• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Look at how social welfare bring UK down

If welfare can be allocated by private institutions and by private donations, it means two things: one, that there is a need for the welfare and two, that welfare can be distributed in a way that can reach the recipients of need and not wrongly given to others which are not so deserving. And this is the model that the Govt is promoting. If it can work in such a non-public manner, surely it should not be an issue for a Govt department to undertake this function with even better control that will also ensure that the administrators of these welfare funds do not dishonestly have these diverted. Why then is the Govt shirking this responsibility?
 
So how did NKF and Ren Ci work out for you? :rolleyes:

Relying solely on private allocation to charity is a foolish notion because it does not ensure people or causes that need it most receive funding. Again, the squeaky wheel gets greased. Just because I like little animals more than I like aged folks does not mean they should receive more funding over the aged poor. Or that in aggregate everything will work out, you retarded gay dog. No one is stopping you from starting a charity or helping cats and dogs after the vulnerable members of the community has been taken care of.

Another brainwashed convert to the cult of Invisible Hand.

What you're not cognisant of is that at the very heart of it all is self-interest. You care not for the well-being of others but the assuagement of the transient, vicarious suffering you experience via the mirror neurons in the brain when you witness suffering. We've all experienced it before. Once this uncomfortable feeling subsides, you would be back to your world of materialism and consumerism. It's never tedious for me to point out the fact that bleeding hearts like you have enough $ to buy a computer but do not have enough to buy food for the poor in Singapore. The invisible hand reflects the true wishes of individuals. The problem is that hypocrites like you aren't willing to face your true, selfish nature.
 
Agreed with Scroobal we shldnt get the politics mixed up with something that's a basic state responsibility, like defence , education, transport infrastructure. Healthcare is one of them. If left to free market forces, it will be what economists called a market failure, where no one will find it profitable or worth his while to invest in. Who will want to build the first railway, or the first hospital or pay for a standing army? You need a state apparatus to collect taxes and channel them to such purposes.

When hunters became gatherers and settled down to a less nomadic life, people group together into nation states to achieve certain objectives - security and strength in numbers, pooling of resources, etc. It is inconceivable that the state can avoid being responsible for health. Something so statutory.

I dont know why people who understands little of high faluting ideas and big words continue to spout nonsense when it is simply a pooling of risks and sharing of sunk costs.

You're assuming everyone has a vested interest in the collectivist risk-sharing that you espouse. As counterintuitive as it may seem to you, I'm better off without the collective bargaining of the state. No, I do not want discounted rates for medical care. Just don't arrogate 40% of my income to pay for those whom I have no affiliation with. :)
 
If welfare can be allocated by private institutions and by private donations, it means two things: one, that there is a need for the welfare and two, that welfare can be distributed in a way that can reach the recipients of need and not wrongly given to others which are not so deserving. And this is the model that the Govt is promoting. If it can work in such a non-public manner, surely it should not be an issue for a Govt department to undertake this function with even better control that will also ensure that the administrators of these welfare funds do not dishonestly have these diverted. Why then is the Govt shirking this responsibility?

Private allocation of welfare could only allocate welfare according to the whims and desires of private individuals whereas state-allocated welfare functions within the rigid strictures of conventional moral axioms. I prefer the former actually. If I prioritise the welfare of cats over that of humans, who are you do-gooders to tell me I'm wrong/immoral to do so? And more pertinently, what gives you the right to decide for me how money that I earned should be spent? I didn't accrue my wealth from thin air. Wealth was generated by my fulfillment of the responsibilities I have towards those who spend on my services. I have already done my part. Other than that, I've no obligation whatsoever to the externalities of others. It's not the business of the cigarette producer to protect cigarette smokers from addiction and lung cancer. Market failure is a result of the lack of foresight and judgement, not self-interest per se. It's entirely possible for everyone to work collectively and sacrifice their selves towards a "noble", shared purpose only to bring detriment to each and everyone. The Great Leap Forward, anyone? ;) :D

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand"I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or"I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation

Margaret Thatcher
 
Last edited:
I think you made your point clear. Not all are prepared to see any form of help or welfare extended no matter what the degree. You do realise that if the majority take that approach, society will descend into chaos eventually, slow but sure. The poor and the incapable will be on the streets begging, resorting to crime and whatever can lead to them to getting a square meal.

There would no reason to adhere to any form of social values and norms.

