permalink for this thread : http://search.catflaporama.com/post/browse/3065192
Free_Subbuteo_171 Posted on 01/02/2012 19:55
Family Life on Benefits

As MPs resume their debate on the Welfare Reform Bill - the government wants to cap benefits claimed by families to £26,000 a year - we look at one family that may be affected by the changes.

Unemployed father-of-seven Raymond (not his real name) and his family rent a former council house on a social housing estate in north Wales. They do not own a car or take a regular annual holiday.


replacement
* Entertainment £20
* Phone+Internet £7
* Water Rates £15
* Sky TV £15
* Council Tax £18
* Public transport £30
* Mobiles £32
* Energy bill £38
* Rent £76
* Weekly shopping £240
* Includes food and household goods, 24
cans of lager, 200 cigarettes and a large
pouch of tobacco

* Annual breakdown
* Benefits: £30,284.80
* Proposed cap: £26,000*
* Difference: £4,284.80
* *If Lords amendments are overturned

Other outgoings £91

'There are four children to supply school uniforms - including gym kits - each year. The school trips aren't days out to Alton Towers - they're educational trips for several of the courses, like history, geography and media studies, that the school tells us will form an important part of their course. Then there are seven birthdays a year, and seven children to make Christmas happen for each year.'
Entertainment £20

'I go out once a week, on a Friday night. I meet up with my mates in the pub and have three or four pints.'
Sky TV £15

'We get the Sky Movies package because we're stuck in the house all week - otherwise we wouldn't have any entertainment.'
Public transport £30

'Most of this goes on our eldest son's bus fares to college and back. For me, if it's less than five miles, I'll walk.'
Mobiles £32

'My wife and I have mobile phones, and so do all of the teenage children. You try telling teenagers they're going to have to do without their mobiles and there'll be hell to pay.'
Energy bill £38

'Gas and electricity bills have gone up massively over the last couple of years - two years ago we were paying £20 a week. If they do cut our benefit we are going to have to choose between eating and heating the house properly.'
Rent £76

'This is social housing in Wales, so the rent is hardly massive. If we rented privately in this area, then the cost would be four or five times as much.'
Weekly shopping £240

'Our biggest expense. We do all our shopping at Tesco or Morrisons in one big go. Mostly we buy the "value" range - tinned meatballs, baked beans etc. On the cigarettes, my wife tried to give up, but she missed one appointment on the course and they threw her off it.'

"I see eight people here having to choose between eating or heating”

Or between smoking 200 tabs per week, 4 pints down the pubdrinking 24 cans of lager, SKY TV and mobile phones.

The lazy XXXXXXer.


Link: Choosing not to work

dorivasmiddlefinger Posted on 01/02/2012 20:49
Family Life on Benefits

What an idiot. No all people on benefits have sky tv, or can afford booze and fags, or go to the pub.

The example you have used is a rare one. Most people on benefits obviously cannot afford all the luxuries you have mentioned.

But ofcourse people have been brain washed to believe that being on benefits if an easy life for lazy people.

Simply isn't true.[V]


MrsTiggywinkle Posted on 01/02/2012 20:51
Family Life on Benefits

Fortunately, up to now (and sadly I am getting on!) I have never had to live on benefits.

In all of this, however, one thing springs to mind,'father of SEVEN'. Why?

Towell Posted on 01/02/2012 20:52
Family Life on Benefits

Doesn't exactly sound like he's living the life of riley does it?

Sounds absolutely fuqing shyte to me.

Free_Subbuteo_171 Posted on 01/02/2012 20:53
Family Life on Benefits

Mmmmm....don't recall mentioning anybody else Doriva, simply this one case.

Maybe you need to learn to read, n'est-ce pas?

dorivasmiddlefinger Posted on 01/02/2012 20:54
Family Life on Benefits

Here we are, the birth control police. Hows about because people want and can have large familes regardless of your financial position.

xxlshirts_fit_all Posted on 01/02/2012 21:25
Family Life on Benefits

we know not everyone on benefits has sky or smokes or drinks or has mobiles. these are the people living within their means, this example is of someone who isnt living within their means! thats the point! why should benefits pay for luxuries?
I dont expect people to live in squalor, but money management is needed here

mattrich Posted on 01/02/2012 21:29
Family Life on Benefits

Benefits have a bad name because people make a career out of it, if they were used as a stop gap there would be no problem.

truck Posted on 01/02/2012 21:32
Family Life on Benefits

Doriva,
some of the issues re size of family are who is paying for it, not them is it?
The whole reason starting to clamp down or trying to is that less and less people are paying the tax bill for more and more and something has to give.
biggest issue being on benefits long term is the slow erosion in belief that they will get off it and back into work, plus the even worse erosion in lifestyle. it is replacing clothes, furniture etc that becomes harder and harder the longer it goes on.

there is no easy solution, but it is not a bottomless pit of money.

Zelig Posted on 01/02/2012 21:36
Family Life on Benefits

Maybe they could all live in one closet, stare at wall & eat bread & water. Just think how much money the country would save to spend on jubilee barges & fireworks for Olympic opening & closing ceremonies.

The_same_as_before Posted on 01/02/2012 21:44
Family Life on Benefits

Maybe he should be more honest and get the dodgy box that a lot on here are proud to brag about, by imported fags, and Tesco's 50p a can lager and not leave the house.

I would not have his life for anything.

LingdaleLegend Posted on 01/02/2012 21:53
Family Life on Benefits


Does Raymond not realise by economising on his beer consumption by just 1 pint per week this could fund a multiroom subscripion which would double the families entertainment options

Ya gotta be sharp in desperate times, needs to get his thinking cap on

levendale Posted on 01/02/2012 21:57
Family Life on Benefits

Sorry but for people to expect , sorry demand , that the state look after 5 or more kids for years on end is wrong , end of .

gazzastrip2 Posted on 01/02/2012 22:02
Family Life on Benefits

Bring back the workhouse!

Far too many people in this country think the state (the rest of us) owe them a living.

Benefits should be seen as a net to stop you dropping through in hard times, not a lifestyle choice.

I genuinely feel sorry for those out of work who want to work, just like i do many who choose to work and possibly have to make cut backs in these times by going without mobile phones,sky tv,booze and fags!

The system needs sorting out. When he was elected Blair said he was going to do so, but wither didnt have the Balls or Brown wouldnt let him.


MrsTiggywinkle Posted on 01/02/2012 22:05
Family Life on Benefits

Too often I see families, with both parents working long hours, who are much worse off than those on benefits. This cannot be right.

oooooo Posted on 01/02/2012 22:07
Family Life on Benefits

You can't help but feel the BBC thought they had hit the jackpot when they found that family struggling by on 200 fags per week, 24 cans of lager and the full sky package.


MrsTiggywinkle Posted on 01/02/2012 22:09
Family Life on Benefits

That made me laugh oooooo!

Free_Subbuteo_171 Posted on 01/02/2012 22:23
Family Life on Benefits

£300 per month on tabs
£100 per month on beer
£60 per month on SKY
£140 pe month on mobiles
£80 per week on other entertainment

That's £580 per month on luxuries.

