This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Looks like it could be interesting.
Getting people of opposing views seeing what it means to live on benefits
Getting people of opposing views seeing what it means to live on benefits
In reply to balmybaldwin: I can't watch that it will just make me very angry. I sincerely hope that the taxpayers give the spongers what for!
In reply to PopShot:
Em, the couple on benefits that I saw the taxpayers meeting them thought that their benefits should b increased!
That said, the bloke with a 2.1 in media studies, his sense of entitlement was breathtaking!
I mean to say , Media Studies, why does he think that that is too good a qualification to stop him taking a job in a shop or whatever.
My youngest has a Maths & Physics degree, and has been waitressing, and will go back to that, whilst applying for other jobs.
He needs a reality check( granted he was claiming less than 4k a year)
> (In reply to balmybaldwin) I can't watch that it will just make me very angry. I sincerely hope that the taxpayers give the spongers what for!
Em, the couple on benefits that I saw the taxpayers meeting them thought that their benefits should b increased!
That said, the bloke with a 2.1 in media studies, his sense of entitlement was breathtaking!
I mean to say , Media Studies, why does he think that that is too good a qualification to stop him taking a job in a shop or whatever.
My youngest has a Maths & Physics degree, and has been waitressing, and will go back to that, whilst applying for other jobs.
He needs a reality check( granted he was claiming less than 4k a year)
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Very interesting. The media studies graduate was interesting. I doubt it would harm him it his benefit was stopped... it was only 3k, so hes clearly living off his family. But he was at least volunteering - although to what value im unsure - so not being feckless despite the attitude. I understand that having taken on the work and debt of a degree he feels he ought to get a good job, and has now found that there arent many cool media studies jobs but life's ok with family support so he'll wait for something better to fall at his feet.
Single mother looks the typical lazy slob initially, but turns out to be quite decent, despite some rather frivolous spending (on the small zoo). Think next week she'll turn out to be one of the best workers.
The couple I didnt catch if she worked or not, but it seemed strange he was (or appeared to be) the only one applying for jobs. Seemed a bit more deserving in terms of actively seeking work than the others.
Single father/disabled bloke. Hmmm not sure, hes either; a poor sod thatll never hold a job down because he is unemployable, and has recently developed a severe but occasional health problem but despite this has brought his kids up on next to no money for 20 years and seems to be a good father or; hes a very shrewd lazy man, basically happy with his life on benefits and doesnt see any advantages (if there are any) for him from going to work?
Very interesting. The media studies graduate was interesting. I doubt it would harm him it his benefit was stopped... it was only 3k, so hes clearly living off his family. But he was at least volunteering - although to what value im unsure - so not being feckless despite the attitude. I understand that having taken on the work and debt of a degree he feels he ought to get a good job, and has now found that there arent many cool media studies jobs but life's ok with family support so he'll wait for something better to fall at his feet.
Single mother looks the typical lazy slob initially, but turns out to be quite decent, despite some rather frivolous spending (on the small zoo). Think next week she'll turn out to be one of the best workers.
The couple I didnt catch if she worked or not, but it seemed strange he was (or appeared to be) the only one applying for jobs. Seemed a bit more deserving in terms of actively seeking work than the others.
Single father/disabled bloke. Hmmm not sure, hes either; a poor sod thatll never hold a job down because he is unemployable, and has recently developed a severe but occasional health problem but despite this has brought his kids up on next to no money for 20 years and seems to be a good father or; hes a very shrewd lazy man, basically happy with his life on benefits and doesnt see any advantages (if there are any) for him from going to work?
In reply to balmybaldwin:
>
There is a word for people like that, scum. Benefits are intended to be very short term, as in weeks. Nobody should be able to be happy or have a life on benefits. I hope the Job Centre stops his money after seeing that.
> (In reply to balmybaldwin)
>
> ...basically happy with his life on benefits and doesnt see any advantages (if there are any) for him from going to work?
>>
> ...basically happy with his life on benefits and doesnt see any advantages (if there are any) for him from going to work?
>
There is a word for people like that, scum. Benefits are intended to be very short term, as in weeks. Nobody should be able to be happy or have a life on benefits. I hope the Job Centre stops his money after seeing that.
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Widdie did a similar programme
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2303687/Mick-Philpotts-children-mea...
> Looks like it could be interesting.
>
>
> Getting people of opposing views seeing what it means to live on benefits
>
>
> Getting people of opposing views seeing what it means to live on benefits
Widdie did a similar programme
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2303687/Mick-Philpotts-children-mea...
In reply to balmybaldwin: Makes me so mad to think all these spongers are having 2 hollidays a year and living it up with there £47 a week money.While the people who manage your tax money are really having a rough time of it,with there expense claims being so meager.Good job they control the media so tXats like you lot really know whats going on.
In reply to balmybaldwin: looks like the bbc/government program had the intended effect. It's always helpful to divert attention away from society's genuine parasites by dividing a class of people into those with jobs and those without. This at time when some public sector workers (MPs) get a pay rise (pensions?) whilst the rest get their wages frozen.
Perhaps a better program would be minimum wage v expense claiming parliamentarians.
Shame on you BBC for even considering such propaganda, this will have far reaching effects on a lot of people. It wouldn't even be appropriate if there existed an excess of emplyment for everyone.
It encourages those who work, especially on a low wage to actually think they are well off by encouraging a comparison with those are unable to find fair paid employment.
Hook, line and sinker
Perhaps a better program would be minimum wage v expense claiming parliamentarians.
Shame on you BBC for even considering such propaganda, this will have far reaching effects on a lot of people. It wouldn't even be appropriate if there existed an excess of emplyment for everyone.
It encourages those who work, especially on a low wage to actually think they are well off by encouraging a comparison with those are unable to find fair paid employment.
Hook, line and sinker
In reply to all:
Do you think PopShot is Sam-In-Leeds aka TwoPints latest incarnation, or just a spoof persona?
Do you think PopShot is Sam-In-Leeds aka TwoPints latest incarnation, or just a spoof persona?
In reply to PopShot:
for the record popshot
the UK wellfare system was expanded by your dear leader, becuase in her opinion it was cheaper to pay people to do nothing than underwrite the cost of the manufacturing / coal mining jobs they used to have.
please try and keep up!
for the record popshot
the UK wellfare system was expanded by your dear leader, becuase in her opinion it was cheaper to pay people to do nothing than underwrite the cost of the manufacturing / coal mining jobs they used to have.
please try and keep up!
In reply to pebbles:
Spoof, and a very tedious one at that. Not encouraging it is the best policy.
