45 2 mins 8 yrs

Interesting on this Easter Sunday morning to read that Four churches have joined forces to accuse the government of welfare payment cuts they say are unjust and target society’s most vulnerable.

The Easter criticism has come from the Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Methodist and United Reformed Churches, and the Church of Scotland. They also want to see a change to “a false picture” of the poor as “lazy”.

So, blessed are the idle for theirs is the kingdom of manna. Blessed are the job dodgers for they shall inherit your taxes. The empty headed rabbiting of these socialists in dog collars can be contrasted with the clear headed Christianity expressed by Margaret Thatcher when she famously pointed out ..

“No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions; he had money as well.”

These clerical clowns would ensure that the good Samaritan was forced to hand over his cash.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

45 thoughts on “BLESSED ARE THE IDLE…

  1. There are just so many highly-paid jobs out there that I can’t believe that anybody would prefer to be on benefits.

  2. //“No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions; he had money as well.”//

    But surely at least on days like today people remember more Jesus, who had no money but good intentions.

  3. Alan,

    To get a ‘highly paid job’ you need a decent education, and that is becoming a rarity – unless your parents had a ‘highly paid job’. Of course, a special skill might help, such as ability at some knucklehead sport, but then they do tend to go to foreigners, don’t they? as our recent Olympics and Premier league football show us every week.

    Even the most menial of jobs seem to be filled by anyone other than a Brit! How very depressing it must be to be without hope, ambition or incentive.

    Thank you Tony – you may just be remembered in the history books, – but with disgust and contempt for your failed multi-culty experiment, – I see that even you prefer anywhere but UK, news of your recent move on Burma, – a country governed by yet another junta, – confirms you as the ultimate hypocrite. I hope those Generals wore rubber gloves when shakin your hand!

  4. Noel,

    But this is but one day in 365, make it two if you celebrate Christmas.

    As they say – ‘The road to Hell is paved with good intentions!’ – and our various UK governments have amply proved that to be true.

  5. Here it has been the churches who lost their way, by mixing politics with religion.

    There is a welfare industrial class there, with people who spend a lifetime on the couch watching telly.

    Jesus never signed up for that.

  6. Ernest – I was being sarcastic even about the highly-paid jobs. There are none for aspirant youth – none at all except the few reserved for the children of those in good positions. That’s why David’s exhortations to reduce ‘benefits’ put the cart before the horse.

  7. I didnt start in a highly paid job

    I worked hard to get it

    Thats how it is done for most

  8. As a post the other day pointed out, the welfare budget is not falling so the government is certainly not spending less on the poor.

    Therefore when the churches are complaining about welfare cuts they must be upset by something else.

  9. Mahons,

    I look forward to the day when you eventually grow-up and leave your mischief making days behind you.

    My comments were not against the ‘poor’, – if there really is such a thing in the UK, – but meant to show my contempt for our collective politicians, who like our legal profession seem to be bereft of even the wit thay were born with.

  10. Phantom,

    And that’s the way it should be, – inspiration, incentive and competence.

  11. Considering that a large portion of the poor in any country are children, the “I work hard for my money/position” doesn’t always fly. And as everyone knows…it is easier for some than others to climb out of the poverty hole depending on a number of factors and varying demographics. With that said, it is a mistake to have made it more profitable to accept benefits than work. The Newsletter has an article today that defines poverty for children: “Child poverty targets are based on those households earning 60% of the UK median income – £251 a week before housing costs and £215 a week after housing costs. In annual terms this equates to earnings of £13,052 a year before housing fees are paid, or £11,180 afterwards.” http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/headlines/more-than-a-fifth-of-ni-kids-in-poverty-1-4954273

  12. mairin2 –

    “With that said, it is a mistake to have made it more profitable to accept benefits than work.”

    Depends from whose viewpoint. It was deliberate policy by people of bad intent who knew full well what they were doing. In terms of public choice theory and the interests of politicians and bureaucrats, it’s been a roaring success.

  13. To get a ‘highly paid job’ you need a decent education, and that is becoming a rarity – unless your parents had a ‘highly paid job’

    Ernest is absolutely correct. It’s difficult to argue against the ‘welfare class’ when a good education is fast becoming a privelege for those that can afford it.

    No sane person would argue against progression in the employment market based on the meritocratic approach but sometimes, (often?), hard work and dedication just aren’t enough.