You're assuming everyone has a vested interest in the collectivist risk-sharing that you espouse. As counterintuitive as it may seem to you, I'm better off without the collective bargaining of the state. No, I do not want discounted rates for medical care. Just don't arrogate 40% of my income to pay for those whom I have no affiliation with. :)
 
What you're not cognisant of is that at the very heart of it all is self-interest. You care not for the well-being of others but the assuagement of the transient, vicarious suffering you experience via the mirror neurons in the brain when you witness suffering. We've all experienced it before. Once this uncomfortable feeling subsides, you would be back to your world of materialism and consumerism. It's never tedious for me to point out the fact that bleeding hearts like you have enough $ to buy a computer but do not have enough to buy food for the poor in Singapore. The invisible hand reflects the true wishes of individuals. The problem is that hypocrites like you aren't willing to face your true, selfish nature.

I am saying that relying solely on private charities does not work, in case you didn't comprehend.

Society is built upon mutual trust and support. Self interest won't save you, when you get cardiac arrest in the streets. Passer-bys might know CPR, but it might be in their self interest to mug you instead. The state of course will mug you again when you are dead, since your organs might be worth more for sale to medical tourists than your lifetime economic contribution to the state.
 
Private allocation of welfare could only allocate welfare according to the whims and desires of private individuals whereas state-allocated welfare functions within the rigid strictures of conventional moral axioms. I prefer the former actually. If I prioritise the welfare of cats over that of humans, who are you do-gooders to tell me I'm wrong/immoral to do so? And more pertinently, what gives you the right to decide for me how money that I earned should be spent? I didn't accrue my wealth from thin air. Wealth was generated by my fulfillment of the responsibilities I have towards those who spend on my services. I have already done my part. Other than that, I've no obligation whatsoever to the externalities of others. It's not the business of the cigarette producer to protect cigarette smokers from addiction and lung cancer. Market failure is a result of the lack of foresight and judgement, not self-interest per se. It's entirely possible for everyone to work collectively and sacrifice their selves towards a "noble", shared purpose only to bring detriment to each and everyone. The Great Leap Forward, anyone?

your stance is remarkably similar to the Republicans in advocating less government. going back to 1st principles, governments exist as the representative of the people unless you wish to live in medieval europe under a fantasy benevolent philosopher king. by and large, elected governments will need to bend to the will of the majority in order to remain in power. only sociopaths and the very rich would believe themselves better off without the collective bargaining power of the state.

your ability to fulfill your responsibilities towards those who spend on your services, is contingent on the economic conditions created by the State/government. A doctor like susan lim could never have charged as much as she did if this were a developing country like Vietnam. your delusion is that you created wealth entirely on your own, through no merit of the State. you delude yourself by believing you will be able to generate wealth in Singapore even if you were last citizen left standing.

enlightened billionaires like warren buffet understand the collective responsibility we all share. you accuse citizens of not contributing to charity when they can afford laptops; the same can be said of a government who blows close to $400 million on a sports event of questionable merit, but denies a $50 increment to those on public assistance.

when i vote for a government that promises to raise taxes on those earning more than $250k/year to fund a basic welfare system, "I" am deciding for "You" how your money should be spent. thank goodness for the tyranny of the majority, least the 1% continues to own 99% of the wealth.

if you still believe you are not responsible for the externailities of others, i suggest you go buy yourself a deserted island and set up your practice there.
 
Last edited:
I am saying that relying solely on private charities does not work, in case you didn't comprehend.

I am saying that what "works" is subjective and relativistic. To you, what works is measured by egalitarian outcomes while I'm more slanted in favour of simply what benefits me. You care for the weakest and the ordinary while I care for those who contribute to my self-interest the most. You want the state to pour vast amounts of public funds to realise your social democratic ideal whereas I want the state to not hinder my accumulation of wealth which I spend a large portion of on my family, friends, cats and charity donations to the Third World. You want a state monopoly on welfare, I prefer to dictate welfare on my own terms.

Society is built upon mutual trust and support. Self interest won't save you, when you get cardiac arrest in the streets. Passer-bys might know CPR, but it might be in their self interest to mug you instead. The state of course will mug you again when you are dead, since your organs might be worth more for sale to medical tourists than your lifetime economic contribution to the state.