Or £6,960 per year.

Jobs a good un. [^]


offside_ruel_fox Posted on 01/02/2012 22:53
Family Life on Benefits

Your financial situation should be a factor when it comes to having kids. As a parent it is your responsibility to provide for your child/children and it is unfair on the rest of society to fund this cause you be arsed to wear a johnny or keep your dick in your pants. Plus in this day an age is it really necessary to have 7 kids?

Zelig Posted on 02/02/2012 00:09
Family Life on Benefits

So you start family while you're working, lose job then what? Sell the kids into slavery [V]

badger_627 Posted on 02/02/2012 02:57
Family Life on Benefits

I think this benefits cap is just a way of diverting public anger at the less fortunate, instead of at the people that caused the nation's problems in the first place.

That said, when I've been skint, the first thing that goes is booze. I've never had SKY, and have never financially secure enough to have kids. And I am a fu[kwit with money.

susy Posted on 02/02/2012 19:48
Family Life on Benefits

Do any of you watch the historical dramas/films?

Look at the poor and how they lived at that time. There was no welfare, there was the workhouse though.

There are very few left alive who remember that time.

The welfare system was set up to help people in this situation, it was NOT set up to give people a luxurious life, it was set up literally so people didn't starve to death or live is such squalor they died.

Because of child poverty things have since moved on from there however, in the last 30 years it has become a life choice for many. Many people are second/third generation benefit claimers. They nor their parent have never had a job nor really looked for one. Go for an interview that you have been for via the job centre and enjoy sitting there in you suit n tie along with the spotty smelly tracksuit and baseball cap wearing other young chaps! And DONT say they can't afford to cloth themselves better, if you need to charity shops often have good clothes in them.

I work for a living and can afford my children, if I lost my job I would do everything I could to get another job.

Where many people are caught is where they receive more on benefits than they can earn. If they went out to work their families would suffer. Lets hope the savings the government makes on benefits they can help low income families with tax credits so people who work are always better off.

We only got Sky in the last couple of years, we managed without it and still could if we needed to. In fact I have lived without any telly for several months......we listened to the radio and played a lot of card games and monopoly.... oh and talked too! It is possible, in fact quite enjoyable.

r00fie Posted on 02/02/2012 19:52
Family Life on Benefits

Liz Windsor and Phil-the-Greek cost a bit on benefits[^] I bet he gets his backi off a Greek lorry an she gets her bracelets from the elgin marbles[;)]

MrsTiggywinkle Posted on 02/02/2012 20:17
Family Life on Benefits

Well said susy. We are singing from the same song sheet.It's called living within your means. The state owes a living to noone. As you say, in some quarters there is no expectation of having to go out to work.


Garyallcock74 Posted on 02/02/2012 20:38
Family Life on Benefits

agree with Susy [^]

icarus1965 Posted on 02/02/2012 22:59
Family Life on Benefits

the benefit cap won,t effect many in the north...

jimmy_james Posted on 03/02/2012 07:25
Family Life on Benefits

The lazy get could get an allotment and grow his own veg.

Get the food bill down to £70 per week.
Get his missus doing real cooking.
Turn the heating down and work harder.
Start drinking cider in the big plastic bottles.

mitch_at_merseyside Posted on 03/02/2012 07:37
Family Life on Benefits

Agreed

Benefits these days are seen as a bonus not something genuine to help the very needy.

Personally I would be embarassed living off benefits, the thought of people making a career from it makes me sick.

The public is on the governments side on this one, the lefties won't be happy about that, well, some of them.

We can't generalise here and think all claimants have plasma TV's, have sky and other ridiculous luxuries because some don't.

Stuff like child benefits for the rich and other benefits for those on middle-high incomes is just pointless.

[^]

Gene_Vincent Posted on 03/02/2012 07:39
Family Life on Benefits

Agree with Suzy [^]

People on benefits are being asked to live on the same money as an average working family earns. Yet people are screaming that they will be plunged into poverty FFS [V]

jimmy_james Posted on 03/02/2012 07:54
Family Life on Benefits

They actually have the time to get the kids to do their homework well and become real nerds but they want to sit and watch TV instead.

Give them too much money and you ruin them.

£70 is ample for their weekly food bill.

the_dude_strikes_back Posted on 03/02/2012 08:12
Family Life on Benefits

don't be silly and make out everybody on the dole is like this bloke, just in the same way i don't make out most millionaires pay pennies in tax


another post by somebody who is obviously very unhappy in there lives and has to try and find something worthwhile to toss on about so as usual its the welfare state

sasboro1 Posted on 03/02/2012 08:42
Family Life on Benefits

as i always say in these benefits rants. if they have it that good then why not quit your job and go on benefits yourself? i bet you wouldnt.

i would rather be working than on benefits and having nothign todo all day. and thats even if they would have more money than me. why are some envious of them?

those on benefits would be better off working,getting paid and posting on internet forusm all days like most on here

Manfriday Posted on 03/02/2012 08:59
Family Life on Benefits

Jesus he hardly has a luxurious life. For all we know, he might have worked for years before being made redundant. As zelig says, do we let the family starve or make them sell their kids? I'm sure the thousands saved by making them starve will go a little way to the money our government gives to poor India...... The poor country with a space program

jimmy_james Posted on 03/02/2012 09:01
Family Life on Benefits

I do ask my boss to make me redundant every year or so[:O]

I could be a scrounger who adds to the community by cleaning my local area and uses allotments , picks up bricks ( for building) has a lovely garden, makes good home brew.

I could do a bit of property speculation on the side.

Gene_Vincent Posted on 03/02/2012 09:10
Family Life on Benefits

"As zelig says, do we let the family starve or make them sell their kids? "

Except nobody is asking them to starve are they? They are questioning why the taxpayer should be funding 200 fags, 24 cans of lager, a big bag of baccy, a trip to the pub and the full Sky TV package every WEEK.

John67 Posted on 03/02/2012 09:18
Family Life on Benefits

Can't believe all this, 'I wouldn't sign on I would be too embarrassed crap'. Bet plenty with kids took child tax credits and family allowance eh? Just remember that the expected jobless rate is going to increase over the next few years (probably massively and quickly)and if it happens to you we can all be smug and think you are scum. How do you like them apples?

Manfriday Posted on 03/02/2012 09:28
Family Life on Benefits

Just sit in your cold box, staring at the walls 24/7 and be thankful that we can spare you the change for bread and water.....

tricky1992000 Posted on 03/02/2012 09:48
Family Life on Benefits

Towell, manfriday, zelig, He has a better standard of living than I, I don't smoke, drink, or have sky, I only have a pay as you go mobile. I just manage to live within my means.

Oh, and I work FULL time...........

tricky1992000 Posted on 03/02/2012 09:51
Family Life on Benefits

oh, and they have a 5 year old son who they had while they were unemployed, me and my wife have been holding off because we can't afford it.

Angelmatty Posted on 03/02/2012 09:59
Family Life on Benefits

Must admit i do agree with many on here that this person needs to be capped.

But making the parents work imagine the childcare bills this family would have.

