Should foreigner ask about benefits?

Again, ethics have little to do with it.  If the majority of the people don't like that a certain benefit is available, then take it away by all means.  The use of said benefits should be above moral judgments.

You think it's ethical to use benefits to which you are not entitled?  With all due respect, what I was referring to was the abuse of benefits.  Like expat said, there are people who claim benefits to which they are not entitled with the hope that maybe they'll slip through the system and get them anyway.  I find that ethically irresponsible and not above moral judgement.  

Isn't this thread going round in circles a bit? It seems like everyone is just repeating themsleves over and over (myself included!) and we seem to be stuck on a semantic point, ie whether you consider the NHS a benefit or a universally available system. Compare it to the education system, that too is available to new immigrants but would you tell someone not to have more children because that would make them more of a burden on the school system than some other family?

modified to correct spelling errors, up past my bedtime!

Again, ethics have little to do with it.  If the majority of the people don't like that a certain benefit is available, then take it away by all means.  The use of said benefits should be above moral judgments.

But what about those who refuse to find a job and are then on all sorts of unemployment and other state benefits?  Aren't these people almost always subjected to moral judgment...?

PS: I pretty much agree with you about using NHS services that you are legally entitled to.  I am always uneasy when I hear that smokers or the obese should have a lower place on the waiting list because their diseases are somewhat self-inflicted.  I think everyone should be treated equally, and it's up to NHS and government policy to sort out who is entitled and who is not, and leave clinicians to determine treatment based on clinical outcomes.

I am a bit uneasy about getting childcare at the taxpayers' expense.  I can't really explain why - it's just a feeling.  I would probably be inclined to hang on until the children were in full-time education or until you have developed a social network within your community where you could basically trade babysitting duties with your neighbors.

Good luck in your investigations and future decisions.

I don't consider education a benefit in the same vein as child benefit or tax credits.  

Nor do I - I was comparing it to the NHS 

Apples and oranges, IMO. 

Oh well and apple a day keeps the doctor away and you're supposed to take your teacher an apple too!!  sorry it's late and i'm tired, anything seems funny now ...

You think it's ethical to use benefits to which you are not entitled?  With all due respect, what I was referring to was the abuse of benefits.  Like expat said, there are people who claim benefits to which they are not entitled with the hope that maybe they'll slip through the system and get them anyway.  I find that ethically irresponsible and not above moral judgement. 

No, and rereading what I posted, I don't think I even implied that.  I think a system gets itself in impossible knots when it gets moralistic.  If people manage to get benefits that they are not supposed to, then I think improving the system's ability to filter out cheaters would be more effective than a guilt campaign. 

But what about those who refuse to find a job and are then on all sorts of unemployment and other state benefits?  Aren't these people almost always subjected to moral judgment...?

Yes they are, which is perhaps part of the problem.  A marginalized population has enough impediments in trying to achieve the financial norm without feeling that they are bad people.  I must be in a wierdly optimistic mood, but I'd like to think that the majority of people would like the honest opportunity to do well and fit in with society.  There will always be slackers, whether it's a lazy corporate jackass who got his job by way of nepotism, or a poor kid who just doesn't care.  They just have to be fit into the equation.  Making them the focus of arguments about the merits of benefits is distracting from the real issues I think...to be honest though I'm not sure.  Maybe guilt is the one thing keeping us all working .

Thank you for your good wishes

No, and rereading what I posted, I don't think I even implied that.  I think a system gets itself in impossible knots when it gets moralistic.  If people manage to get benefits that they are not supposed to, then I think improving the system's ability to filter out cheaters would be more effective than a guilt campaign. 

Guilt campaign?  I'm not talking about the system being moralistic.  I'm talking about the people abusing the system.  Do you recognise the difference because that's my point. 

Guilt campaign?  I'm not talking about the system being moralistic.  I'm talking about the people abusing the system.  Do you recognise the difference because that's my point. 

Yes, I understand that there are behaviors that you consider ethically irresponsible.  I suppose I try not to think in those terms, since they have to do with situations about which I know very little.  My role in a society has to do, at a low level, with policy and, again, I think there are more pragmatic ways of assessing situations and dealing with them.

You'll have to explain the significance of your spelling errors, Mindy.  I'm having a sense of humor failure tonight.[

You couldn't do the decent thing and fix it in the title of this thread, since I am apparently the OP and I have a thing about spelling errors? FWIW, I think personally, when breaking up threads, it would be proper for the moderator to introduce the new thread.

Significance?  Er, none.  I am dyslexic.  Sorry, to put bad spelling at your door. 

Yes they are, which is perhaps part of the problem.  A marginalized population has enough impediments in trying to achieve the financial norm without feeling that they are bad people.  I must be in a wierdly optimistic mood, but I'd like to think that the majority of people would like the honest opportunity to do well and fit in with society. 

Yes, I used to think like this too.  Then I lived in Muirhouse, Edinburgh for 2 years.  Where only 30% of the occupants were employed at all and 96% of the students at the secondary school left with less than 5 Standard Grades.  As someone who used to live in one of the most 'deprived' council estates in all Scotland, I can honestly say there was no guilt or shame among any of the voluntarily unemployed in taking benefits.  It was a way of life there, for MANY generations (considering a lot of the females became mothers in their mid-teens).  They didn't feel an ounce of compunction, nor did they feel marginalised, b/c 70% of everyone else on the estate were also on benefits. 

Nor was it difficult to get information about benefits.  It isn't.  Job centres, CABs, and DSS offices are located nearby or even w/i the estate to dispense that information. 

Significance?  Er, none.  I am dyslexic.  Sorry, to put bad spelling at your door. 

  But you put it in italics as well. 

Please could you fix the title though, or change the contributer's name to your own.  It's only fair that if you are going to meddle with threads that you should at least do so with a modicum of accuracy, dyslexic or not.  I'm asking nicely.

Yes, I used to think like this too.  Then I lived in Muirhouse, Edinburgh for 2 years.  Where only 30% of the occupants were employed at all and 96% of the students at the secondary school left with less than 5 Standard Grades.  As someone who used to live in one of the most 'deprived' council estates in all Scotland, I can honestly say there was no guilt or shame among any of the voluntarily unemployed in taking benefits.  It was a way of life there, for MANY generations (considering a lot of the females became mothers in their mid-teens).  They didn't feel an ounce of compunction, nor did they feel marginalised, b/c 70% of everyone else on the estate were also on benefits. 

Nor was it difficult to get information about benefits.  It isn't.  Job centres, CABs, and DSS offices are located nearby or even w/i the estate to dispense that information. 

I suppose I don't see why an underpriveleged population would feel the need to put themselves out, since 1. there are classes of people, who by fortune of birth, don't seem to have to work hard and have everything, 2. they can see historically in their own neighborhoods and families that there is little to hope for, and 3. as a survival mechanism, people will abandon things like overwhelming guilt since it will only undermine them further.  A few slacker kids in a population, fine, it can be ridden off as poor upbringing or personality issues.  But when it becomes a current in an entire culture, I can't help but think that there are deeper sociological issues at work, since nothing happens in a social void.

Information availability is a good thing, but is only one small step towards balancing the scales in a society.  Sort of the idea of sending food overseas without teaching food production skills or providing the means to do so.  It creates a culture of dependency, and I think the upper classes underestimate how dehumanizing this is.