I'd disagree it's a huge part of the picture.  The number of people cheating that severly - i.e having kids, etc. - is small compared to the number of people fairly using the welfare system in the UK.  I'm pretty sure the lingering effects of the class system and other much longer term aspects of British history, coupled with other more important more recent factors all have a larger effect than the welfare system.

I'd say the cheating of the welfare system by some is more of a symptom than a cause and also is more down to the system being open to cheating than anything else.  TBH I think any system that can be exploited will be, from the exploitation of of the UK's welfare system to the exploitation in the US of the overly deregulated and uncontrolled financial investment system.

In short, people will often exploit any social or commercial system for their own benefit if given the chance.

Based on data points I get the impression that we should be seeing a lot more rioting/looting in a lot of other countries if having a major welfare system was a huge part of the picture.

As a final point I'm fairly confident that in general UK citizens haven't been conditioned to be "welfare queens" at all in any pervasive sense.  Again, other factors in certain demographics have given rise to that situation and the welfare system just happens to be one of many systems such people will try and exploit.

Where do you think it would go? The money wouldn't be deducted from my paycheck anymore, so of course it would go to me.

She's right, what happens whn you take candy away from a kid who is used to always getting candy? They throw a tantrum, this is no differant. Wellfare breeds complacency, and entitlement mentality. Neither of which is good for the human race as a whole. Politicians have unfortunately discovered the hidden secret of humaniity, we are lazy and selfish by nature, so it's a rather easy task to demonize those who are more fortunate, steal their money, and buy votes with it in the form of wellfare. 

I never said there was a surplus... because there never was.  You misread.

The Social Security trust fund is... and always has been filled with by government bonds... when there was more money being paid in then there was paid out... this money was ALWAYS spent by the government that year on something else.

There isn't any money in the social security trust fund It's IOUS in the form of "special" government bonds.

There is nothing there but a vague gurantee by polticians that they will pay out those IOUs in there.

You are just... wrong.  At 1983, all that happened was that government started to use those worthless government bonds to pay for other stuff as a fun accounting trick to raise the deficit without raising the deficit.

Or to paint a full picture for you....

100 say in 1977 they paid $300,000. That $300,000 was then used to buy government bonds.

The government then used lets say... $200,000 to pay off the government bonds that were maturing, and $100,000 to build bridges, or houses for puppies or... whatever.

In 1983 what happened was, to use the same numbers for simplicities sake. $300,000 was used to buy government bonds. $200,000 was used to pay off government bonds that were maturing for social security, and $100,000 was used to build bridges, puppy houses and the like....

The only difference is that Social Security is now considered "off budget" which means that spending masks the true extent of the deficit we're piling up.

If for some reason all revenue collection stopped, there would be zero money to pay people who get social security.  It's all hollow promises and it always has been.  Note that despite the social security trust fund still having a "surplus" if the debt ceiling wasn't raised, somehow social security checks were the very first thing that wasn't going to be paid.  How can this be when we are supposed to currently have a 3 trillion dollar surplus?

Truth is FICA taxes despite being veiled as a "investement" and a system that's self contained...

has ALWAYS been nothing more then another tax.  "Surpluses" have always been spent and replaced with bonds.  Always, always, always.  As such, no surpluses really existed.

that doesnt even make any sense.

thats one of the most misinformed non sensicle thing i have ever heard.

1) the tax cuts, which went to every american. is completely seperate from the SS fund, they arent even in the same pool, they could have cuts those taxes by 100% and SS wouldnt have been touched.

2) money from the supposed social security trust fund wouldnt/couldnt get deminished/spent by letting people keep their own money, that requires raiding it, like you said. it just make no sense what you said. money cant be spent from the fund, if they never had it in the first place.

like kaz said, there is no fund, they pay people with iou's they spend the money they do get on frivalous spending projects, non sustanable programs.

I do agree that people will find a way to exploit any system, but the welfare system seems far more given to abuse than any other. For one thing it, has a corrupting influence on both the citizenry and the government. The people figure out that they can - per Alexander Tyler - vote themselves largess out of the public treasury, and politicians are only too glad to indulge them in it, and it's only a matter of time before the whole scheme collapses. For another, even if we agree that it's a fine system in theory and put aside any concerns one might have about how just it is for the productive class to subsidize the lives of the unproductive, in practice it is folly to expect any government (especially today's bloated bureaucracies) to properly administrate it. But maybe I've just become cynical after seeing one too many stories like this.