  14. And besides children…’Women make up half the world’s population and yet represent a staggering 70% of the world’s poor. We live in a world in which women living in poverty face gross inequalities and injustice from birth to death. From poor education to poor nutrition to vulnerable and low pay employment, the sequence of discrimination that a woman may suffer during her entire life is unacceptable but all too common.’ The Global Poverty Project.

  15. Re: children –> poverty –> education — it’s not just about affordability; it has been shown time and again that poverty is related to poor educational achievement, which in industrialized societies leads to high drop-out rates. Hence, higher education is not even an option. And I forget where I read it but back in the 60s (I think), one in ten children lived in poverty; today, it’s three in 10.

  16. Mahons.
    Why are there so many “poor” in our society?
    Or put another way, how did we get to the stage where so many are in receipt of benefits, the sum of which makes paid employment an unattractive proposition?
    Is it the Church’s fault or the State?
    In one sense charity has been commercialised and taken over by the State. When individual churches try to rustle up some help, they have to jump through all sorts of bureaucratic help, so that the spontaneity and personal response to a need is crushed.

  17. mairin2 –

    Definitions of poverty have changed over time. In the 60s you were poor if your outdoor toilet roof leaked. Today you’re poor if you can only afford the previous model iPhone.

  18. That may be true Pete but it means nothing to the pensioner that has to choose between heating or eating.

  19. I’m aware of that Pete…NYer asked the question: how poverty was defined in the UK, I just provided an answer. I’m aware that poverty is relative from era to era, country to country, etc.

  20. Of course, that many children have but one parent, it is no small wonder that so many are described as ‘in poverty’.

    The governmen insired culture shift away from the traditional family life with the absence of any viable role model doesn’t help matters, as does the fact that this decline in working class achievement has now been with us for at least four decades and those who are now parents are themselves the product of what can only be described as ‘broken families’.

    The search for employment, and/or accomodation, has seen a generational split in the family structure, it is now very common for parents and grandparents to live very seperate lives, often only having infrequent contact. Hard to define whose fault that may be, but it is hardly conducive to what used to be called a ‘family life’.

    That government seem to encourage this collapse of the family can only be seen as a major tragedy. I only hope that they realise just what they are doing, and that a poor, uneducated, feral working class is yet another of their unintended consequences, and is not some deliberate political move to avoid responsibility for their ineptitude.

    In passing I would mention that the figures that Mairin quoted as being a poverty level, are pretty commonplace among retiree couples – many of whom wished they were that wealthy.

    I remember Bevan stating when introducing the national pension scheme, that ‘all would contribute the same, and all would receive the same’, and that ‘same’ would be some 80% of the blue collar average wage.

    That the State pension is now something less than 30% of the average blue collar wage says all we need to know just what a lying idiot he was, – of course he to, was ‘well intentioned’.

    Apologies for the small diversion.

  21. Paul McMahon –

    Don’t tell it to me, tell it to the government which viciously robs the pensioner with its many punitive taxes on heating and food production.

  22. Most of the benefits are paid to people in work, so why stigmatise them for being idle? Why not stigmatise the employers paying slave wages or the landlords demanding high rents in areas of deprivation?

    The free-market response should be to stop subsidising tax-dodging employers and landlords. Instead we have demonisation of all who receive benefits as lazy scroungers.

  23. The same taxes that contributes to the paltry state pension Pete?

    Tell me, what would your alternative be for the pensioner that hasn’t got a private pension plan?

    Why not stigmatise the employers paying slave wages or the landlords demanding high rents in areas of deprivation?

    Be careful Peter. You can get burned at the stake for saying things like that around these parts.

  24. Paul McMahon –

    So the pensioner must be looted by the state so the state can pay him a pension? I’m sure that makes sense somewhere.

    I don’t offer an alternative for today’s pensioners. They’ve already been looted of hundreds of thousands of pounds and should not be cut adrift.

    Future pensioners should be told to make their own, private arrangements, which they will be able to afford because I won’t loot them of fortunes over their working lives.

  25. Peter –

    “Why not stigmatise the employers paying slave wages or the landlords demanding high rents in areas of deprivation?”

    Employers don’t set wages. Local competition for labour sets wages. In any case there is no such thing as a slave wage, quite obviously.

    If you want rents to fall then lobby for housing benefit to be abolished. It’s simply a subsidy to landlords. Do away with it and watch rents plummet.