We would still be paying for this type because of the tax credits they would receive.

Manfriday Posted on 03/02/2012 10:04
Family Life on Benefits

Well surely we should be raising the wages of those in work, not making a family (who sounds to me like living in hell) even worse off. Yes they have sky, I wouldn't have sky anyway as I'd rather not be forced to sit in 24/7. Smoking is a habit hard to break and if he didn't get out for 3 or 4 pints on a Friday, it sounds like he would never leave his house. They already eat the Tesco own brand rubbish, what more misery can you give them?
Yes, I also get annoyed when I see someone on benefits getting something I can't afford through working but they are hardly living the life of riley are they

Zelig Posted on 03/02/2012 20:23
Family Life on Benefits

The benefit bill is high not because everyone on the dole has 7 kids it is high because of things like private landlords charging the govt a fortune in rent (btw most housing benefit goes to low paid workers in private housing not the unemployed).

Tricky if you're working full-time & are still only slightly better off than the unemployed maybe you should turn your anger towards your employer or at your government for allowing your employer to pay you so little instead of at the unemployed.

To the person who said the state owes no one a living I beg to differ. It is the first duty of any responsible govt to look after its citizens. They created mass unemployment the day they embraced the capitalist system & abandoned the concept of full employment for its citizens.

Free_Subbuteo_171 Posted on 03/02/2012 20:27
Family Life on Benefits

Zelig - does the responsibility of the state extend to facilitating £7,000 of spending on non essential items, such as mobile phones, SKY TV, cigarettes and booze?

That's the crux - not whether the basic requirements of food, shelter and warmth are met.

dodger Posted on 03/02/2012 20:29
Family Life on Benefits

Good thread , I posted yesterday about the banker who stole £1.4 million and was never charged, and got one snidey reply.

The media find a bloke who smokes tabs on the dole and there's fuqqin hell on [:D]


mooghead Posted on 03/02/2012 20:34
Family Life on Benefits

Fuq him.. he factors sky tv into his budget.. hope to see him and his family under a park bench soon

[^]



dodger Posted on 03/02/2012 20:37
Family Life on Benefits

Horrible coont mooghead , were you once nearly bankrupt?

Lucky escape eh [ref]

Zelig Posted on 03/02/2012 20:38
Family Life on Benefits

You're right we could just give them the bare essentials of life. We could stop them having any type of social life so they lose all their friends. We could do many things to them but it sounds to me like you want the unemployed to have a similar lifestyle to criminals in prison.

Dodger they couldn't care less about a thieving banker or a millionaire paying less tax than their cleaner because one day they hope to be like them but tell them about someone on their doorstep not living on bread & water and they're suddenly outraged.

Free_Subbuteo_171 Posted on 03/02/2012 20:45
Family Life on Benefits

No I don't Zelig - but I do think its unfair that those who work for a living can't afford the luxuries this particular individual can.

£7,000 per year spent on cigarettes, booze, SKY tv and mobiles - do you think that is acceptable when he hasn't worked for over 10 years?

levendale Posted on 03/02/2012 20:48
Family Life on Benefits

As normal people get carried away on this subject , no-one thinks people who have kids and have just lost their jobs should suffer thats what the welfare state is for .
We just cannot have a system that encorages some people , not all by a long way , to bring up large families on other peoples tax money .

Zelig Posted on 03/02/2012 20:49
Family Life on Benefits

I agree it's unfair that those who work for a living can't afford luxuries but my anger is aimed at the real culprits & not at the poor.

Levendale while there are 16 people applying for every job there will always be people left behind on the dole. If you want to give them the bare minimum to live on & abandon them to a life of poverty so be it but the blame for this is at the door of the rich & powerful, not the poor & powerless.

levendale Posted on 03/02/2012 20:51
Family Life on Benefits

Agreed its an absolute scandal that the bankers etc who have got us into this mess have escaped scot free , but 2 wrongs don,t make a right .

Free_Subbuteo_171 Posted on 03/02/2012 20:51
Family Life on Benefits

Thats all well aand good....but...what's your response to the question that I posed above?

£7,000 per year spent on cigarettes, booze, SKY tv and mobiles - do you think that is acceptable when he hasn't worked for over 10 years?

Zelig Posted on 03/02/2012 21:03
Family Life on Benefits

I think it's unacceptable that his government chose to spend this country's money on wars instead of using the money to retrain its citizens which has left some of them out of work for ten years. I think it's unacceptable that successive govts have chosen not to build houses leaving private landlords free to charge this country's citizens what they like. I could go on but I think you get my point. My anger lays elsewhere.

Free_Subbuteo_171 Posted on 03/02/2012 21:07
Family Life on Benefits

Thats all well aand good....but...what's your response to the question that I posed above?

£7,000 per year spent on cigarettes, booze, SKY tv and mobiles - do you think that is acceptable when he hasn't worked for over 10 years?

mooghead Posted on 03/02/2012 21:09
Family Life on Benefits

The fella needs to know what its like to struggle. And for what its worth.. I am a bankrupt who knows what its like to lose everything..

smart ar$e

Zelig Posted on 03/02/2012 21:12
Family Life on Benefits

Lol in case it's not clear to you I've already said yes we could make the unemployed live on the bare essentials of life but being unemployed isn't a criminal act so why give them the lifestyle of an 18th century criminal?

mooghead sadly you also seem to be morally bankrupt.[V]

Free_Subbuteo_171 Posted on 03/02/2012 21:17
Family Life on Benefits

Are you a policitian?

18 century criminals faced deportation and death. I think you are over-dramatizing things.

You still haven't said whether you agree it's acceptable they spend £7000 per year on SKY tv, mobile phones, cigarettes and booze.

Simple yes or no - do you think this is acceptable for someone on benefits who hasn't worked for 10 years?

dodger Posted on 03/02/2012 21:18
Family Life on Benefits

Moog , if yer want to get nasty, should a bankrupt have internet access or should he need to struggle and pay his debts off first?

mooghead Posted on 03/02/2012 21:20
Family Life on Benefits

I am morally bankrupt.. loving me sky and booze and fags..


[:o)]

[:o)]


Zelig Posted on 03/02/2012 21:26
Family Life on Benefits

Of course I've answered your question. If a British citizen is unemployed because of choices made by the rich & powerful then this country has a moral duty to look after him/her for however long it takes for the rich & powerful to correct their mistake, retrain its citizen, turn its back on a capitalist system that puts people on the scrapheap & help him/her back into work. This means giving him/her enough money to live on not just enough money to survive on.

mooghead if someone else was bankrupt I'm sure you'd complain about them having internet, computer, clothes on their back, food in their stomachs. That's why you're morally bankrupt [V]

susy Posted on 03/02/2012 21:28
Family Life on Benefits

I am self employed, my other half is self employed, my children and in full time education (college and uni) they also both work part time. I am bringing them up to face there responsibilities as adults. Hopefully they will find work once out of education even if its part time bar work/Mcdonalds etc til something better comes along.