> (In reply to all)
>
> Do you think PopShot is Sam-In-Leeds aka TwoPints latest incarnation, or just a spoof persona?
>
> Do you think PopShot is Sam-In-Leeds aka TwoPints latest incarnation, or just a spoof persona?
Spoof, and a very tedious one at that. Not encouraging it is the best policy.
In reply to Ridge:
Must admit, I thought 2pints as well. Very similar views held by both. Now I just think it's a wind up/troll trying to get a rise.
Must admit, I thought 2pints as well. Very similar views held by both. Now I just think it's a wind up/troll trying to get a rise.
In reply to rallymania:
Didn't Norman Tebit say "on your bikes and get a job?" Sounds to me as if Mrs Thatcher didn't intend to pay benefits long term either
> (In reply to PopShot)
>
> for the record popshot
>
> the UK wellfare system was expanded by your dear leader, becuase in her opinion it was cheaper to pay people to do nothing than underwrite the cost of the manufacturing / coal mining jobs they used to have.
>
> please try and keep up!
>
> for the record popshot
>
> the UK wellfare system was expanded by your dear leader, becuase in her opinion it was cheaper to pay people to do nothing than underwrite the cost of the manufacturing / coal mining jobs they used to have.
>
> please try and keep up!
Didn't Norman Tebit say "on your bikes and get a job?" Sounds to me as if Mrs Thatcher didn't intend to pay benefits long term either
In reply to PopShot:
It's not always that cut and dried!
Ive been trying to get back to work and recently had a 'successful' interview at a clothing store. I was then asked back for a 'shop floor assessment', basically, a chance for the manager to see if I was ok in that environment (slightly cheeky I thought seeing as I used to manage a bloody shop and I generated over £100 in an hour in sales). I then waited a fortnight, til today, to ring up to be told I hadnt got the job, but they would keep my info on file if the person who did get it, didnt work out. All this for a part time (only 4 hours a week) sales assistant job which Im over qualified for!
That has been the only interview Ive had in 6 months, even though Ive been applying for more than 20 jobs a week that Im qualified for and have relevent experience in (over 20 years retail, and some of that as a manager and book keeper). Sometimes, there are only 5 jobs a week that I am qaulified and experienced to do. I very rarely even get a courtesy email telling me I havent been selected for a interview, let alone, an actual invite for interview. I spend at least 2 hours on each application, tailoring my CV and letter to the job and my skills and yet employers are not courteseous enough to spend 5 minutes replying. Some jobs, I have spent a week, working on the application form. I recently applied for an assistant manager role in retail, and even though I ticked all of and more than the essential criteria as well as all of the desirable criteria with both qualifications and experience, I was not even selected for an interview!
So, being in this situation is not good but its necessary. I dont have luxuries, such as a a good conditioner for my hair. My food is the value, tasteless stuff in the supermarket and I struggle to pay all my bills every week. So, am I scum?
> (In reply to balmybaldwin)
> [...]
>
>
>
> There is a word for people like that, scum. Benefits are intended to be very short term, as in weeks. Nobody should be able to be happy or have a life on benefits. I hope the Job Centre stops his money after seeing that.
> [...]
>
>
>
> There is a word for people like that, scum. Benefits are intended to be very short term, as in weeks. Nobody should be able to be happy or have a life on benefits. I hope the Job Centre stops his money after seeing that.
It's not always that cut and dried!
Ive been trying to get back to work and recently had a 'successful' interview at a clothing store. I was then asked back for a 'shop floor assessment', basically, a chance for the manager to see if I was ok in that environment (slightly cheeky I thought seeing as I used to manage a bloody shop and I generated over £100 in an hour in sales). I then waited a fortnight, til today, to ring up to be told I hadnt got the job, but they would keep my info on file if the person who did get it, didnt work out. All this for a part time (only 4 hours a week) sales assistant job which Im over qualified for!
That has been the only interview Ive had in 6 months, even though Ive been applying for more than 20 jobs a week that Im qualified for and have relevent experience in (over 20 years retail, and some of that as a manager and book keeper). Sometimes, there are only 5 jobs a week that I am qaulified and experienced to do. I very rarely even get a courtesy email telling me I havent been selected for a interview, let alone, an actual invite for interview. I spend at least 2 hours on each application, tailoring my CV and letter to the job and my skills and yet employers are not courteseous enough to spend 5 minutes replying. Some jobs, I have spent a week, working on the application form. I recently applied for an assistant manager role in retail, and even though I ticked all of and more than the essential criteria as well as all of the desirable criteria with both qualifications and experience, I was not even selected for an interview!
So, being in this situation is not good but its necessary. I dont have luxuries, such as a a good conditioner for my hair. My food is the value, tasteless stuff in the supermarket and I struggle to pay all my bills every week. So, am I scum?
In reply to pebbles: 2Pints is/was a racist moron, so far Poop Shoot has only shown themesleves to be a moron, so I doubt it.
In reply to RockAngel: oh, and me and my son (who is now 17) have never had a holiday, let alone 2 foreign holidays a year seeing as I cant even afford our passports.
In reply to RockAngel:
Don't rise to him. It's a troll account. Most folk are figuring that out now and learning to ignore.
Don't rise to him. It's a troll account. Most folk are figuring that out now and learning to ignore.
In reply to RockAngel: and that job, with the multiple interviews for only 4 hours work a week, took 12 weeks to complete! not because of me dragging my feet, but because the employer was. So coming off benefits would be a hell of a lot quicker if employers would not drag the whole damn process out!
In reply to Toby S:
Absolutely. I also didn't watch the programme as most media now knows hot to 'generate' a debate......get two groups from 'opposing' sides and put them together.
This has been done to death via reality shows etc. It's not coincidence that this weeks guests on Come Eat my Lunch had one who love lamb and another who thought meat was murder....watch the melee an call it entertainment. Schedule it in a political prog and you've got meaningful debate....yeah right.
Popshot feeds off exactly the same......prod your audience with a stick and watch the reaction.
> (In reply to RockAngel)
>
> Don't rise to him. It's a troll account. Most folk are figuring that out now and learning to ignore.
>
> Don't rise to him. It's a troll account. Most folk are figuring that out now and learning to ignore.
Absolutely. I also didn't watch the programme as most media now knows hot to 'generate' a debate......get two groups from 'opposing' sides and put them together.
This has been done to death via reality shows etc. It's not coincidence that this weeks guests on Come Eat my Lunch had one who love lamb and another who thought meat was murder....watch the melee an call it entertainment. Schedule it in a political prog and you've got meaningful debate....yeah right.
