Posted on 02/12/2007 2:26:05 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
One in three households across Britain is now dependent on the state for at least half its income, it emerged today.
Official government figures showed that more than seven million households are getting most of their income from government handouts.
The figures also reveal the huge gulf in welfare dependency between single parent and two-parent households.
The report is scathing about how New Labour welfare policy has been designed to "create beholden voters rather than independent people".
In many single-parent homes with two children, the proportion of families that would be financially crippled without state support is now as high as 61 per cent. That compares with just nine per cent in a two-parent home.
The figures, prepared by the Department for Work and Pensions but cited today in a new report from the Civitas think-tank, paint a stark picture of how Britain's dependency culture has grown over the last few decades.
Gordon Brown has been repeatedly attacked for building up a society heavily reliant on tax credits and other state aid. The Chancellor's tax credits scheme was "only the most prominent example of welfare policies intended to create a grateful electorate rather than free-thinking citizens", the report says.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
That's shameful. I wonder what our fraction is?
yes but have the dollars been adjusted for todays dollars on those charts? How about these figures as compared to GDP in 62 and again in 2005?
Wonder what would happen if those who are bearing the tax burden all stopped working and applied for welfare as well.
I recall reading a story a few years ago about a woman in England who was just a SORRY individual and had been on welfare for 11 years, had NOTHING wrong with her and was just lazy. She was about 31 and lived with her mum. Anyway, her benefits were cut and she was suing!
I was in England last year and one morning I saw a report on the telly about a family in "desperation". The problem was that neither the father nor mother worked at all, and they had 5 children with one one the way. The sympathetic female "reporter" was all in a tizzy about how the FREE three bedroom house being provided by the council to the family just wasn't adequate, and something had to be done to get them the much larger FREE house they deserved. The poor mother and father were just beside themselves about how unfair everything was, and how they deserve so much more than they're getting.
I knew then that Britan was very likely doomed. Once a society buys in to the idea that the purpose of government is "to make life fair" and to remove any negative consequences from peoples choices/lifestyle/ad nauseum, they are in a downward spiral that is almost impossible to recover from. The power that government requires to do those things that "make life fair" also inevitably lead to some form of totalitarianism because the average citizen is cowed into self-censorship. After all, you wouldn't want others to think you "unenlightened"?
Are you arguing for more government dependence?
The link to the report is in my post. Feel free to use it.
Excellent post from the Heritage Fndt'n, except I'd slightly amend the above sentence: the dependent relationship implies no reciprocal obligation incurred by the recipients of taxpayer-funded government largesse except for the single expectation that they will select the straight ticket option for Democratic Party on election day.
I guess by leaving out that pertinent part of the equation, the guys at Heritage were just trying to seem bipartisan? ;-)
We're rapidly getting there in this country. The ever-shrinking middle class can not afford to support the vast welfare underclass, as well as the aging hippie Boomers. When the system finally crashes, it will be epic.
"The American Democratic experiment will succeed until the people realize they can vote themselves money from the public treasury... then it will collapse." De Tocqueville
Being a brit this is the saddest news I've read in ages but deep down I'm not surprised at these figures, this country is very sick and in dire need of medical attention. What makes it even worse is that we constantly critisize European states i.e. France, Germany for their burgeoning welfare states while all the time we've been reverting back to the same bloated state beuracracy that we was in the 1970s.......unbelievable!!
The prediction you make above is sadly just around the corner, and when you think how horrible the outcome could be with riots and stuff like that well!........it just doesn't bare thinking about!
I think I'll change my tagline back to what it was previously as it was more appropriate.
Persons who have re-thought the cause of Hitler's rise to power do point to the terrible collapse of the Mark in Germany. Even today stories are told of batches of useless money. People in utter desperation. I know there is indeed something a foot. Could it be that some sort of international fund keeps certain countries afloat?
I remember clearly my last wage in 1955,as a semi-skilled employee at an electrical conglomerate. It was 10 pounds four shillings and sixpence before deductions. (Yeah I know, a voice saying "e' earned low wages ,I made over 15 pounds a week").
Today the minimum wage is 5 pounds an hour, in England. Inflation then is twenty times greater. We were scathingly told in our time
Money does'nt grow on trees.
Canada very careful with money. A Toronto wage in 1955 was $50 dollars a week, unskilled- semi- skilled. Minimum now is $7.80 cents per hour. Call it $320 a week. Inflation now is about under seven times greater.
I ask myself, How does a country fund welfare and not have a massive productive base to pay for it? I believe that like Germany in the 1920's, the UK must print up money without the productive backing- hence the absolute expense of things there.
Sad.
No...just trying to understand the adjustments made to the data
I have a 50-Million Mark note that I purchased many years ago as a tangible reminder of one of the primary causes of Hitler's rise to power.
Did you know that the Fed no longer publishes M3?
Ah yes, memories and more memories. I too remember as a small boy. Stamp collecting was a widely known hobby. Yep, that stamp was often remarked on. 50 Millionen, or like that. The Daddy of them all was the one cent British Guyana. Only one exists.
One could remark on dictatorships that are beset by inhumane treatment of any naysayers. I hear inflation at a 1000 percent and so on. Revolution or insurgency is always in the offing.
Pardon my lack of knowledge.(chuckle). Could you inform me what is the M3.
The most common measures are named M0 (narrowest), M1, M2, and M3. In the United States they are defined by the Federal Reserve as follows:
- M0: The total of all physical currency, plus accounts at the central bank which can be exchanged for physical currency.
- M1: M0 + the amount in demand accounts ("checking" or "current" accounts).
- M2: M1 + most savings accounts, money market accounts, and certificate of deposit accounts (CDs) of under $100,000.
- M3: M2 + all other CDs, deposits of eurodollars and repurchase agreements.
As of March 23, 2006, information regarding M3 will no longer be published by the Federal Reserve. The other three money supply measures will continue to be provided in detail. On March 7th, 2006, Congressman Ron Paul introduced H.R. 4892 in an effort to reverse this change.[2]
That's how liberal politicians train people to love government and to want more government. This addiction to government handouts can bring about the downfall of a once great country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.