There is no shame in taking benefits when you need them but as a life choice, NO WAY. It is not a wonderful way of life and not a luxurious way of life and very hard to get out of. If you have been on the dole for 10 years, if you don't do some form of retraining or voluntary work you will be unemployable.

Free_Subbuteo_171 Posted on 03/02/2012 21:33
Family Life on Benefits

"Of course I've answered your question. If a British citizen is unemployed because of choices made by the rich & powerful then this country has a moral duty to look after him/her for however long it takes for the rich & powerful to correct their mistake, retrain its citizen, turn its back on a capitalist system that puts people on the scrapheap & help him/her back into work. This means giving him/her enough money to live on not just enough money to survive on."

So...let me get this straight.

You believe it's acceptable for someone receiving benefits to spend £7000 per year on cigarettes, SKY TV, mobile phones and alcohol?

Zelig Posted on 03/02/2012 21:34
Family Life on Benefits

16 unemployed people chasing every job in this country. However way you do the math Susy 15 people aint getting that job at Macdonalds.

Yes free-subuteo I believe it's acceptable for an unemployed person to have spending money to spend on whatever they like (booze, fags, sky, holiday once a year, decent food).

Quote "As of June 2010 UK costs exceeded £20bn for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined". How many packs of cigarettes & trips to the boozer does that pay for free-subuteo?

susy Posted on 03/02/2012 21:36
Family Life on Benefits

£7000 a year on luxuries.. that is £583.33 a month! My kids earn less than that, not even half that!

Free_Subbuteo_171 Posted on 03/02/2012 21:39
Family Life on Benefits

Best thing is Susy.....some people (like Zelig) believe this is acceptable.

susy Posted on 03/02/2012 21:39
Family Life on Benefits

Jobs need to be created so those 15 people who chase the jobs can be employed.... bonus is that these people will also contribute to the tax system too! If the government can afford to have these people on benefits they can afford to create the jobs!

dodger Posted on 03/02/2012 21:40
Family Life on Benefits

Suzy , rap it all in , sign on and see how much you get.

Don't believe everything you read.

susy Posted on 03/02/2012 21:42
Family Life on Benefits

Why would I do that? I don't want to live that life, I am self employed I have too much get up and go to sit around smoking knock off fags and drinking white lightning while watching endless films. It honestly sounds like hell!

Zelig Posted on 03/02/2012 21:45
Family Life on Benefits

If there were more jobs available than unemployed people criticizing the unemployed for a lack of effort would be fair enough but blaming the unemployed & wanting them to live like paupers when there aren't enough jobs to go round seems a tad harsh to me.

TheBoy007 Posted on 03/02/2012 21:45
Family Life on Benefits

"£7,000 per year spent on cigarettes, booze, SKY tv and mobiles - do you think that is acceptable when he hasn't worked for over 10 years?"

The problem is that money is intended to be spent on the 7 children. Those poor kids must be living in rags. You take that 'fag/beer' money away and what do you think will happen? Do you think they'll stop drinking and smoking? of course they won't, they'll stop the lad going to college to save on bus fares, they'll buy less food and the kids will go hungry, they'll turn the heating off or they'll get the money by other means (crime). Its of no coincidence that as benefits go down crime goes up.

What we need is more and better paid jobs. What chance has a fella who hasn't worked for 10 years got of finding work if there's people with full work histories on the dole? absolutely nil. 18 JSA claimants for every vacancy on teesside, wages ridiculously low, these are the real problems not some unknown (made up?) fella who has 7 kids, likes sky tv and drinks and smokes. Crime of the century[rle].

£120 billion lost every year through tax avoidance/avaision. Why aren't people shouting and screaming about that? Sir Philip Green put a billion pound into his wifes name to avoid paying tax on it. He's multi billionaire who couldn't hope to spend his fortune in five life times yet he feels the need to rob the British people of tax revenues from the profits he earned off the backs of them. The greedy despicable fcuker! Why aren't people up in arms about this? Because they are drones who believe what The Sun tell them to, suckers who are brainwashed in to believing that all the countries ills could be solved by taking a few fags of a bloke with 7 kids. Vilify the people at the bottom who's only pleasure is a few cans and the Simpsons on Sky One and allow the chunt at the top who's robbed the country of millions (that could have been spent on health care ect that would actually save peoples lives) to get away scott free. Its the British way, its the western way and its the capitalists way.

dodger Posted on 03/02/2012 21:46
Family Life on Benefits

You are falling for the lies you are told Susy , do not believe them , it is divide and conquer.

susy Posted on 03/02/2012 21:52
Family Life on Benefits

The biggest problem is that this has been created and now it needs dealing with and this will be hard for people to take cuts. If they had never had it it wouldn't be so much of a problem now would it. 40 years ago people didn't expect to have tellys let alone sky (not that is was invented then but you know what I mean)

Massive investment in retraining people and getting people back into work is definitely needed but there HAS to be incentive to work. If a family lives a reasonably comfortable life then really, why would they choose to work to get the same level of income plus the hassle and expense of childcare. It needs looking at as a whole!

As for the tax evaders, yes get them as well! It isn't leave one alone, its get both!

Free_Subbuteo_171 Posted on 03/02/2012 21:52
Family Life on Benefits

"Yes free-subuteo I believe it's acceptable for an unemployed person to have spending money to spend on whatever they like (booze, fags, sky, holiday once a year, decent food)."

So it's still acceptable when those who do work can't afford those luxuries. That's a pretty warped view is it not?

The welfare system should be a backstop, not a lifestyle choice.

Apologists for career benefit scroungers are a significant part of the problem.

tricky1992000 Posted on 03/02/2012 21:56
Family Life on Benefits

Zelig, you are wrong, the welfare state should only be there to provide a basic safety net. not to be there to buy fags, sky TV and booze. but to clothe, provide food and housing. and if you disagree, you can always pay some extra taxes.

Tricky if you're working full-time & are still only slightly better off than the unemployed maybe you should turn your anger towards your employer or at your government for allowing your employer to pay you so little instead of at the unemployed.


TheBoy007 Posted on 03/02/2012 22:02
Family Life on Benefits

"The welfare system should be a backstop, not a lifestyle choice."

Spot on that mate. Thats what it was in the 60's when we had near full employment. The underclass who spend a lifetime on benefits are as much a part of the capitalist system as the bankers, the speculators and the politicians with their noses in the troughs. Employment is the key, you can't force someone to take a non-existent job.

Now let me ask you a question, is it acceptable for Teesside to have 18 JSA claimants (and thats just the people claiming JSA. It doesn't include many other claimants and non claimants who are looking for work) for every single vacancy?

Should the government do something about it or continue to make it worse by slashing public sector budgets?

Zelig Posted on 03/02/2012 22:04
Family Life on Benefits

Tricky that concept of the welfare state existed under a system of full employment. The capitalist system we live under doesn't believe in the idea of full employment. If this government chooses to implement a system of winners & losers then it has a moral duty to look after the people who lose out.