Popshot feeds off exactly the same......prod your audience with a stick and watch the reaction.
In reply to RockAngel: ......and breathe. Pop Tart will be beside themselves with delight that they have had a bite. As TobyS says, dont feed the troll.
In reply to PopShot:
The plan was that the private sector would eventually employ everyone but 30 years on and it hasn't ever managed it. So with that in mind the current tories have slashed public sector jobs and have promised that the private sector will provide the jobs, Which it hasn't. They are either daft or they don't give a shite.
Seems more and more apparent that politicians of all sides exist solely to keep the rich at the top of the pile.
> (In reply to rallymania)
> [...]
>
> Didn't Norman Tebit say "on your bikes and get a job?" Sounds to me as if Mrs Thatcher didn't intend to pay benefits long term either
> [...]
>
> Didn't Norman Tebit say "on your bikes and get a job?" Sounds to me as if Mrs Thatcher didn't intend to pay benefits long term either
The plan was that the private sector would eventually employ everyone but 30 years on and it hasn't ever managed it. So with that in mind the current tories have slashed public sector jobs and have promised that the private sector will provide the jobs, Which it hasn't. They are either daft or they don't give a shite.
Seems more and more apparent that politicians of all sides exist solely to keep the rich at the top of the pile.
In reply to RockAngel: Really feel for your situation. Employers over a certain size really should be encouraged to offer feedback after recruitment drives, even if it was a group session feedback workshop for anyone who wants learn how to improve etc. My employer offers feedback meetings for internal applicants only but it'd be great for everyone if they opened out to outside applicants too. Good luck and keep on looking forward.
In reply to balmybaldwin: Do trollbots existing in t'web land? A software program set up to respond to threads in the most arse like manner.
In reply to RockAngel:
I am not disputing your dilema. It sucks. Can you not get a job behind a bar or a call centre in the mean while which is unrelated to your area of expertise? While trying to get jobs in my area I have worked in restaurants, bars, fast food, call centres. At least a job is in place until something comes up better. I have heard the argument from some people that they wont want to go into a call centre because they will then end up trapped there, but it wasnt that way for me. It was a means to an end.
That guy who said he deserved benefits so he could watch his kid is im sorry in la la land. What parent in the world would not want to be off watching their kid full time? My wife is in tears thinking about going back to work as it essentially means the wee one goes to bed 2 hours after she will get home from work. We arent in a financial situation where one of us can afford to be off full time, so that means we need to both work full time. Cest la vie. Bills need to be paid so that in the long run we can provide a better life for her. I barely remember my childhood and I certainly dont remember much about being in nursery as a baby so im not growing up thinking... damn I wish my parents spent more time with me as a baby. I was fed, clothed, housed and got some luxuries to boot.
I am not disputing your dilema. It sucks. Can you not get a job behind a bar or a call centre in the mean while which is unrelated to your area of expertise? While trying to get jobs in my area I have worked in restaurants, bars, fast food, call centres. At least a job is in place until something comes up better. I have heard the argument from some people that they wont want to go into a call centre because they will then end up trapped there, but it wasnt that way for me. It was a means to an end.
That guy who said he deserved benefits so he could watch his kid is im sorry in la la land. What parent in the world would not want to be off watching their kid full time? My wife is in tears thinking about going back to work as it essentially means the wee one goes to bed 2 hours after she will get home from work. We arent in a financial situation where one of us can afford to be off full time, so that means we need to both work full time. Cest la vie. Bills need to be paid so that in the long run we can provide a better life for her. I barely remember my childhood and I certainly dont remember much about being in nursery as a baby so im not growing up thinking... damn I wish my parents spent more time with me as a baby. I was fed, clothed, housed and got some luxuries to boot.
In reply to RockAngel:
No I wouldn't say so. You sound like a decent sort who is genuinely trying and stuck in a rut. One of the decent few. Isn't there other jobs you could broaden your search to?
> (In reply to PopShot)
> [...]
>
> ...So, am I scum?
> [...]
>
> ...So, am I scum?
No I wouldn't say so. You sound like a decent sort who is genuinely trying and stuck in a rut. One of the decent few. Isn't there other jobs you could broaden your search to?
In reply to PopShot: ...just thinking if you did you could get off that Tesco Value stuff, must be grim!
In reply to PopShot:
Much as I hate feeding the trolls, it seems worth pointing out for the benefit of other readers of the thread that the lad in question is comfortable because he's supported by his parents, not because the state is giving him large amounts of money. The support he's getting from the state, if he didn't have his parents supporting him, would give him a very meagre life indeed.
Much as I hate feeding the trolls, it seems worth pointing out for the benefit of other readers of the thread that the lad in question is comfortable because he's supported by his parents, not because the state is giving him large amounts of money. The support he's getting from the state, if he didn't have his parents supporting him, would give him a very meagre life indeed.
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
PopSh@at is not a moron, PopSh@t is 'Special' and therefore is protected by Human Rights to interact with the wider community.
Therefore PopSh@t should be allowed to play nicely within the community.
Just accept that PopSh@t has a low IQ and move on.
> (In reply to pebbles) 2Pints is/was a racist moron, so far Poop Shoot has only shown themesleves to be a moron, so I doubt it.
PopSh@at is not a moron, PopSh@t is 'Special' and therefore is protected by Human Rights to interact with the wider community.
Therefore PopSh@t should be allowed to play nicely within the community.
Just accept that PopSh@t has a low IQ and move on.
In reply to RockAngel: My wife is currently out of work and replys to applications are fairly rare.
I advertised a job last year and had over 400 applications in about 4 days and unfortunately there is not time to respond to them all.
But I did break them in to categories.
No1 being the people who basically just said giz a job or used text speak on the application, they just got deleted.
No2 the mid list, people who put some effort in to applying but I deemed were not for me, they got a copy and paste mail saying thanks but no thanks (not those words but you get the drift).
No3 the short list of about 20 people, 16 of them got a reply tailored to their application.
The final 4 got an interview.
Just out of interest, where in the country are you?. I currently have an opening for an apprentice service engineer in Leeds that I would be happy to interview your lad for if its local and something he might be interested in.
I advertised a job last year and had over 400 applications in about 4 days and unfortunately there is not time to respond to them all.
But I did break them in to categories.
No1 being the people who basically just said giz a job or used text speak on the application, they just got deleted.
No2 the mid list, people who put some effort in to applying but I deemed were not for me, they got a copy and paste mail saying thanks but no thanks (not those words but you get the drift).
No3 the short list of about 20 people, 16 of them got a reply tailored to their application.
The final 4 got an interview.