It's in my self-interest to live in a society where I need to contribute no more than an administration of CPR in times of emergency or face public censure in return for the same treatment to be given to me when I'm in need. It's not in my self-interest, however, to pay for the medical bills of others. As sympathetic as I am towards the well-being of others, I've greater priorities than that. :)
 
Last edited:
Meet the British bosses who say: Give us foreign workers every time

Figures released yesterday showed that the number of British workers in jobs fell by 311,000 in the past year, while foreign employees went up by 181,000. After the announcement, the Mail spoke to three businessmen about their own experiences and why they think foreign workers are getting the jobs


CHARLIE MULLINS - PLUMBING BOSS
The number of foreign employees at a leading firm of plumbers has doubled over the past two years because British workers lack the right work ethic.
Charlie Mullins, the 52-year-old founder of Pimlico Plumbers, said Britons would ‘rather be footballers than do an honest day’s work’.
Mr Mullins, whose firm has 200 staff, said he was forced to employ foreign-born people because they work harder than their British counterparts.

Charlie Mullins, who runs Pimlico Plumbers, claimed many Britons would 'rather be footballers than do a hard day's work'
‘We’re increasingly employing foreign workers. They have the right attitude and are prepared to work harder,’ he said.
‘The younger British generation who come in for interviews are often sent by the benefit people and have no desire to work.
‘It’s a case of “won’t work”, not “can’t work”. They feel as if the country owes them a living.’
He said the number of foreign-born workers he employed at the company, London’s largest independent plumbers, had doubled in the past two years to 40, or 20 per cent of his staff.
They are mostly from South Africa and work as plumbers and tradesmen, roles which command annual salaries between £50,000 and £70,000.
But he also employs workers from Ireland, Italy, Australia and Spain in various roles in both the administrative side of the business and the trade side.
More...Foreign workers take yet more UK jobs as number of Britons in work plunges and youth unemployment hits one million
'Lost generation' blighted by unemployment at risk of debt, depression and self-loathing, warn experts


And he said his foreign-born employees tended to earn more than native workers because they were willing to put in overtime and keen to increase their workload.
Mr Mullins, from Kent, founded the firm in 1979. It now has a turnover of £17million. But he said that many of the British people he interviewed for jobs had the wrong attitude and demanded too much.
‘British workers are too picky and choosy and not prepared to work hard,’ he said. ‘They are demanding ridiculous money.
‘Many of the young people who come in for interviews have never even been in a workplace. Many of them have degrees: I don’t need people with degrees – I need people with the right attitude.’



KEITH ABEL - ORGANIC GREENGROCER
Keith Abel has taken on foreign staff because British workers did not want to do jobs for his company
Keith Abel was forced to employ foreign-born workers because his popular firm, which delivers organic groceries, has struggled to find young British people to fill vacant positions.
He said some young Britons were trapped in the benefits system and did not want to get up early to do a job for £7-an-hour when they could rely on Government handouts.

Mr Abel, who started Abel and Cole more than 20 years ago, said: ‘We’ve got a fantastic workforce, we’ve got extremely hard-working people.
‘It’s just a bit of a tragedy that a considerable and significant number of them are from Eastern Europe and not the local communities given the rates of unemployment in the local area.’
He said his company could not recruit young British people to work for £7.25-an-hour as delivery drivers and that some young British people on benefits would rather receive handouts than work.
'People are not prepared to start with what they deem to be menial jobs. Terry Leahy, the head of Tesco, famously started stacking shelves. Everyone starts at the bottom'‘People who are in the benefits system struggle with the concept of getting out of bed at 5.30 to do a six o’clock until three o’clock shift on £7 an hour when the actual additional income they’d be taking home is initially very small,’ he told BBC Radio 5 Live.
‘The point is, the better-paid work comes for the people who start on the lower-paid work. There must be a solution whereby the Government is able to wean people off benefits rather than shut them off completely when somebody goes into a job.’

Mr Abel, 47, whose company turned over £30million last year, also said there was a reluctance among young people to start at the bottom and work their way up.
Mr Abel's company turned over £30m last year and he said he would happily find work for British people willing to work
He said: ‘People are not prepared to start with what they deem to be menial jobs. Terry Leahy, the head of Tesco, famously started stacking shelves. Everyone starts at the bottom.’
He said he would happily find roles for young British people who were out of work. ‘If people who are on the unemployment register want to ask us for jobs, we’d interview them in exactly the same way we interview anyone else,’ he added.
‘Business people are in there to do business. Politicians are in there to solve problems like unemployment.’



