their jobs. This is why 'austerity measures' aren't helping where they are being implemented.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Mar 1, 2015 0:31:06 GMT
a look around my local high street would confirm that
|
|