Spot The Difference Attitudes towards people onwelfare benefit in the 19th and 21st centuries

To be clear on the mickle who receive welf be benefits, it is necessary to divide everyone into classes. Even if people abjure to admit they are in a class there are clear characteristics of what class they belong to. This division that is still progressive now, was even to a greater extent operable in the 19th century. It was a way of look that the higher you were in the social class and hierarchy, then the more successful and prosperous you were to become in life.It was also some times a case of where you lived. It was Charles Booth that marked on maps of London where each social class lived. Places like Mile subvert Road and Orsman Road contained the vicious poor, the people at the bottom of the hierarchy. They were labelled as The lowest class which consists of some occasional labourers, street sellers, loafers, criminals and semi-criminals. Their life is the life of savages, with vicissitudes of extreme hardship and their only luxury is drink.Although this may seem that B ooth is being snobbish, it was noted that Booth had sympathy for the poor. He worked with the lower class, and reported that it wasnt unendingly necessary to have money to be happy. He described that although the poor were more credibly to die of disease and less likely to survive, he fancy that they seemed to be happier, without nurses and servants etc. That the rich are more likely to suffer from being spoiled than from harshness, that the simple natural lives of working-class people tend to their induce and their childrens happiness more than the artificial complicated existence of the risk.Now in the 21st century, these locational divides are still in place, although the locations of the vicious poor have changed. While it is more noticeable in the 19th century maps, the upper class and lower class virtually side by side, it is possible that people were more unbidden to tolerate each other, nowadays there are more clear divisions. This change could be due to peoples toleran ce and attitude towards different classes.However, it seems more unpatterned that there are different attitudes towards social classes. Usually, people arent willing to live near people of a lower class, places like council estates accommodate people of the homogeneous status, but they are prepared to pay tax incomees towards their welfare and benefits.During the 1800s the conditions of the workhouses, and the relief from the administration or parishes was of little help. People still struggled to make ends meet. The rule was that no one got supra the lowest workers wage, which was 12s to 15s a week. It was said that for a comfortable life, a worker needed a wage of 30s a week, concluding that few people had a comfortable life.In 1885, it was reported that 25% of the existence lived in poverty, however, after Charles Booth investigated, and wrote Labour and Life of the People, he found that actually 35% of the universe of discourse were in poverty.In simple terms, it was harder to receive help in the 19th century. Today there are fourteen types of benefits, including benefits in kind for employees, child maintenance, council tax benefit, disability and carers benefits, housing benefit, incapacity benefit, income related benefits, invalid care allowance, mothers, widows and families benefits, retirement allowance, statutory sick pay, unemployment benefit, unfit for work benefits and war pensions and industrial injuries.While in the 19th century, it was an innovation to have the poor integrity, at once there are 2.7 million people claiming incapacity benefit, and the government are trying to reduce this number.1.610% of the population are on incapacity benefit this is an immense difference from what it was in the 1800s. Although there are so many types of benefits, the government has become more active in getting people into work.The attitude of the government is that they need as many people in work as possible they have introduced schemes much(prenomin al) as EMA, some amour that would never have been thought of in the 19th century. Peoples attitude was that the government were doing something about the increasing poverty, at the expense of the economy.But why is the government making changes to benefits? The bottom line is that society has a responsibility to care for those unable to work.The government have introduced new schemes to prevent people from abusing benefits, the same thing that the government did in the 1800s when welfare was introduced. The changes proposed are likely to separate the seriously disabled or those suffering from terminal conditions such as cancer, who are marvelous ever to return to work, from those claiming to be incapacitated by a bad back or depression.Peoples attitudes have changed enormously from the 1800s to the present day. In the poor law days, going into the workhouse was shameful people did as much as they could to prevent this, it was the lowest they could go. The workhouse conditions were t errible, starvation was often a common factor, families were separated and peoples dignity and rights werent an issue.Peoples attitudes today have changed a great deal over the years not because welfare benefits have changed, but because peoples basic human rights have become more of a factor. It is expected that people who cant feed and look after themselves or their family, can receive help from the government. This way of thinking has developed partially from the original poor law. People started thinking that they needed to help others, even if it meant paying in taxes.Today, although people arent proud of receiving benefit, it has become more acceptable it is possible for people to stay on benefits their whole lives however, it costs the government 12 billion a year to fund benefits. This extra spending has been criticised by certain groups.thither a lot of differences between 19th and 21st century welfare benefit. Peoples attitudes today mean that it is common for people to re ceive benefits. They know that they can aim in a form and receive at least 55 a week, not including child allowance. Today people can live further as well as people who work, which has caused some protest.While it seems that in the 19th century, welfare was a last resort, they didnt want to receive help, partly because the prototype of help sometimes wasnt better than being left to starve.From old maps of London, it can been seen that people used to live close to others of different classes, while today, it is more likely that people move to places that are within the same income bracket. This displays another way that attitudes have changed, that people arent willing to live near people who cannot support themselves, or they live near people of similar means.However, some similarities can be found, although it can be assumed that today attitudes have become more relaxed, todays government tries to remain vigilant as it was years ago. The government are aware of people mistreatin g the benefit, and so have chosen the attitude to fight those who misuse it. This could implicate imprisonment and fines etc.People had more of a superior attitude towards people on benefits in the 1800s, it was assumed by some that these poor were as well lazy to work and the same can be said for today.But the underlying principle still remains, in the 19th century and 21st, welfare benefits are aimed to help people, and although people may have different feelings about those dependant on welfare, the benefits will still remain in place.