| SHOULD WE SPEND MORE ON THE POOR? |
||
ç
|
||
The Government is
planning to spend £200m of lottery money in an effort to reduce truancy and youth crime.
8,000 homework clubs will be the first venture of the new Social Exclusion Unit. The
announcment came as the government faces a backbench revolt in the Commons over its plans
to cut lone parent benefits. The Social
Exclusion Unit will co-ordinate efforts to help free the most alienated and disadvantaged
people in society from the vicious circle of poverty, unemployment and crime. Many people would say that the poor should help themselves. They say that
the government doesn't have to throw money at the poverty Others say that poor people need the government's support to help them get
out of the vicious circle of poverty, unemployment and crime. What do you think? Would
more benefits make a difference? Do we already use too much money helping the poor? Should we spend more on the poor? Your reaction Why should the
poor be handed more money? Many of us work extremely hard to ensure that we have a steady
income rather than simply expecting handouts. The more money that is given to the poor for
no reason, the more they will fall into the mentality that they should be given handouts,
and the less likely they are to try and get some honest decent work. Benefits do not
encourage slothùrather they allow the under- and unemployed to maintain dignity and
continue to participate in society. The money
spent on the poor ultimately returns and pays dividends as they too spend money on food,
housing, clothing, etc., investing in the economy and thus helping to create jobs. Forcing
the poor out of society, their homes, into starvation and ill-health helps nobody and will
cost us all more in the end as we try to clean up the massive problems caused by 18 years
of Tory greed and willfull mismanagement. Asking if we
should spend more on the poor is not as straight forward as it sounds. The question we
should really be asking is who is poor. I believe that ôpovertyö does not exist in
Britain today. What is claimed to be poverty is by the standards of many nations luxury.
One idea which puzzles me is that crime and poverty are linked. In nations with real
poverty stealing to survive could be justified. In today`s UK crime is commited to feed
addictions, and to add to a relatively luxurious lifestyle. Since nothing in
world is totally independant. The relationship between the rich and the poor should be a
mutually beneficial one. They are the driving force in economics. Poverty is a man made
tragedy.What does it profit a government to have a surplus in revenue while its country
men, women and children go hungry. The question of
spending more public money on reducing the current poverty level cannot be in any doubt.
If the country as a whole is to enjoy its prosperity then it is vital that the Government
addresses the poverty question by concentrating its longterm investment programme on
reducing the level of unemployment. If the poverty situation is to be improved it is
critical that this is done by helping people to find work and therefore helping
themselves. Yes only if it's
guaranteed the poor are actually benefitting from the money and not just somebody claiming
to be poor. We need wiser
allocation of the funds we already invest in the poor: Perhaps the poor
should have a say. IsnÆt it strange that laws enacted that will effect the poor are made
by the rich? Yes, I think a
Social Exclusion Unit is a good idea. The idea that poverty relief simply spoils people
and makes them more dependent is just nonsense. No one wants to be poor. Saying that poor
people just need to help themselves is a cheap excuse for not having to put in any effort
ourselves. What the poor
need is what everyone needs, proper character training.
Throwing money at the problem only makes it worse, it encourages them to
remain in the same state in which they currently reside. Provide character training and
the poor will benefit monetarily and as moral beings. They are people, not entities in a
social experiment. How much money do
these people want? We already pay enough in our taxes - and charities want more money at
every term... can't they be encouraged to do more to help themselves? Without even more
money being spent. With all the spongers out there, we're just sending good money after
bad. Surely
participation in society, is a human right. How can the poor ever hope to realise this
goal, if they are prejudiced against from the start. Thus, to cure the problem we must
have self-help schemes which tackle the root cause of poverty - prejudice due to lack of
adequate skills and the continuance of a hierarchy of class caused by the inequality of
opportunities the previous government presided over. Who has the right to stand up and
judge someone before they are given a chance? It is both beneficial in moral and practical
terms to give more money to help the poor. Is the poverty of
some an inevitable consequence of the way society is?
If it is, then no matter how much money is thrown at the poor, the poor will
always be with us and to change that state of affairs would require something more more
radical. For a great many
people the question has been reduced to whether or not æWEÆ should be paying for THEM.
It is this cynical attitude, of people who regard their good fortune in life as some kind
of moral victory, thus excusing them for any responsibility for their neighbour, that must
be addressed if we are ever to treat society as a whole, rather than as a set of two
opposing camps. Is the issue
really how much we spend to help the poor, or how we spend it? Clearly the disadvantaged
need our help, but it seems that in most cases, we end up with masses of people dependent
on the government for survival. Just how are the young people in this environment supposed
to help themselves? Are they just to pick up and move to the suburbs? Which of us is ready to accomodate and
re-socialize them? I don't have the answers, but we should not fool ourselves into
thinking that disadvantaged people are able to make choices that don't exist. The fact that we
all live in the same society dictates that the richer group must make efforts in
eliminating poverty of the poorer group, if not out of compassion or love, at least out of
the consideration of their own benefits in doing so because I trust nobody sincerely
desires a society full of discontent, vice and crimes. There are human
beings out there who do not have the benefit of a good education. Governments need to
spend more money on a decent education for everyone, community projects with sports
facilities and support networks for single parents.A country should provide decent
healthcare and housing for everyone. Until this happens the wave of crime will continue
from generation to generation. We need to start somewhere and children are our future. Why not spend on
poor, as one third of the global population lives below subsistence level, the rich
nations can't imagine the hunger & misery facing the third world & poor nations. People have to be
given opportunity and hope. Without that the vicious circle of poverty and unemployment
never ends. It is time our society started to tackle the issues that have been ignored for
so long, especially by the previous Government. The selfish Look after number 1 mentality
has no place in the modern era. The extra money
should be spent only on ideas that make the poor do something for themselves, in order to
qualify for the money. Foe example, if the youngsters are prepared to go out and help the
aged in their area, by performing a regular chore, then this sort of contribution could be
rewarded, by giving them the chance to go on a skills course somewhere. It is the poor
who play the lottery in the hope of finding a way out of their situation. It is only right
that they benefit from the profits. The poor
do not go to musems, opera or the ballet, yet these institutions get millions from lottery
funds. Charity begins at home, being poor is not a choice. We need to spend more on the
environment that these people grow up in. Teachers should imptress on youngsters that they
are capable of changing things and there should be more money spent on training for those
who leave school at 16. |
||