Free-subuteo I've agreed with you it is disgraceful that someone who works can't afford luxuries but my anger lays with the people at the top of society not with the people at the bottom.

tricky1992000 Posted on 03/02/2012 22:06
Family Life on Benefits

moral duty elected by whom?

dodger Posted on 03/02/2012 22:07
Family Life on Benefits

'All over the news spread fast , they're dirty they're filthy , they aint gonna last , this is Joe Public speaking , we're controlled in the body and controlled in the mind.

C.O.N. Control.

Don't believe 'em , see what's in their other hand.

Free_Subbuteo_171 Posted on 03/02/2012 22:08
Family Life on Benefits

No it isn't right.

Neither is spending £7k on luxury items when not working for 10 years plus. The welfare system has clearly gotten out of control at some point; where, when and how are pretty moot at the moment in my view, and we've got to start somewhere.

The black economy
Excessive payments whilst on benefits
Tax "avoidance" by corporates
Tax "avoidance" by the well-heeled

They've all got to be tackled in some way, shape or form. But what comes first.....the chicken or the egg. We have to start somewhere.

tricky1992000 Posted on 03/02/2012 22:11
Family Life on Benefits

Free_Subbuteo_171 Agreed, too many lobbyists creating loop holes, and to get off with paying 5 billion pounds, all it costs is one lunch.

TheBoy007 Posted on 03/02/2012 22:13
Family Life on Benefits

Capitalism is and always will be boom to bust. without central regulation the economy will always overheat and go pop (bust). As capitalist are fundamentally opposed to regulation we will always have boom to bust which will always result in winners and losers. The people at the top generally win and the people at the bottom lose. It maintains the barriers to social mobility that where put in place hundreds of years ago through monarchy and serfdom.


Zelig Posted on 03/02/2012 22:14
Family Life on Benefits

So in your list of ills we should start with the people who have lost out under this system first? Like I said tell people about a banker stealing 1.4 mil & people shake their heads, tell people a bloke on the dole enjoys a fag & a beer & they're reaching for the pitchfork. [V]

dodger Posted on 03/02/2012 22:14
Family Life on Benefits

The black economy is superb and always has been.

It kept us going in the wars , nicked off the rich and sold to the needy , like Robin Hood [^]

susy Posted on 03/02/2012 22:15
Family Life on Benefits

I am totally going to get a reaction to what I say here....

I keep remembering a bit of historical footage going on about Margaret Thatcher. She was on Teesside and a man was heckling her about her closing down the ship yards and what was he supposed to do, she answered him by saying "retrain as something else" or words to that effect. The interviewer had tracked this man down years later and asked him where he was now, he was indignant at the time but in this later interview he said quite calmly that he had retrained and was now successful in his career and had been employed since retraining. Even he looked as if he was saying I hated that woman but she was right.

Puts on hard hat [xx(]

levendale Posted on 03/02/2012 22:17
Family Life on Benefits

I have done my fair share of moral duty to the welfare state and will continue to do so , but as stated we have to start somewhere .
We as a nation are all to blame for allowing a system that encourages some people to never work .

Zelig Posted on 03/02/2012 22:21
Family Life on Benefits

Then start at the top. Get your govt to create jobs for the unemployed to do, retrain the unemployed to do the jobs. Force any employer who wants to do business in this country to pay its staff decent wages, pay their fair share of tax & help fund the retraining of the country's unemployed.

When faced with all of these fundamental problems with the system what good is throwing a lash across an unemployed person's back going to do? They are the ones with no power to change things at all.

Free_Subbuteo_171 Posted on 03/02/2012 22:23
Family Life on Benefits

"So in your list of ills we should start with the people who have lost out under this system first? Like I said tell people about a banker stealing 1.4 mil & people shake their heads, tell people a bloke on the dole enjoys a fag & a beer & they're reaching for the pitchfork. [V]"

How exactly has he lost out?

Fags? Tick
Booze? Tick
Friday night down the pub? Tick
Sky TV? Tick
Mobile phones? Tick

I'm saying they are bad as each other. Yes the workshy are an "easy target" in that individuals can be targeted far more quickly than MNCs.

Are you advocating doing nothing with the individuals until we target MNCs?

levendale Posted on 03/02/2012 22:24
Family Life on Benefits

Here we go again , both things are wrong , but we have to start somewhere .

TheBoy007 Posted on 03/02/2012 22:25
Family Life on Benefits

"Excessive payments whilst on benefits"

Your talking about a tiny proportion of people with a football team of kids or living in a penthouse in chelsea. Its all proportional and the amount people like that cost the country is miniscule when compared to the £120 billion lost through tax avaision/avoidance every year. Thats enough to close the fiscal deficit!

It seems at the moment bashing benefit claimants is the thing to do. Don't you ever asked yourself why? were has this come from? why now? At a time when the people at the top, the rich, the powerful are under pressure to reign in there wealth, to pay their taxes, to stop their greed. All of a sudden this witch hunt against benefit claimants starts. Distraction tactics? The rich AND powerful (influential) are coming under fire then this press/government hate campaign against benefit claimants starts. Don't you feel like a sucker for falling for it? Its an age old tactic the rich/powerful/influential have used for centuries to maintain the status quo and pass it on to their children and their children's children.

dodger Posted on 03/02/2012 22:26
Family Life on Benefits

As said previously by other posters , where are these jobs?

There is now a whole corrupt industry surrounding the unemployed. Training schemes that offer nothing but £1000 to the provider.

Absolute fraud on a large scale , but the papers and media will find us a family on the nash to hate.

They have sky and tabs , we have to go to work , burn the bastads!!!

It is a large scale CON.

Free_Subbuteo_171 Posted on 03/02/2012 22:29
Family Life on Benefits

The Boy.

I have first hand experience of the welfare state system that backs up the profligacy of the benefits available.

The case quoted is not an isolated incident.


100Rod100 Posted on 03/02/2012 22:33
Family Life on Benefits

nice to see free subbuteo goose stepping about this thread; or perhaps is the picture of him mincing about in top hat and tails, cane in hand, looking disapprovingly at the proles that litter the street more apt.....


Zelig Posted on 03/02/2012 22:34
Family Life on Benefits

Are you saying it's the norm? There's a family living in a palace (not their only home) who like to drink & smoke. What should we do about them?

tricky1992000 Posted on 03/02/2012 22:34
Family Life on Benefits

I know that patients who are detained under the mental health act are receiving cold weather payments, and 400 pounds a month spending money. And this is not in the papers. That money is all disposable.


Free_Subbuteo_171 Posted on 03/02/2012 22:36
Family Life on Benefits

Well done Rod....throw the insults around rather than join in the debate.

A surefire way of knowing someone cannot counteract the points raised.

Zelig Posted on 03/02/2012 22:39
Family Life on Benefits

Free-subuteo all you're doing is ringing your hands when it comes to the problems at the top of society & declaring war on the people at the bottom of society. If people who work are only getting slightly more than people on the dole then the problem isn't that the unemployed are paid too much it's that their employer isn't paying them enough wages.