TERRY ROGERS - HOTEL OWNER
Terry Rogers says he has come to the sad conclusion that young Britons do not want to work
While horrified that more than a million young people in Britain are unemployed, I’m afraid I’m not at all surprised. After working in the catering industry for 16 years – many of those as a manager seeking to employ staff – I have come to the sad conclusion that many young people simply do not want to work.
Of course they say they want a job. They send off job applications and turn up for interviews. But when it comes down to hard graft, they are simply not interested.
The truth is that young people think the state owes them a living.

Underpinning everything is a welfare state which creates a culture where no one worries whether they have a job or not because there’s always free money from the Government to fall back on.
Also, brought up in school and home environments where criticism is practically non-existent, when they face the tough, challenging world of work, they are unable to cope.
To hear them complain about the shortage of jobs you would think they are desperate to work, willing to walk over hot coals to get a job. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

During my career, I have interviewed and employed many young people. And it shames me to say this but it was often easier to teach English to foreign applicants than it is to try to instill the right work ethic in our own English-speaking youth.
Time and again I see young people turn up for interviews wearing grubby jeans or tracksuits. They smoke and talk on the phone to their friends.
Many of them come with their partner or a parent (some even send their parents on ahead while they have a lie-in). What’s more, a lot don’t seem interested in the post at all – having turned up just so I can sign their Jobseekers’ Allowance form which means they can continue to receive welfare benefits.
One wretched soul told me he couldn’t work on Friday nights or Saturday mornings because he would be out with friends on Friday evenings and hung-over on Saturday morning!
Of those who do inquire seriously about the jobs, they often demand preposterous conditions. Many say they don’t want to work weekends or evenings because they want to go out with their friends. One applicant said the half-hour walk to work was too far.
One wretched soul told me he couldn’t work on Friday nights or Saturday mornings because he would be out with friends on Friday evenings and hung-over on Saturday morning! And they expect me to reward their commitment with a job?
Rather than interviewees doing their best to persuade me that I should employ them, the roles have become absurdly reversed with me having to persuade them to take the job.
Already I have had to let eight people go – and we have only been open since March – because they didn’t have the right attitude. One phoned in sick on his second day and never came back. Another lasted two weeks then she said the job was not for her because she missed Friday nights out with friends.

Another youngster was training for an NVQ qualification in our fine-dining team but lacked any ambition and decided life would be easier if she returned to her old job at a pub, where food was just heated in a microwave.

And I sacked one employee for phoning in sick, then posting pictures of herself at a social event on the same day on Facebook.

How then have we got ourselves into this ridiculous position?
All three managers argue that many British employees are more interested in taking benefits and going out drinking and socialising than holding down a job (posed by models)
Schools must take part of the blame. They teach subjects such as media studies, which give them false hopes about the type of jobs they can secure. There is a limit to the number of people who can work on The X Factor.
The tragedy is that so many youngsters seem devoid of real-life experience. This is where parents are at fault. From what I have seen, many parents have the same disengaged, uncommitted and welfare-sodden attitudes as their children.
Among many, there seems to be an utter absence of any sense of responsibility, work ethic or pride in contributing to society.
I recently gave a talk to a careers night at a local college. The youngsters stood slouched, hands in pockets staring up at the ceiling, some of them whistling under their breath. Not a single parent present chastised them for such unacceptable disrespect to an adult who had given up their time to address them.
There are those, however, who will do anything to secure a job.

I once interviewed a young man in Staffordshire. He had taken a ferry, train and bus from the Isle of Man to make the appointment. He was wearing a suit and tie.
Among many, there seems to be an utter absence of any sense of responsibility, work ethic or pride in contributing to society
I gave him a job as a waiter and he’s now an events manager for a university. You’ve probably guessed – he is foreign (having been born in Indonesia).
One of the best employees I ever had was a young Turk who barely spoke any English. He was so keen that I gave him a backroom job.

After infuriating weeks when other British employees had called in sick or turned up late, I put the Turk on the frontline. He was polite and friendly, happily juggling the job with two afternoons of English classes each week. He now manages one of the bars in Dublin Airport.

