Thursday, 8 July 2010

Benefits and Benefitability or Why The Fuck Am I Wasting My Money On Parasitic Scum?

So, a few people have been whingeing – some directly, the more cowardly amongst them not so – about my perceived illiberal stance with regards to benefits and those granted refugee status.

Now, I say ‘perceived’ because I do not see anything particularly liberal about not reforming a system that throws money tax payer’s money at a people unwilling to contribute to society. Sure, the individual(s) receiving that money doesn’t have to do shit for it – in real fucking terms, going to sign on every couple of weeks and if you still haven’t found work, being made to go on a course for a week does not count! – So they’re free to do or not do whatever they want. However, those out working, earning and contributing to the system so that the whole fucking lot doesn’t collapse, have no choice but to give up a large percentage of their earnings to ensure just that. They lack the freedom to wake up at three pm, lounge around in their pant and do fuck all, or do all the things that those people slaving away would rather be doing.

Giving people money for nothing is an absurd ideology that breeds an inherent laziness in the population and a general, deep-seated psychological mentality that someone else is responsible for everything from giving some lippy kid in the street a slap when he gobs on your car to picking up litter from the communal garden at the front of your terrace. This mentality is so entrenched that now, when people do try to do something like clear the street of snow it’s possible for them to be prosecuted. Now that’s a fucked up state of affairs.

I can see people saying these issued are unrelated. These people fail to see that a society is a machine in which each part is reliant on the next – if one part goes tits up then the rest is sure to follow. No one issue is completely independent in our society, in the same way that no one individual can live completely independently within it.

I don’t give a flying fuck where the people come from; it’s inherently unfair for them to receive a boon for not contributing to a system they actively take from. I don’t care if they can trace their lineage back to King Alfred or if they turned up yesterday on the back of a large and previously unknown fucking dolphin – it doesn’t fucking matter. What does matter is that you shouldn’t be able to take when you contribute nothing. That is the way of the parasite.

If you’re in the pub and there’s one tight cunt that continually disappears when it’s his turn to get a round in, what do you do? You are rightly angry seeing as you have been ripped off so either you stop getting his – in which case he is forced to make a contribution – or you remove him from your group.

Why is it seen as bad form in the bar but we let bastards get away with the same shit on a massive scale every fucking day of the week and it’s enshrined in our minds as social fucking responsibility?!

People should have to pay tax for five years (arbitrary figure) before being allowed any type of benefit.* Allowances could be made if the amount of tax paid exceeds (x), I suppose, where (x) is equal or greater than the average 5 year contribution, but that’s a technicality.

If a system such as the above was instigated then it would actually make it an impossibility for people to sit on their arse and get paid for it.

And accepting more people, who haven’t contributed to the system on the back of a miserable excuse calculated to manipulate the hearts of the leftist political-correct fuckwits (who seem to be incessant in their tribble-like breeding!) just takes the piss.


*Incidentally, I do seem to remember DK arguing something similar to this – I would make the comparison but as far as I’m aware, the archives are still unavailable and I had been ranting about this before I stumbled across his blog.

4 comments:

lpetersson said...

So, you do a lot of whining...

Go on, suggest an alternative, outline the consequences and why they are better than the current system...

Complexmessiah said...

I've already suggested a scenario where you pay for a number of years before gaining eligibility to benefits.

lpetersson said...

No, you don't come up with anything even remotely realistic that looks like you have even thought about it for more than the couple of seconds it took to form as an idea and to being typed out.

complaining without providing well thought ideas for solutions is just whining by another word.

You also seem to forget that we need unemployment for a ... See morehealthy society, or would you rather like crazy inflation like in Germany in the 20s/30s? Or Zimbabwe where goods go up in price while you're waiting in a queue to pay for them?

Unemployment is used by the government to halt strong economies (Amongst other means, yes).

Furthermore, what do you think would happen if people genuinely had no money and got nothing from the state?
Welcome to the worst dystopian sci-fi movie where there is no social cohesion and crime is running rampant as the only means to survivie for people.

I fully understand that you might not like the idea of a social security net, but if you are going to whine, at least think about what you are writing and what the consequences of your suggestions might be.

Complexmessiah said...

My gripe is people benefiting from contributions paid by others. If no contributions have been paid and therefore no benefit built up then peope could earn a wage from government run community work projects - clearing wasteland, maintaining public buildings, picking up litter etc etc - or be forced into the job market propper where they'd be more likely to earn a higher wage.

Less people would be attracted into the country as the benefit system would be alot more strict and an increased number of people would be going into employment, so there would be more job opportunities.

This would also lead to a freeing up of funds for those individuals who are truly unable to work in any capacity through extreme mental or physical disability, for example meaning that they'd receive far better care.