Work is Temporary.
Oct. 12th, 2010 02:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
emanixI've been thinking a lot about the impermanence of things lately, and there will be a more abstract post about this at some point, but this has been annoying me specifically this week.
I usually keep my nose out of politics, but I've noticed an odd blind spot lately, particularly in opinion articles about the benefits system in the UK. The blind spot is the assumption that things will continue to be as they are in perpetuity. That is, families who are unemployed and living off benefits will continue to be unemployed and living off benefits, and families who are high-earners and paying taxes will continue to do so, thereby subsidising the 'lazy layabouts'. Or conversely that virtuous families who are on low incomes and struggling are kept there by the system of privilege and can never escape. Now, perhaps for a certain proportion of the people in this system, each of these might be the truth, but they both miss the point of the entire benefits system.
Social benefits exist because whatever situation you are in now is temporary. Work is temporary. Health is temporary. Your current age is most definitely temporary. Being out of work, or ill, or old tends to be temporary also. The entire point of jobseekers benefits, and health related benefits, and pensions is not to encourage people to rely on the state, but because these things could happen to anyone. (They also exist because people who are out of work, ill and desperate are more likely to commit crime if they can't afford food, shelter, heat. So the taxpayer benefits from people having a safety net in that way too. Just sayin'.)
I find it bizarre that the bigots complaining about paying taxes can't imagine a situation in which they themselves might be ill, or homeless, or old, and in need of help. The lack of imagination astounds me. Banks collapse, families break up, companies go bust unexpectedly. Illness is unpredictable. You simply can't insure for everything.
Enlightened self interest, people?
Just like the national lottery... it could be you.
I usually keep my nose out of politics, but I've noticed an odd blind spot lately, particularly in opinion articles about the benefits system in the UK. The blind spot is the assumption that things will continue to be as they are in perpetuity. That is, families who are unemployed and living off benefits will continue to be unemployed and living off benefits, and families who are high-earners and paying taxes will continue to do so, thereby subsidising the 'lazy layabouts'. Or conversely that virtuous families who are on low incomes and struggling are kept there by the system of privilege and can never escape. Now, perhaps for a certain proportion of the people in this system, each of these might be the truth, but they both miss the point of the entire benefits system.
Social benefits exist because whatever situation you are in now is temporary. Work is temporary. Health is temporary. Your current age is most definitely temporary. Being out of work, or ill, or old tends to be temporary also. The entire point of jobseekers benefits, and health related benefits, and pensions is not to encourage people to rely on the state, but because these things could happen to anyone. (They also exist because people who are out of work, ill and desperate are more likely to commit crime if they can't afford food, shelter, heat. So the taxpayer benefits from people having a safety net in that way too. Just sayin'.)
I find it bizarre that the bigots complaining about paying taxes can't imagine a situation in which they themselves might be ill, or homeless, or old, and in need of help. The lack of imagination astounds me. Banks collapse, families break up, companies go bust unexpectedly. Illness is unpredictable. You simply can't insure for everything.
Enlightened self interest, people?
Just like the national lottery... it could be you.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-10-12 01:57 pm (UTC)I think the well off see themselves as immune because they usually have golden parachutes of some kind. That and when someone in those circles does falter, they're usually never heard from again. They don't show up at the country club anymore.
While we continue to let lobbyists run Washington, and elect wealthy representatives and senators, it's not likely to change.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-12 01:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-12 03:31 pm (UTC)*sigh*
I guess there are people walking around with their brains switched off in every area.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-12 02:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-12 02:40 pm (UTC)One of my partners was on sickness benefit for a decade before slowly getting well enough to work again. Now he's struggling again and is petrified of ending up back on benefits once more. Seeing the current UK government talking about cutting that safety net really doesn't help his stress levels.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-12 08:38 pm (UTC)Yes this - a nuance I didn't quite capture, I feel.
As I'm fond of saying in conversations about privilege, it is hard to see the mountain when you're standing on it, but I can't quite believe that this lot don't feel how the bracing wind at the top could just as easily knock them off.
Sympathy to your partner. I've been there, and am very aware of how fragile things really are.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-12 04:37 pm (UTC)With the current Government, I'm afraid they probably can't imagine that situation - most of them come from very wealthy and privileged families and have had trust funds, property investments and stocks and shares to back up their working incomes, so even if they did find themselves out of work, they would never find themselves in genuine need. There may, for the more nouveau-riche Tories, be a family story of how great-great-grandfather pulled himself up by his bootstraps from humble beginnings but that only serves to cement the notion that hard work will get you to the top in life - conveniently ignoring the thousands who worked just as hard as Good Old Pop and died in penniless old age.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-12 05:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-12 08:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-12 11:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-12 05:55 pm (UTC)I had guilty feelings of hope about this recession: the one in the 80s mostly seems to have been a class centred / North-South recession, where this time it looked more likely to spread the misery around. Because I anticipated the plaintive wail of Daily Mail readers finding that when they did go and sign on it turned out they weren't given a new TV, house in #nice-part-of-town, a car and an unlimited supply of liquor.
Though while I hoped it would bring them down to earth about what life is like on the income they deem a luxury, it would probably have just been held up to prove that these things were only on offer to the unemployed masses if they were black / gay / immigrant / %daily-mail-enemy-du-jour%
(rest of comment deleted as I realised I was just heading into Medium Grade Ranting)
no subject
Date: 2010-10-12 06:45 pm (UTC)Wise words, madame. The thing about this fact is, sadly, that everyone knows it, after all. They just don't want to accept it...
no subject
Date: 2010-10-12 08:18 pm (UTC)Something odd seems to have happened to your link though. Let's try again (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urxGJRu1pRY)
no subject
Date: 2010-10-12 09:03 pm (UTC)Kicker
Date: 2010-10-14 05:54 pm (UTC)It boggles my mind because they *have* experienced the temporary-ness of these situations, yet are still convinced the safety nets should not be there anymore. Those same safety nets that caught them and helped boost them back up to be contributing members of society.