Job opportunities are certainly here and I want to give them to young people in my local area, but I’ve hit a wall. In desperation this week, I asked friends in the catering industries in Spain, Morocco and Holland to recommend any staff.

The first step to raise standards in our home-grown young is to admit that, for many, unemployment has become a personal choice to avoid hard work – and not an inescapable trap.

Please email to SDP. They want social welfare.
 
SDP no original ideas lah. They are only capable of two things: sneering at the ineptness of the PAPpies and parroting the concepts of the West.
 
Enough said. You just are either very ignorant or very naive. Others here have recommended you spend some time on a deserted island like Robinson Crusoe, but you may have to fend yrself against cannibals alone, who will most probably eat you alive within the first week. I shall recommend that you go to any of the failed states in Africa where civil wars are going on, and test your Custer last man standing bravado there. Have a good dose of lawlessness and bad government and practice yr enterprising skills where you need no man's help.

You're assuming everyone has a vested interest in the collectivist risk-sharing that you espouse. As counterintuitive as it may seem to you, I'm better off without the collective bargaining of the state. No, I do not want discounted rates for medical care. Just don't arrogate 40% of my income to pay for those whom I have no affiliation with. :)
 
You are not far off either. Look in the mirror for one good parrot of concepts that escape you.

SDP no original ideas lah. They are only capable of two things: sneering at the ineptness of the PAPpies and parroting the concepts of the West.
 
Enough said. You just are either very ignorant or very naive. Others here have recommended you spend some time on a deserted island like Robinson Crusoe, but you may have to fend yrself against cannibals alone, who will most probably eat you alive within the first week. I shall recommend that you go to any of the failed states in Africa where civil wars are going on, and test your Custer last man standing bravado there. Have a good dose of lawlessness and bad government and practice yr enterprising skills where you need no man's help.

Another fine example of the sinkie inability to appreciate nuanced, sophisticated arguments. Sinkies are really devoid of critical thinking. :D I took an effort to delineate the exact meaning of the terms and ideas I proposed but there's a limit to parsimony. I just can't simplify my ideas further for that sinkie brain of yours to comprehend. :rolleyes:
 
You are not far off either. Look in the mirror for one good parrot of concepts that escape you.

Oh. A foot soldier of the SDP. You guys don't really believe in freedom of speech, do you? SDP and PAP are just two sides of the same coin.
 
Another fine example of the sinkie inability to appreciate nuanced, sophisticated arguments. Sinkies are really devoid of critical thinking. :D I took an effort to delineate the exact meaning of the terms and ideas I proposed but there's a limit to parsimony. I just can't simplify my ideas further for that sinkie brain of yours to comprehend. :rolleyes:

Ha!!! You call that nuanced, sophisticated arguments? It's nothing more than a verbose and ponderous attempt to camoflauge your self-centredness. And the more you paint yourself into a corner, the more verbose and ponderous you became; a real desperate attempt to defend your shallowness, to no avail.
 
Bet you he doesnt even understand any of those terms and big words he throws out. Just a gas bag.

Ha!!! You call that nuanced, sophisticated arguments? It's nothing more than a verbose and ponderous attempt to camoflauge your self-centredness. And the more you paint yourself into a corner, the more verbose and ponderous you became; a real desperate attempt to defend your shallowness, to no avail.
 
Please email to SDP. They want social welfare.

Hong Kong has Social Welfare too, but the local people are still very hardworking.

Singapore has no Social Welfare, but the locals seems to find some decent jobs repulsive. They would rather sit at home to wait for the right job to come along. :rolleyes:
 
I am getting the impression that he is not talking about Govt but himself.

Again he has applied words in thr wrong context. I don't think he knows what "nuance" means.
Ha!!! You call that nuanced, sophisticated arguments? It's nothing more than a verbose and ponderous attempt to camoflauge your self-centredness. And the more you paint yourself into a corner, the more verbose and ponderous you became; a real desperate attempt to defend your shallowness, to no avail.
 
Hong Kong has Social Welfare too, but the local people are still very hardworking.

Singapore has no Social Welfare, but the locals seems to find some decent jobs repulsive. They would rather sit at home to wait for the right job to come along. :rolleyes:

I don't totally buy the "welfare dependency" argument either. Ambition is, more often than not, a greater incentive than the paltry sum that the government provides. Anyway, as I've said before, hard work is overrated. My contention against welfare is on moral grounds more than anything else. :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top