100Rod100 Posted on 03/02/2012 22:40
Family Life on Benefits

FS1 - if you think that was insulting you need to get out more.

your broad generalisations and sweeping statements are beyong comprehension.

wow they spend 7k a year on fags, some tins and a bit of telly - should they be supplied with gruel, stale bread and the odd grub for protein?. its a covenient smoke screen instigated by the murdoch cronies to detract from the main issue at point. but as usual there are those that are so blind they cant see, and would rather jump on this case as opposed to looking at the bigger picture [rle]

Free_Subbuteo_171 Posted on 03/02/2012 22:45
Family Life on Benefits

What sweeping statements?

That £7000 on non-essential items when receiving benefits is unacceptable?

And Rod....it was an insult - a theme you've continued in your latest post.

If you genuinely can't think of anything better to post other than comparing me to a Nazi, or that I am unable to see beyond a smokescreen, then don't bother at all.

On the other hand, if you have points you can raise and debate in a non-childish manner (like Zelig has done) then please feel free.

If not, please don't bother - it shows ypu up.

Free_Subbuteo_171 Posted on 03/02/2012 22:52
Family Life on Benefits

Zelig - I'm not.

There must be action against all who don't contribute equally to society....but as I said, you've got to start somewhere.

100Rod100 Posted on 03/02/2012 22:53
Family Life on Benefits

youre a little bit touchy [sad]

"That £7000 on non-essential items when receiving benefits is unacceptable?"

ok then - what do you believe they should get? should they have no means of enjoying themselves, or the ability to join in with society? remember society is full of people such as yourself who appear to class these people as pariahs, should we just create places for these people of lower social standing to congregate?

Free_Subbuteo_171 Posted on 03/02/2012 23:00
Family Life on Benefits

"should we just create places for these people of lower social standing to congregate?"

Yep - Sid James's Park. [:D]

Joining in with society doesn't involve smoking 200 tabs and a pouch of tobacco per week, nor spending £32 on mobile phones because "try telling teenage kids they can't have a mobile".

That isn't what the benefits systems should be about.

What about going for a walk to enjoy yourselves.
What about playing games.
What about volunteering to do some charity work.
what about telling your kids that the benefit system means they can't have a mobile phone and other luxury items, rather than telling them it can and perpetuating the cycle?

Joing in with society does not necessitate £7000 per annum spend on luxury itesm; if you think it does you are seriously out of touch.



Zelig Posted on 03/02/2012 23:00
Family Life on Benefits

Like work houses...

Free-subuteo because of decisions made by the rich & powerful there aren't enough jobs to go round so people are being left behind (for 10 years or more) & need to be supported. Maybe you want us to just give them the bare minimum for the rest of their lives, maybe you want us to cull the unemployed. Maybe by depriving them of any enjoyment in life they'll do the decent thing & kill themselves.

Why should they do voluntary work when their govt can't provide them with paid work? one job available for every 16 unemployed people in this country this is the real problem, everything else is a distraction.

Free_Subbuteo_171 Posted on 03/02/2012 23:04
Family Life on Benefits

Zelig - if in your world being left behind means being able to spend £7000 per annum on cigarettes, booze, Sky and mobiles whilst not having a job is acceptable, then so be it.

In my world it isn't. Lets agree to disagree. [^]

Night all.

100Rod100 Posted on 03/02/2012 23:08
Family Life on Benefits

Yep - Sid James's Park. [:P]

FS1:-

What about going for a walk to enjoy yourselves. - how many do they have to do before they are eligible for enjoyment money

What about playing games. - this'll be great fun for the kids when their friends come over and relaise theyre poor. school will a lovely place to be....

What about volunteering to do some charity work. - just beacuse the article doesnt mention it, how do you know they dont already?

what about telling your kids that the benefit system means they can't have a mobile phone and other luxury items, rather than telling them it can and perpetuating the cycle? - how do you know they dont? why not just say "its up the chimney for you today bob, we're skint and if you want some meat with your supper follow that brush up...."

Joing in with society does not necessitate £7000 per annum spend on luxury itesm; if you think it does you are seriously out of touch. - of course it does. there is avery definite link bewteen the 2.







Zelig Posted on 03/02/2012 23:09
Family Life on Benefits

With £7k to spend yes they can still be part of society but you want this amount cut don't you?

Also anyone who thinks the vast majority of unemployed people have a disposable income of £7k a year to spend on fags, booze, sky tv, etc is reading too many Daily Mail headlines.

mitch_at_merseyside Posted on 03/02/2012 23:49
Family Life on Benefits

"Can't believe all this, 'I wouldn't sign on I would be too embarrassed crap'. Bet plenty with kids took child tax credits and family allowance eh? Just remember that the expected jobless rate is going to increase over the next few years (probably massively and quickly)and if it happens to you we can all be smug and think you are scum. How do you like them apples?"

Give yer fecking head a shake John! There is nothing wrong with people signing on who are desperate for work, but there are a hell of a lot of people signing on and claming benefits because it's a decent living.

I meant I would be embarassed signing on if I knew I was milking the system, imagine what people really think of you. I've came across this once before, my ex girlfriends mother is unemployed and has been for 20 years, nothing wrong with her in the slightest yet she claims many benefits in housing, child benefit and whatever hell on earth you could possibly claim.

I despised her deep down, I knew she could go out and work, there are people in wheelchairs working ffs.

I'm delighted by these actions by the government, as for the people in the south or rich areas in which the cap will hurt the most then so be it. They are the worst of the bad bunch draining our welfare budgets.

Typical left winger moaning claiming to be victims
[^]

Zelig Posted on 03/02/2012 23:58
Family Life on Benefits

Landlords get the housing benefit not the claimant so who is milking the system? The majority of housing benefit goes towards the rent of people in work not the unemployed so it will be workers who suffer by this change.

100Rod100 Posted on 03/02/2012 23:59
Family Life on Benefits

yes lets attack those that are stealing the welfare budgets.

i suggest we head straight for the millionaire margaret thatcher as she has had millions paid to her in care and other entitlements these past few years [;)]

dodger Posted on 04/02/2012 00:09
Family Life on Benefits

Repression; gonna start on Tuesday

Repression; gonna be a dalek

Repression; I am a robot

Repression; I obey.

Zelig Posted on 04/02/2012 00:15
Family Life on Benefits

There are more unemployed people than available jobs, that is a fact. Whether the unemployed are walking the streets desperately looking for a job or sitting on the sofa not looking for a job the math doesn't change. Until it does the unemployed should not be punished for a situation they didn't create.

superstu Posted on 04/02/2012 10:39
Family Life on Benefits

I wouldn't class mobile phones or internet access as a luxary these days. In fact I think both are pretty essential now if you're looking for work. Whether you're on benefits or not you probably shouldn't have 24 cans of lager and 200 cigarettes a week - there again if your life is as rubbish as theirs sound I can understand why you would do that.

Here's a few facts about benefits.
1) Whilst £1.5B a year is claimed frauduently, £16B goes wrongfully un-claimed.
2) Over 80% of benfits claiments are aged over 35 and the vast majority have paid taxes and worked for years.
3) As mentioned the amount of tax lost through avoidance and evasion is £120B a year.
4) 50% of all the worlds wealth is laundered through tax havens.
5) Fewer than 5000 people out of a population of 70 million have been on JSA for more than five years. Tiny proportion.