Just out of interest, where in the country are you?. I currently have an opening for an apprentice service engineer in Leeds that I would be happy to interview your lad for if its local and something he might be interested in.
In reply to pebbles:
Not me I'm afraid.
I'm trying to slowly withdraw myself from UKC now. 7 years post-accident and I can't climb anyway.
Now I'm in my late 20s winding people up doesn't give me such a kick anymore.
I miss the golden-age of UKC about 7-8 years ago
> (In reply to all)
>
> Do you think PopShot is Sam-In-Leeds aka TwoPints latest incarnation, or just a spoof persona?
>
> Do you think PopShot is Sam-In-Leeds aka TwoPints latest incarnation, or just a spoof persona?
Not me I'm afraid.
I'm trying to slowly withdraw myself from UKC now. 7 years post-accident and I can't climb anyway.
Now I'm in my late 20s winding people up doesn't give me such a kick anymore.
I miss the golden-age of UKC about 7-8 years ago
In reply to Sam_in_Leeds: Just out of interest what happened to you in your accident?
In reply to PopShot:
Fell off at Almscliff in Yorkshire leading some HS/VS on April 1st 2006.
I fell about 15ft and smashed up my femur in 7 places and had an operation to fit a nail into it.
Now get intermitent pain in my hip and a crippling fear of heights (along with a virtually new and unused rack in my cupboard!)
Fell off at Almscliff in Yorkshire leading some HS/VS on April 1st 2006.
I fell about 15ft and smashed up my femur in 7 places and had an operation to fit a nail into it.
Now get intermitent pain in my hip and a crippling fear of heights (along with a virtually new and unused rack in my cupboard!)
In reply to PopShot: ive tried broadening the scope of suitable jobs to apply for, with less success. I have a list of transferable skills & quals, can spell without using text speak (irs shocking that people use that on applications & they need a slap!), but find im limited due to lack of relevent experience in those more varie have workwdd roles so therefore dont get anywhere. Have worked in a bar as a youth but ended up living with an alcoholic so working in a bar again and having to be around those people again turns my stomach. I
In reply to RockAngel: I do have sympathy for you. I was really talking about the types of people seen on the Jeremy Kyle show. Maybe I shouldn't have been so broad in my assumptions. Sorry for any upset caused.
In reply to Sam_in_Leeds:
Ooh! Nasty! I've taken a few monsters and it does give you a fright. I've luckily never been hurt like you though. I don't blame you for avoiding rock nowadays! That would have been a bad day indeed.
> (In reply to PopShot)
>
> Fell off at Almscliff in Yorkshire leading some HS/VS on April 1st 2006.
>
> I fell about 15ft and smashed up my femur in 7 places and had an operation to fit a nail into it.
>
> Now get intermitent pain in my hip and a crippling fear of heights (along with a virtually new and unused rack in my cupboard!)
>
> Fell off at Almscliff in Yorkshire leading some HS/VS on April 1st 2006.
>
> I fell about 15ft and smashed up my femur in 7 places and had an operation to fit a nail into it.
>
> Now get intermitent pain in my hip and a crippling fear of heights (along with a virtually new and unused rack in my cupboard!)
Ooh! Nasty! I've taken a few monsters and it does give you a fright. I've luckily never been hurt like you though. I don't blame you for avoiding rock nowadays! That would have been a bad day indeed.
In reply to PopShot:
I knew you were a nice chap underneath PopShot, your true colours are showing through .
> (In reply to RockAngel) I do have sympathy for you. I was really talking about the types of people seen on the Jeremy Kyle show. Maybe I shouldn't have been so broad in my assumptions. Sorry for any upset caused.
I knew you were a nice chap underneath PopShot, your true colours are showing through .
In reply to PopShot:
There is a word for people like that, scum. Benefits are intended to be very short term, as in weeks. Nobody should be able to be happy or have a life on benefits. I hope the Job Centre stops his money after seeing that.
I don't know anybody on benefits that is happy.
There is a word for people like that, scum. Benefits are intended to be very short term, as in weeks. Nobody should be able to be happy or have a life on benefits. I hope the Job Centre stops his money after seeing that.
I don't know anybody on benefits that is happy.
In reply to Jim C:
The pretence was bound to 'crack' at some point......
> (In reply to PopShot)
> [...]
>
> I knew you were a nice chap underneath PopShot, your true colours are showing through .
> [...]
>
> I knew you were a nice chap underneath PopShot, your true colours are showing through .
The pretence was bound to 'crack' at some point......
In reply to xplorer:
And the other side of that coin is I know a number of people on benefits who are happy and laugh about the fact that it is the dumb working stiffs who pay their "wages" .
>
> I don't know anybody on benefits that is happy.
> I don't know anybody on benefits that is happy.
And the other side of that coin is I know a number of people on benefits who are happy and laugh about the fact that it is the dumb working stiffs who pay their "wages" .
In reply to Dax H:
With what their "paid" they can only afford to live, how many people on benefits do you know who:
Have a nice house
Holidays every year
Eat well
Have hobbies
Have a nice car
Have nice clothes
And I'm talking long term benefit scrounging here. People who seek to live of benefits for their whole life, are deluded. They don't understand the real world, how working makes you happier just by getting up for a purpose in the morning. Most long term benefit receivers are depressed.
I think many people have benefitted from the system at some time, from all walks of life.
With what their "paid" they can only afford to live, how many people on benefits do you know who:
Have a nice house
Holidays every year
Eat well
Have hobbies
Have a nice car
Have nice clothes
And I'm talking long term benefit scrounging here. People who seek to live of benefits for their whole life, are deluded. They don't understand the real world, how working makes you happier just by getting up for a purpose in the morning. Most long term benefit receivers are depressed.
I think many people have benefitted from the system at some time, from all walks of life.
In reply to xplorer: Actually a lot of them do... The houses in that program were a lot bigger than what I own and why should they get paid more for sitting doing nothing than a lot of hard workers do?
For people who have lost their job and are trying to get work then fair enough, but for those just too lazy to do anything and expect to get freebies, that just p*sses me off.
For people who have lost their job and are trying to get work then fair enough, but for those just too lazy to do anything and expect to get freebies, that just p*sses me off.
In reply to Chalk: I'd rather pay them to sit at home than have them littering my workplace trying to get away with as doing as little as possible and throwing as many sick days as they can get away with.
Some people just don't have a strong work ethic. Does it worry me? No. You're still talking about a very small minority, even though they seem to take up a disproportionate amount of media effort. As someone said, the media like to sell sky packages and newspapers, prod people with sticks and they can't get enough.