Also, I don't think the problem with the financial system in the US is that it's too deregulated. On the contrary, the housing bubble and personal debt crisis were actually stoked by the government demanding that, if a bank wants to open a new branch or take part in a merger, they will have to relax lending standards to make it easier for minorities to get loans. So the banks figured out a way to make that work to their advantage... at least until it all blew up in everyone's face, at which point they were bailed out by the government and no one really learned their lesson.

I agree with that to an extent and also feel pretty cynical about much today if I'm honest - as you note the world seems filled with information tailor made to make you so.

I'm just pointing out - and it's maybe a fine line - that in the UK specifically the Welfare state almost certainly wasn't a huge contributor to producing the people rioting/looting and the recent situation.   The continued fallout from the former very rigid class system and changing world status of the country, coupled with recent political failings with regard to expense fraud, explosive and recent multi-culturalism, a consumer/celebrity led public image and long term issues of poverty and conflict between classes, the on/off sub-culture criminal elements and of course the current austerity measures/spending cuts and fallout from the global recession all play a much larger part.

As you youself imply in your response, the extent to which our controlling bodies have become bloated and mismanaged probably plays a bigger part, too.

I don't see any easy way out - but simply removing a system which does support a lot of people who genuinely and fairly need it isn't going to help in my view.  I see a welfare state - and okay I'm probably European biased in terms of familiarity - as a key pillar of a modern democratic country.

What I also see is that, with large population (UK relative to size and with many large civic centres), unclear policing policies (for the welfare state I mean) and a culture already in place geared to exploit it thanks to the countries history, the challenge is to keep the welfare state working in the intended manner, and to reduce abuse of its provisions.  Sadly that would appear to be easier said than done.

What I find even more bizzare with respect to the looting is how many people identified so far had no actual reason - by that I mean they were not all deprived, poor or unemployed (not that being so excuses it anyway) but that many turned out to be employed or perfectly capable of buying what they want.

I guess I just find it amazing that people basically like myself simply took advantage when you would have thought their social position would have precluded it.

Yeah, I think HappySquirrel nailed it earlier: basically, this is one fucked up, spoiled, deeply amoral generation, and it's a problem that cuts across class lines. The interviews I saw with looters all pretty much boiled down to, "We're not afraid of being arrested, there's no real consequences for doing it, so why shouldn't we get some free stuff?" Whatever their other myriad failing, I think they were being honest.

As for welfare, I think Bastiat said it best: "Every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all." The government is not the society, it is only a part of it. I'm all for a safety net for those who truly need it, but I can't help but feel that the safety net turns into a hammock in no time flat under government management. Maybe it's just the nature of bureaucracy. A bureaucrat can write a million checks, but he isn't capable of actually caring about a single one of those people. They're all just case file numbers to him. The whole thing is just so deeply impersonal as to be almost dehumanizing. Private charities, on the other hand, seem to do a much better job precisely because they actually do care. I'm sure it also helps that if they don't do a good job and too much of their donations get eaten up in administration, watchdog groups will blow the whistle on them and people will start giving elsewhere. Whereas with the government, it's just a profoundly unhealthy monopoly.

Keep in mind Scrooge's reply to asking to give to help the poor during Christmas season: He said he did by paying taxes.  When a society ends up having a value system driven strictly by materialism, and just sees now as the drive of life is to GET more and more and more for oneself, and merely "play by the rules" as you get this (and if you can, change the rules to your favor), then you aren't going to have much going back at all.  The system will break down, and then people demand the government do something, so you get more government.  Merely cutting back on government isn't going to address this either, because it puts the cart before the horse.

And there are people in the system who do care and try to do things, but the system is limiting.  It is everyone do what you can do in your own box, and everyone fend for themselves.  Hey, if anyone is serious about wanting to do things differently, please let me know.  I am up for answers on what can be done, and making a difference.  I have stated multiple times to numerous people I do want to be part of the solution, and call me.  Go ahead and say that to others out there, and see if they do call.

On this note, I would ask people to check out the Jack Vasel Memorial Fund:

http://www.jackvasel.org

This is a fund to help gamers in need.  It originates in the area of boardgames but I don't see why videogamers couldn't donate to it also.