TheBoy007 Posted on 04/02/2012 11:27
Family Life on Benefits

"I despised her deep down,"

You despised because she didn't have a job? What a strange man you are. It seems we've reach a point in this country where your emoymennt status is everything. Man beats his wife spends all his money on fags,gambling and booze while his family go hungry, buts its ok, he's a top bloke because he works 60 hours a week. Man is a great father/husband, helps kids with homework, takes them out, teaches them new stuff, loves his wife, helps her with housework, maintains the house ect but he's a scumbag to be despised because he has no job. What a sad pathetic society we live in[|)]

" imagine what people really think of you"

That's genuinely one of the saddest things I've ever read on here. Do you really care what people think of you? I couldn't give a sh!t what some no-mark thinks of me. My family and close friends are all that matter to me and if they thought less of me because of my employment status then they could fcuk off. They wouldn't though as I wouldn't choose friends that shallow.

redwurzel Posted on 04/02/2012 12:16
Family Life on Benefits

I do agree with those that are saying the £7000 for fags, booze , sky is wasted money, but I think the bigger problem is tax avoidance and evasion. I know its degrading but maybe giving vouchers rather than cash would reduce wrong spending.

A few days ago it become public that some senior civil servants are paid gross (without paying tax at source). They should be paying £50k a year in income tax, by going self employed they can maybe get that down to £30k. Thus depriving the State of £20k a year. The ineptitude of the Government(s) doing this and the self centred behaviour of the civil service (in this example) leaves me astounded. Call me right wing but less government must be better government.

Zelig Posted on 04/02/2012 12:18
Family Life on Benefits

Some people on here seem to equate unemployment with committing a criminal act & would like the unemployed to have a similar lifestyle to prisoners. They're even happy to have them work for nothing doing community service similar to that given to people who have committed criminal offenses (waits for the predictable "yeah but they probably are drug dealing, tobacco barons who secretly run their own eBay business criminals too" comments from the Daily Mail & Sun readers).

Politicians and the media need a scapegoat for the country's financial troubles so they put the blame on the people at the bottom of society instead of on their friends at the top of society & some people are all too happy to lap it up.

Is the guy in the article molesting kids? Raping women at knife point? Selling drugs to children? Pointing a shotgun at shopkeepers & robbing them? No he isn't (as far as we know) all he's doing is trying to have some sort of life in a country that doesn't have enough jobs to go round.

Redwurzel you know your suggestion is degrading but you're still happy to do it? Interesting. Please tell us how your voucher scheme would work. Which private businesses get to win the lottery & exchange these government vouchers for their products (I want to buy shares in those companies). Who pays these private companies for the extra admin costs involved in accepting this new currency you've just created? And what stops an unemployed person from simply trading their vouchers for cash down the boozer?

Maybe the British government should cut out the middle man & open their own shops for the unemployed to spend their vouchers in. Maybe they could even get the unemployed to work in these shops for free (they can call it work experience). [V]

Metaxa Posted on 04/02/2012 12:44
Family Life on Benefits

No matter which side of the fence you sit on, the welfare system is in meltdown.

I am a great believer in you should get out what you have put in, if you have put nothing in then the door is closed.

get off your lazy arse & find a job

Zelig Posted on 04/02/2012 12:49
Family Life on Benefits

Metaxa I'm sorry to say this but you are clearly thick. In a country where there are 16 unemployed people chasing every job exactly what job should all these lazy people get off their a**** & get?

Your suggestion to simply close the door on people is a fantastic one. Should we televise these mass starvation's?

Senor_Chester Posted on 04/02/2012 12:54
Family Life on Benefits

"Sir Philip Green put a billion pound into his wifes name to avoid paying tax on it. He's multi billionaire who couldn't hope to spend his fortune in five life times yet he feels the need to rob the British people of tax revenues from the profits he earned off the backs of them. The greedy despicable fcuker! Why aren't people up in arms about this?"


I'll tell you why, he's done nothing illegal or wrong. Why should someone who has made themselves a fortune be duty bound to put money back to the British public when they don't have to? I wouldn't do it either.


Metaxa Posted on 04/02/2012 12:58
Family Life on Benefits

Zelig clearly i have touched a nerve with you i am guessing you are one of the so called unfortunate who are bleeding the system for every penny you can.

16 Million unemployed?


Senor_Chester Posted on 04/02/2012 12:58
Family Life on Benefits

"On the cigarettes, my wife tried to give up, but she missed one appointment on the course and they threw her off it."


That just sums these people up for me, everyone else's fault but their own.

Zelig Posted on 04/02/2012 13:05
Family Life on Benefits

Metaxa where exactly did I say there was 16 million unemployed people?

As for your other charge are you also saying everyone who defends people charged with a criminal offense must be a criminal also?

susy Posted on 04/02/2012 13:07
Family Life on Benefits

I used to smoke, I gave up by using patches, I worked out that I spent less on patches than I did on buying cigarettes..... I got NOTHING for free. I gave up because I wanted to give up, not because there were some freebies!

Just saying [;)]

Metaxa Posted on 04/02/2012 13:07
Family Life on Benefits

[^]

mickgaz Posted on 04/02/2012 13:11
Family Life on Benefits

What about that git who won 10 million on the lotto. still getting £500 a month incapacity benifit and they cant stop it cos he has not been means tested.This countrys wellfare system is a fecking joke[:(!]

Metaxa Posted on 04/02/2012 13:15
Family Life on Benefits

Zelig so do you think it is fair that some one who has worked everyday since they left school, to be turn up at the dole office after being made unemployed and be told that because their partner works 18 hours they are only entitled to £60 a week and no other help, yet some one who has never paid a penny into the system is entitled to thousands?

the system is in meltdown and the cap is not low enough for me

quite simply

A couple on benefits should in no way be able to have an income greater than that of a couple who work for minimum wage.

Of course if you disagree and think that people on benefits should have an income greater than some one who works, Then what hope do we have!


Zelig Posted on 04/02/2012 13:16
Family Life on Benefits

I suggest you read the whole of the thread Metaxa. I have said many times that it is a disgrace that people in work are only slightly better off than people not in work but the problem isn't that the unemployed are paid too much it's that working people are paid too little so my anger lays elsewhere.

If there were more jobs available than unemployed people then maybe some of your points about lazy people would be valid but the situation is reversed & because of decisions made by the people at the top there aren't enough jobs to go round so whether someone is walking the streets frantically searching for a job or whether they are sat on the sofa not looking for a job there is always going to be mass unemployment under this capitalist system.

redwurzel Posted on 04/02/2012 13:23
Family Life on Benefits

Vouchers are not perfect I agree, but genuine claimants will use them on essentials. Anyone making false claims or being unemployed for lifestyle choice may think a bit more about that decision.

Currently the systems gives cash (except housing benefit?) which can be spent on anything as shown in the example at the top of the thread. Its very difficult to stop people selling things like vouchers, but will there be a big market? and can't people sell child benefit books if they are determined enough? Retailers will have to given a small handling charge - the major supermarkets seem keen to take vouchers at present.