Dragging the Tories into it again? Jeez! What's the difference between pumping millions of pounds into industries like the mines and the printworks (and the NHS?) just because they failed to modernise and making people redundant and paying them doll?
Financially nothing, short term sociological - very bad. Isn't it time they, and we, moved on. We haven't got the unemployment we had then and it seems second and third generation unemployed ex-miners are still complaining...
Some people just don't have a strong work ethic. Does it worry me? No. You're still talking about a very small minority, even though they seem to take up a disproportionate amount of media effort. As someone said, the media like to sell sky packages and newspapers, prod people with sticks and they can't get enough.
Dragging the Tories into it again? Jeez! What's the difference between pumping millions of pounds into industries like the mines and the printworks (and the NHS?) just because they failed to modernise and making people redundant and paying them doll?
Financially nothing, short term sociological - very bad. Isn't it time they, and we, moved on. We haven't got the unemployment we had then and it seems second and third generation unemployed ex-miners are still complaining...
In reply to Chalk:
Receiving benefits and never working, they simply can't afford all of them things.
They must have worked at some point surely
Receiving benefits and never working, they simply can't afford all of them things.
They must have worked at some point surely
In reply to xplorer:
The one element that we often overlook is how much we spend going to work. Travel, clothes, lunch etc.
> (In reply to Chalk)
>
>
> Receiving benefits and never working, they simply can't afford all of them things.
>
> They must have worked at some point surely
>
>
> Receiving benefits and never working, they simply can't afford all of them things.
>
> They must have worked at some point surely
The one element that we often overlook is how much we spend going to work. Travel, clothes, lunch etc.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Yes you can consider work costs. But I don't, I can guarantee you I'm a lot better off physically, mentally and financially, for getting out working, earning money and feeling a lot better than being sat at home, with not enough money todo what I want.
Yes you can consider work costs. But I don't, I can guarantee you I'm a lot better off physically, mentally and financially, for getting out working, earning money and feeling a lot better than being sat at home, with not enough money todo what I want.
In reply to xplorer: I almost married in to one family of 9 brothers and sisters.
One of the brothers has never worked a day in his life and currently has 12 kids.
They live in a knocked through semi detached, him and her both chain smoke as does the eldest child (now 17 and a mum of 2).
they have not 1 but 2 Renault people carriers, they go on a 2 week holiday every year though I will concede that they are UK holidays and not abroad.
The parents both have iPhones and the 7 kids over 10 all have a phone of some sort.
Every bedroom has a tv and games console (either xbox 360 or ps3 for the older kids or xbox or ps2 for the younger).
All the kids wear fashionable clothing and the correct trainers though I suspect most are counterfeit.
Neither mum nor dad have ever worked.
Case no2.
my mates son who has MS.
Again never worked, nice house, 50 inch screen in the living room and a 32 inch in the bedroom that raises up out of the foot board when he wants to watch it.
A collection of cars and motorbikes and would not be seen dead in anything that does not have the correct designer lables on it.
Case 3.
a lass I dated for a few months, single mum, 3 kids, large ground floor flat, a family car (paid for my the social) and a jag to play in when the kids go to their respective dads, a caravan on the east coast where they spend most of the summer holidays, the useuall collection of tvs and consoles but no sky. When I was with her 13 years ago she was getting £1500 a month from the social on top of the car and the flat.
Case 4.
my own dear grandmama, currently receives £1200 a month in benefits but only spends £760 a month. The last 2 times that the social have reviewed her benefits they have decreed that she is on the correct level despite having 40k in savings and her current account going up by £440 every month. I get regular phone calls from the bank asking me to transfer money from her current account to her savings as they don't like people having over 5k in a current account.
Other than my gran non of the people above have ever worked, but they do very well from the social because they know exactly what they can claim for. (my grans claim was fettled by a relative who has played the system her entire life but I don't have the specifics of her so I did not include her as a case).
I am so know quite a lot of people who struggle on benefits but they tend to be people who have worked and have fallen on hard times, the system seems to be if you have never worked you get it all but if you try to do the right thing you get bugger all.
Ahh I almost forgot about my co director who was windowed with a 6month old, once the kid was old enough that he could go back to work he needed to find a job paying £250 a week just to break even with his benefits, this was 12 years ago.
He did Hi back to work, at a small loss in money just for the self respect and that led to me giving him shares in my company and making him a director.
One of the brothers has never worked a day in his life and currently has 12 kids.
They live in a knocked through semi detached, him and her both chain smoke as does the eldest child (now 17 and a mum of 2).
they have not 1 but 2 Renault people carriers, they go on a 2 week holiday every year though I will concede that they are UK holidays and not abroad.
The parents both have iPhones and the 7 kids over 10 all have a phone of some sort.
Every bedroom has a tv and games console (either xbox 360 or ps3 for the older kids or xbox or ps2 for the younger).
All the kids wear fashionable clothing and the correct trainers though I suspect most are counterfeit.
Neither mum nor dad have ever worked.
Case no2.
my mates son who has MS.
Again never worked, nice house, 50 inch screen in the living room and a 32 inch in the bedroom that raises up out of the foot board when he wants to watch it.
A collection of cars and motorbikes and would not be seen dead in anything that does not have the correct designer lables on it.
Case 3.
a lass I dated for a few months, single mum, 3 kids, large ground floor flat, a family car (paid for my the social) and a jag to play in when the kids go to their respective dads, a caravan on the east coast where they spend most of the summer holidays, the useuall collection of tvs and consoles but no sky. When I was with her 13 years ago she was getting £1500 a month from the social on top of the car and the flat.
Case 4.
my own dear grandmama, currently receives £1200 a month in benefits but only spends £760 a month. The last 2 times that the social have reviewed her benefits they have decreed that she is on the correct level despite having 40k in savings and her current account going up by £440 every month. I get regular phone calls from the bank asking me to transfer money from her current account to her savings as they don't like people having over 5k in a current account.
Other than my gran non of the people above have ever worked, but they do very well from the social because they know exactly what they can claim for. (my grans claim was fettled by a relative who has played the system her entire life but I don't have the specifics of her so I did not include her as a case).
I am so know quite a lot of people who struggle on benefits but they tend to be people who have worked and have fallen on hard times, the system seems to be if you have never worked you get it all but if you try to do the right thing you get bugger all.
Ahh I almost forgot about my co director who was windowed with a 6month old, once the kid was old enough that he could go back to work he needed to find a job paying £250 a week just to break even with his benefits, this was 12 years ago.
He did Hi back to work, at a small loss in money just for the self respect and that led to me giving him shares in my company and making him a director.