  26. They’ve already been looted of hundreds of thousands of pounds and should not be cut adrift.

    Pete Moore

    On an average salary (£21,000) the tax and nic deductions are around £2,000. So the average earner would need to be very old to have paid more than £100,000 in their working lives, never mind low earnings when young, periods of unemployment and low wages when old (part-time) etc. The real scandal is that the nic deductions have always been spent by the state and never invested to provide a fund to pay state pensions.

  27. Peter –

    Income tax, including NI, is the least of it. The state loots more than half of average earnings when all taxes are taken.

  28. Peter,

    ‘spent by the state and never invested to provide a fund to pay state pensions.’

    That was a point raised by thinking people at the time the State pension was inaugurated. It was suggested that even if contributions were accepted for just six months before payments began it would not only give a funding cushion, but also be available for government investment, at a reasonable rate, in infrastructure, rather than going to ‘the market’ for funding at exorbitant rates, but no, the idea was turned down by the then Labour government, whether on advice from the banks, or for some dogmatic political reason, either way it has proved to be a big mistake.

  29. but no, the idea was turned down by the then Labour government

    Ernest

    The state pension was brought in by Lloyd George in “the people’s budget” of 1911, i.e. 13 years before the first Labour government, as I’m sure you know.

  30. Peter,

    Re your calculations of tax paid etc on a salary of 21,000. A person starting a private pension plan, when they were first able to do so back in the late 60’s, was limited to annual contributions to their fund of just 7% of gross salary. It wasn’t until the late 70’s that limits were raised and a final limit free year before retirement was enacted.

    For folk who funded their pension plan during the latter part of the twentieth century when salaries were miniscule compared to today’s eyepopping remunerations, it took real determination to accumulate a fund in excess of 100,000 or so, with which to purchase a worthwhile annuity. Brown’s raid on pension funds ruined many such plans, often cutting funds by more than 50%. It should have been a forewarning of things to come, yet he got away with it, – saviours of the world can often do that you know!

  31. Peter,

    That was a very limited and selective version of what was enacted in 1948 via the National Insurance Contribution.

    As ever Labour took a good idea and made a mess of it, – pretty much par the course.

  32. Peter,

    The same could be said of the health insurance schemes that were available long before the NHS. A good idea, and affordable, ruined by the reluctance to have any sort of payment or residence qualification before getting ‘free treatment’.

  33. Ernest

    Yes, agreed. But my Aspbergers winces at historical inaccuracies. It was the Liberals who founded the welfare state in 1911, not Labour in 1948.

  34. If you want rents to fall then lobby for housing benefit to be abolished. It’s simply a subsidy to landlords. Do away with it and watch rents plummet.

    Pete

    Yes, I posted this view a few days ago, maybe you missed it?

  35. I’m bad today research-wise…sorry…I’m on my way out the door but I also read somewhere but I can’t put my finger on it now that the UK’s welfare-to-work program was a failure. Similar programs have worked elsewhere and I don’t recall exactly why it failed in the UK—was it because the gov’t subsidized the employer completely?

  36. Hey Pete

    My forecast for the football season is still in place:
    Newton Heath
    The Sheiks
    The Sperz
    The Arse
    Chelski

    FA Cup: Newton Heath (nailed on to win tomorrow at the Bridge, probably helped by a key decision by the officials)

    Ferguson to retire at the end of the season with the Double, succceded by who *** **** cares?

    Benitez to swap with Mourhino, unless the special one goes to the Sheiks (Mancini is toast)

    Any views?

  37. Peter –

    Manure and Citeh are done for first and second. I still think Chelski will get third. Yestrday at Southampton was a disaster but I just think there’s enough quality in the squad to get enough points. The question for me is whether we or Sperz get fourth.

    They’ve had form and have the points, but we have the easier run in and I sense a more serious attitude up The Arse recently. Right now I think we might nip in by a point or two. If Gareth Bale does the decent thing and gets injured Sperz are toast.

  38. Thanks for the replies to the definition of poor. It seems to be about a thousand pounds a month. It is relative in every country. I wonder if it would be better considered as what it takes to pay for basic needs – food, shelter, clothing instead of relative to the wages of working people.

    The major victims of the current way are the children. We let people who have no realistic way of supporting and raising children have as many children as they want. Coming up with a way to restrict that would be very difficult, but probably the right thing to do.

Comments are closed.