Any system should help the genuine who desperately want to work but also actively encourage people to work. Maybe vouchers should be for long term unemployed.

As said the government needs to get tougher on the rich as well even not more. If not the country will be completely bankrupt like Greece.

Metaxa Posted on 04/02/2012 13:24
Family Life on Benefits

How do you pay working people any more, without making a larger black market economy?

People will only pay so much for items and services. then they look for the cheaper option.



Gene_Vincent Posted on 04/02/2012 13:28
Family Life on Benefits

"There are more unemployed people than available jobs, that is a fact"

OK, so why did the last goverment tell us that we needed large numbers of people from the EU to come here and fill vacancies?
Or was that a lie?

And where did this "16 people for every vacancy" statistic come from?

Metaxa Posted on 04/02/2012 13:28
Family Life on Benefits

aaahhhhh Greece

A country i know too well, where every one is paid in cash,

Doctor
Dentist
Solicitor
Accountant

names normally not associated with the black market yet in Greece these are the ring leaders

I have to travel to Greece in a few weeks to see my accountant and solicitor and i know i will need to take cash to pay them. If i dont my tax returns will be filed under B1N

Zelig Posted on 04/02/2012 13:37
Family Life on Benefits

Redwurzel of course the large supermarkets are keen to accept govt vouchers. Your system would make them very rich indeed. With a huge captive audience of customers they would be free to increase prices & charge what they like.

'There would be a small handling charge' so lets say for a £10 voucher they charge the govt 10p extra for handling it. So the govt wants to give a claimant £50 a week to spend but because of the handling charge they have to give them £50.50 instead. Congratulations, your system has just increased the benefit bill [:D]

G_V who made the decision to allow people from the EU to come to Britain & work? Was it the people at the top of society or was it the people at the bottom of society? This country does have problems that need fixing but putting a lash on the backs of the people at the bottom of society won't solve them.

redwurzel Posted on 04/02/2012 13:48
Family Life on Benefits

Z

You assume everyone everyone be paid cash at present will claim vouchers. I think you will find a few people are no longer unemployed when offered vouchers.

Zelig Posted on 04/02/2012 13:49
Family Life on Benefits

Where are the jobs coming from Redwurzel? You talk as if there are more available jobs than unemployed people but this isn't the case.

As of Jan 23rd 2012 there were 463,000 jobs available in the economy & 2.68 million unemployed people (not including people on income support, disability or in any other category designed to hide this country's true unemployment figure). In some areas there are 32 unemployed people chasing every job (on Teesside this ratio is 16/1). Even if every person who was out of work was searching frantically for work there would still not be enough jobs to go round.

tricky1992000 Posted on 04/02/2012 13:52
Family Life on Benefits

zelig

mass starvation, huh on 26 grand a year. riiiiighhhht...

swede, beans, bananas, rice, bread, carrots, are some of the foods that can all be brought pretty cheaply.

you need to look beyond these borders to see some real poverty......

Zelig Posted on 04/02/2012 14:06
Family Life on Benefits

Tricky I never said people on £26k were starving. My mass starvation comment was in response to someone who wanted to simply close the door on people not on the current system. [:o)]

redwurzel Posted on 04/02/2012 14:08
Family Life on Benefits

I agree the jobs market is tough, but many people have from the EU (1.5m?) have found work in the UK.

Areas like Teesside are suffering more than say the South East of England, but there are unemployed all over the country.

I can understand people saying I am not working for £6/hour (say in SE England), because I will be worse off working - but that's not good for the country though and that situation needs to change a bit. Jobs would appear more if wage rates were lower, sounds tough but that's the way of the world.

Longer term the country needs to up skill and compete on quality as per Germany and France do. We won't upskill with people at home watching sky, drinking, smoking etc

tricky1992000 Posted on 04/02/2012 14:17
Family Life on Benefits

redwurzel - agreed, one of the worst things that has happened in the last few years was making education so expensive. Now this country is short of a damn lot of skills. Filling those jobs will create other jobs.

Zelig Posted on 04/02/2012 14:21
Family Life on Benefits

Agreed. Exactly how does blaming the unemployed & throwing a lash over their backs solve these problems that were created by people at the top of society?

TheBoy007 Posted on 04/02/2012 14:26
Family Life on Benefits

"A couple on benefits should in no way be able to have an income greater than that of a couple who work for minimum wage."

The only way that could possibly happen is if the couple on benefits were disabled. Do you begrudge the disabled getting state benefit? Should we just cull them?

Zelig Posted on 04/02/2012 14:32
Family Life on Benefits

What this country really needs is another world war [:D]

redwurzel Posted on 04/02/2012 14:49
Family Life on Benefits

Housing benefit can be £300 per week in London well above the minimum wage rate.

Outside London it can £150 per week plus £20 per week council tax relief which is getting close to the minimum wage say £220 per week (before tax).

Some areas of the UK have up to 33% of the working population on Incapacity benefit (ESA) which is not the same as disability.

tricky1992000 Posted on 04/02/2012 15:00
Family Life on Benefits

There should be only exceptional occasions when somebody gets more on benefits than the minimum wage.

as for other sectors,1) scrap the royal family 2)pull out of Europe, after we have come out of europe devalue the pound against the euro and the dollar, and watch our exports shoot up 3) pay back pfi at cost price. 4)megaprojects such as building a railway tunnel to Ireland 5) build motorways to allow better penetration of areas to be opened up for investment (such as SW Scotland and North Wales 6) have a bonfire of the quangos 7) Introduce Swiss canton style democracy 8)stop paying farmers for fallow land 9)people should have the right to demand shares in anything before it's sold off 10) prison for violent/potentially violent offenders only, 10 years of tagging and house arrest could be used for fraudsters for example, of course they would require special visits for food etc. 11)a referendum before a war, major bailout, or quantitative easing 12) stop business subsidies, tax deferrals, tax loopholes. Also any foreign based business here, should be made to pay tax on turnover of business here not income, so topman whose parent is based in Monaco, would be paying a lot more tax here. And if they don't like it they can clear off. 13) shops under 500 square feet don't pay retail tax (can't remember the proper name it's the local government one) shops with a larger square footage should pay more. such as Tesco and asda,


Link: an example of a useless quango

Zelig Posted on 04/02/2012 15:12
Family Life on Benefits

Who profits from housing benefit? The private landlord.

Who claims housing benefit? More housing benefit is claimed by low paid workers than unemployed people in this country.

Successive govts have chosen not to build social housing which has left private landlords free to charge what they like in rents.

This decision made by people at the top of society is costing this country as fortune.

TheBoy007 Posted on 04/02/2012 16:15
Family Life on Benefits

"Housing benefit can be £300 per week in London well above the minimum wage rate."

So not an income then because it goes straight to the landlord.

Min wage before tax is £243 a week (absolute joke). For a couple that's £486 a week. Despite the fact that this is paltry it's still a lot more than a couple on benefits. This idea that you can get more on benefits than working is a complete lie unless you have about 8 kids, in which case good luck to you. No amount of money in the world could persuade me to have 8 kids!