In reply to Dax H:
So how much are they all receiving in benefits a month? Are they illegally working aswell.
I don't believe you if I'm honest. Some of them examples you have given me sounds like their on 50k a year.
So how much are they all receiving in benefits a month? Are they illegally working aswell.
I don't believe you if I'm honest. Some of them examples you have given me sounds like their on 50k a year.
In reply to DancingOnRock: Completely agree about not really wanting them in the workplace if they are just going to doss but why does that entitled them to lots of freebies when they're to lazy to go out and get hard working jobs. Most of us started at the bottom at some point and worked up.
In reply to xplorer: I can believe all of them examples. There are plenty of areas not far from me where a lot of people are on benefits and have no intention of trying to find a job. Ok they might not have the life style of a high paying businessman but they do all have laptops, plasma tv's, iphones etc and still manage to smoke and go out drinking.
In reply to xplorer: I can believe all of them examples. There are plenty of areas not far from me where a lot of people are on benefits and have no intention of trying to find a job. Ok they might not have the life style of a high paying businessman but they do all have laptops, plasma tv's, iphones etc and still manage to smoke and go out drinking.
In reply to Chalk:
Having a plasma, iPhones and drinking and smoking doesn't constitute a good life.
As long as you are working and progressing every year, then why would you care what they get up to. There will always be benefits, there has to be.
A familey of 4 on benefits receive around 1200 a month. That's for everything. That really isn't a lot of money.
Having a plasma, iPhones and drinking and smoking doesn't constitute a good life.
As long as you are working and progressing every year, then why would you care what they get up to. There will always be benefits, there has to be.
A familey of 4 on benefits receive around 1200 a month. That's for everything. That really isn't a lot of money.
In reply to xplorer:
I don't know how much they got with the exception of my gran because I do her finances and the ex because I lived with her for a few months before her being in my eyes a parasite overcame the fact that she was fantastic in bed
You cab believe or not, I know that everything I have posted is fact and not fiction.
You say that a family of 4 receives £1200 a month and say that is not much but then factor in the free house (£500) and no council tax ( £100) and suddenly your looking at a take home wage after tax of £1800 a month, I know a hell of a lot of working families on far less than this.
> (In reply to Dax H)
>
> So how much are they all receiving in benefits a month? Are they illegally working aswell.
>
> So how much are they all receiving in benefits a month? Are they illegally working aswell.
I don't know how much they got with the exception of my gran because I do her finances and the ex because I lived with her for a few months before her being in my eyes a parasite overcame the fact that she was fantastic in bed
> I don't believe you if I'm honest. Some of them examples you have given me sounds like their on 50k a year.
You cab believe or not, I know that everything I have posted is fact and not fiction.
You say that a family of 4 receives £1200 a month and say that is not much but then factor in the free house (£500) and no council tax ( £100) and suddenly your looking at a take home wage after tax of £1800 a month, I know a hell of a lot of working families on far less than this.
In reply to xplorer:
Having a plasma, iPhones and drinking and smoking doesn't constitute a good life.
To you maybe not and it certainly isn't healthy. However, to some people, that is their idea of heaven.
Having a plasma, iPhones and drinking and smoking doesn't constitute a good life.
To you maybe not and it certainly isn't healthy. However, to some people, that is their idea of heaven.
In reply to MJ:
Hmmmm, then what is that telling you MJ.
If they believe having a tv and mobile phone is a sign of having a good life, then leave them to it!
If you believe it's a good thing too, then you havent set your goals very high have you?
Hmmmm, then what is that telling you MJ.
If they believe having a tv and mobile phone is a sign of having a good life, then leave them to it!
If you believe it's a good thing too, then you havent set your goals very high have you?
In reply to xplorer: Fair enough but that is still the equivalent of a job paying about 20k a year before tax and again I say lots of people don't earn that much.
In reply to xplorer:
Hmmmm, then what is that telling you MJ.
That they're happy with a lifestyle that you don't 'approve' of.
If they believe having a tv and mobile phone is a sign of having a good life, then leave them to it!
People can do what the hell they want with their own lives. However, this discussion is about people abusing the benefits system and therefore having more disposable income than people in work.
I haven't got a clue how prevalent this is, but would hope that it could be stopped and the money directed to more needy cases.
If you believe it's a good thing too, then you havent set your goals very high have you?
No, it's not my preferred lifestyle and it comes across as a bit of a cheap shot for you to suggest it.
Hmmmm, then what is that telling you MJ.
That they're happy with a lifestyle that you don't 'approve' of.
If they believe having a tv and mobile phone is a sign of having a good life, then leave them to it!
People can do what the hell they want with their own lives. However, this discussion is about people abusing the benefits system and therefore having more disposable income than people in work.
I haven't got a clue how prevalent this is, but would hope that it could be stopped and the money directed to more needy cases.
If you believe it's a good thing too, then you havent set your goals very high have you?
No, it's not my preferred lifestyle and it comes across as a bit of a cheap shot for you to suggest it.
In reply to xplorer:
Don't get shirty!
Shirty would imply that I've replied to you in a bad tempered way, something which I haven't done.
Anyway, it's too hot to be shirty and at this moment, I'm positively shirtless.
Don't get shirty!
Shirty would imply that I've replied to you in a bad tempered way, something which I haven't done.
Anyway, it's too hot to be shirty and at this moment, I'm positively shirtless.
In reply to Dax H:
I wish I earned that much, £250p/w after tax(What I currently earn) is sod all, trouble is that there are no full time permanent jobs out there for joiners so I would definitely be better off on benefits.
> (In reply to xplorer) Fair enough but that is still the equivalent of a job paying about 20k a year before tax and again I say lots of people don't earn that much.
I wish I earned that much, £250p/w after tax(What I currently earn) is sod all, trouble is that there are no full time permanent jobs out there for joiners so I would definitely be better off on benefits.
In reply to xplorer:
If you believe it's a good thing too, then you havent set your goals very high have you?
Maybe you meant to say 'They' as opposed to 'You'?
Additionally, I'm also shortless and currently typing this in my underpants and with a fan wafting nice cool air over my nether regions. Not sure what this adds to the debate though.
If you believe it's a good thing too, then you havent set your goals very high have you?
Maybe you meant to say 'They' as opposed to 'You'?
Additionally, I'm also shortless and currently typing this in my underpants and with a fan wafting nice cool air over my nether regions. Not sure what this adds to the debate though.
In reply to mwr72:
Maybe I'm a better position than I thought I was then.
Started plastering 7 years ago, set up on my own 5 years ago, then started doing complete kitchens, bathrooms and extensions, and I haven't stopped work wise.
No offence here, but life's not easy is it? You have to keep improving you're skills and goals.
While you are continuing to earn more money every year on the ladder, the benefits claimants will have to start at the bottom of the ladder again, if they start work.
Every year I try to increase my wage, and it's working so far. Couldn't care less what scruffy joe blogs is doing on the local council estate.
Maybe I'm a better position than I thought I was then.
Started plastering 7 years ago, set up on my own 5 years ago, then started doing complete kitchens, bathrooms and extensions, and I haven't stopped work wise.
No offence here, but life's not easy is it? You have to keep improving you're skills and goals.
While you are continuing to earn more money every year on the ladder, the benefits claimants will have to start at the bottom of the ladder again, if they start work.
Every year I try to increase my wage, and it's working so far. Couldn't care less what scruffy joe blogs is doing on the local council estate.
In reply to xplorer:
Has anyone else noticed the 'lifestyle choice mums'? These are benefit mothers who have <or will end up with> a tribe of kids that have a 5 year age gap between each kid? We've 2 of these on our street, one with 3 and another with 5. It seems that when the kids reach 5 YO, they get stepped down in benefit and onto jobseekers <as the youngest kid is now school age> so what happens then is that they simply plop out another one to restart the process.
Now I'm sure it isn't a clear cut as I've described but if not that then what else makes a woman chose to live a life on benefits when she could enjoy the reletive freedom of her youngest going to school and build a little social life that often comes with a job?
Has anyone else noticed the 'lifestyle choice mums'? These are benefit mothers who have <or will end up with> a tribe of kids that have a 5 year age gap between each kid? We've 2 of these on our street, one with 3 and another with 5. It seems that when the kids reach 5 YO, they get stepped down in benefit and onto jobseekers <as the youngest kid is now school age> so what happens then is that they simply plop out another one to restart the process.
Now I'm sure it isn't a clear cut as I've described but if not that then what else makes a woman chose to live a life on benefits when she could enjoy the reletive freedom of her youngest going to school and build a little social life that often comes with a job?
In reply to wilkie14c:
That's completely the same situation there is around my area. Benefit baby's, hardly any of the mums work, yet they continue to pop kids out.
I don't believe in social engineering as such, but nobody should be having children who rely solely on job seekers allowance and houseing benefit. It's not fair on the children.
That's completely the same situation there is around my area. Benefit baby's, hardly any of the mums work, yet they continue to pop kids out.
I don't believe in social engineering as such, but nobody should be having children who rely solely on job seekers allowance and houseing benefit. It's not fair on the children.
In reply to wilkie14c:
The main thing that people don't consider is that in order to work full time while your child is at school you will have to pay some kind of childcare. School finishes at 3.30, work typically finishes a couple of hours after so a couple of hours of after school club or equivalent will cost aprox £200 a month per child. Then there is the 13 weeks a year that the child is off work holiday childcare costs aprox £110 per week.
I would imagine that poorly paid or minimum wage jobs would pay nothing like what is available on benefits once you take childcare costs into account.
What's the most sensible answer?
Cut benefits?
Subsidise childcare?
introduce a far higher minimum wage?
> (In reply to xplorer)
> Has anyone else noticed the 'lifestyle choice mums'? These are benefit mothers who have <or will end up with> a tribe of kids that have a 5 year age gap between each kid? We've 2 of these on our street, one with 3 and another with 5. It seems that when the kids reach 5 YO, they get stepped down in benefit and onto jobseekers <as the youngest kid is now school age> so what happens then is that they simply plop out another one to restart the process.
>
> Now I'm sure it isn't a clear cut as I've described but if not that then what else makes a woman chose to live a life on benefits when she could enjoy the reletive freedom of her youngest going to school and build a little social life that often comes with a job?
> Has anyone else noticed the 'lifestyle choice mums'? These are benefit mothers who have <or will end up with> a tribe of kids that have a 5 year age gap between each kid? We've 2 of these on our street, one with 3 and another with 5. It seems that when the kids reach 5 YO, they get stepped down in benefit and onto jobseekers <as the youngest kid is now school age> so what happens then is that they simply plop out another one to restart the process.
>
> Now I'm sure it isn't a clear cut as I've described but if not that then what else makes a woman chose to live a life on benefits when she could enjoy the reletive freedom of her youngest going to school and build a little social life that often comes with a job?
The main thing that people don't consider is that in order to work full time while your child is at school you will have to pay some kind of childcare. School finishes at 3.30, work typically finishes a couple of hours after so a couple of hours of after school club or equivalent will cost aprox £200 a month per child. Then there is the 13 weeks a year that the child is off work holiday childcare costs aprox £110 per week.
I would imagine that poorly paid or minimum wage jobs would pay nothing like what is available on benefits once you take childcare costs into account.
What's the most sensible answer?
Cut benefits?
Subsidise childcare?
introduce a far higher minimum wage?
In reply to doz generale: Cut the benefits. Restrict it to one child.
In reply to PopShot:
have a communist style one child policy?
> (In reply to doz generale) Cut the benefits. Restrict it to one child.
have a communist style one child policy?
In reply to doz generale:
Isn't that what the goverments doing anyway with the welfare reforms?
> (In reply to PopShot)
> [...]
>
> have a communist style one child policy?
> [...]
>
> have a communist style one child policy?
Isn't that what the goverments doing anyway with the welfare reforms?
In reply to doz generale:
introduce a far higher minimum wage?
Exactly!
The low paid jobs that people are in now, does not allow people to not claim benefits. 25 years ago in Stoke, you could walk out of school with no qualifications and be pretty much guaranteed a job in an industry, mines/pottery/steel/Michelin, and clear £250-£500/ week. The communities were thriving with second industries selling food etc.
If you finish school now, then you will be on full time benefit or requiring top ups. The second industries are gone.
Now it peeves me that I took 4 years out of work (printing , £500/ week), to retrain as a professional as the long term prospects printing were poor.
I earn 30 k, work 6 days a week, and am currently shitting it as I don't get paid for a week and we are living on beans!
The wasters across the road, family of four , are happy as buggery! No jobs, 2 cars, new plasma, and holiday brochures!
Where did it all go wrong?
Skol
introduce a far higher minimum wage?
Exactly!
The low paid jobs that people are in now, does not allow people to not claim benefits. 25 years ago in Stoke, you could walk out of school with no qualifications and be pretty much guaranteed a job in an industry, mines/pottery/steel/Michelin, and clear £250-£500/ week. The communities were thriving with second industries selling food etc.
If you finish school now, then you will be on full time benefit or requiring top ups. The second industries are gone.
Now it peeves me that I took 4 years out of work (printing , £500/ week), to retrain as a professional as the long term prospects printing were poor.
I earn 30 k, work 6 days a week, and am currently shitting it as I don't get paid for a week and we are living on beans!
The wasters across the road, family of four , are happy as buggery! No jobs, 2 cars, new plasma, and holiday brochures!
Where did it all go wrong?
Skol
In reply to Skol:
I don't know if increasing the minimum wage is the answer. IMO it would subject businesses to unfair stresses during the recession and likely lead to many of them going to the wall I would fear
> (In reply to doz generale)
> introduce a far higher minimum wage?
>
> Exactly!
> The low paid jobs that people are in now, does not allow people to not claim benefits. 25 years ago in Stoke, you could walk out of school with no qualifications and be pretty much guaranteed a job in an industry, mines/pottery/steel/Michelin, and clear £250-£500/ week. The communities were thriving with second industries selling food etc.
>
> If you finish school now, then you will be on full time benefit or requiring top ups. The second industries are gone.
>
> Now it peeves me that I took 4 years out of work (printing , £500/ week), to retrain as a professional as the long term prospects printing were poor.
>
> I earn 30 k, work 6 days a week, and am currently shitting it as I don't get paid for a week and we are living on beans!
> The wasters across the road, family of four , are happy as buggery! No jobs, 2 cars, new plasma, and holiday brochures!
> Where did it all go wrong?
> Skol
> introduce a far higher minimum wage?
>
> Exactly!
> The low paid jobs that people are in now, does not allow people to not claim benefits. 25 years ago in Stoke, you could walk out of school with no qualifications and be pretty much guaranteed a job in an industry, mines/pottery/steel/Michelin, and clear £250-£500/ week. The communities were thriving with second industries selling food etc.
>
> If you finish school now, then you will be on full time benefit or requiring top ups. The second industries are gone.
>
> Now it peeves me that I took 4 years out of work (printing , £500/ week), to retrain as a professional as the long term prospects printing were poor.
>
> I earn 30 k, work 6 days a week, and am currently shitting it as I don't get paid for a week and we are living on beans!
> The wasters across the road, family of four , are happy as buggery! No jobs, 2 cars, new plasma, and holiday brochures!
> Where did it all go wrong?
> Skol
I don't know if increasing the minimum wage is the answer. IMO it would subject businesses to unfair stresses during the recession and likely lead to many of them going to the wall I would fear
In reply to doz generale:
We could do what we already do, and have quite a large chunk of benefits (housing benefit, child benefit, tax credits etc) available on a sliding scale to low paid workers as well as the unemployed. One of the great bits of political sleight of hand that this government have pulled off is convincing everyone (including a lot of people posting in this thread by the looks of things) that "receiving benefits" is synonymous with "sitting on your arse watching daytime TV".
See also point 1 here:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/07/five-things-iain-duncan-smith-...
> (In reply to wilkie14c)
> I would imagine that poorly paid or minimum wage jobs would pay nothing like what is available on benefits once you take childcare costs into account.
>
> What's the most sensible answer?
>
> Cut benefits?
> Subsidise childcare?
> introduce a far higher minimum wage?
>
> What's the most sensible answer?
>
> Cut benefits?
> Subsidise childcare?
> introduce a far higher minimum wage?
We could do what we already do, and have quite a large chunk of benefits (housing benefit, child benefit, tax credits etc) available on a sliding scale to low paid workers as well as the unemployed. One of the great bits of political sleight of hand that this government have pulled off is convincing everyone (including a lot of people posting in this thread by the looks of things) that "receiving benefits" is synonymous with "sitting on your arse watching daytime TV".
See also point 1 here:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/07/five-things-iain-duncan-smith-...
In reply to Dax H: I have worked all my life and for the last 10 years ive been paying between £150-£200 a week in tax.The firm i worked for recently went under,most of us got ripped off, on our reduncy money.I signed on ,which is one of the most degrading processes ive ever been through. I now recive £47 pound a week.Having now seen it from the other side, I realise the media is manipulating what you see on the box,Life on the dole is no bed of roses.Its plain shxt.What about the bankers pay,the guys who got us in this mess,and the politicans with there expenses claims.They rip the people off for a lot more money than your odd les battersby.And everybody knows a les battersby thats what they play on.
In reply to PopShot:
I don't know if increasing the minimum wage is the answer. IMO it would subject businesses to unfair stresses during the recession and likely lead to many of them going to the wall I would fear
I was thinking more along the lines of creating, or recreating, suitable industries that allow people to earn a living wage, and not have to rely on benefits. We used to have them. Somebody made a big mistake 30 years ago , and now we are mainly all regretting it.
My printing job took a big downturn when BHS was suddenly not British.
I think we need to return to a degree of self reliance in what we make/import , in order to allow traditional industry to thrive and remove the 'strain' from the modern industries, eg gambling on stocks and shares. These industries support a few people well, but are not supportive of the majority of the population.
Unfortunately I think that the concept and appeal of work has been lost to many through no fault of their own, and also a lot are caught in a trap of being told to get off benefits and get a job when there are none worth pursuing.
Skol
I don't know if increasing the minimum wage is the answer. IMO it would subject businesses to unfair stresses during the recession and likely lead to many of them going to the wall I would fear
I was thinking more along the lines of creating, or recreating, suitable industries that allow people to earn a living wage, and not have to rely on benefits. We used to have them. Somebody made a big mistake 30 years ago , and now we are mainly all regretting it.
My printing job took a big downturn when BHS was suddenly not British.
I think we need to return to a degree of self reliance in what we make/import , in order to allow traditional industry to thrive and remove the 'strain' from the modern industries, eg gambling on stocks and shares. These industries support a few people well, but are not supportive of the majority of the population.
Unfortunately I think that the concept and appeal of work has been lost to many through no fault of their own, and also a lot are caught in a trap of being told to get off benefits and get a job when there are none worth pursuing.
Skol
In reply to Skol:
sorry to burst your bubble Skol-
They weren't holiday brochures- just cleverly designed leaflets by The Welsh Assembly Government.
Targetting the feckless workshy scum with glossy brochures of sun, sea and chips, they are promo material for the revised 'Fit for Work' scheme whereby the unemployable will have first dibs on taxpayers organs when they die.
> The wasters across the road, family of four , are happy as buggery! No jobs, 2 cars, new plasma, and holiday brochures!
>
> Skol
>
> Skol
sorry to burst your bubble Skol-
They weren't holiday brochures- just cleverly designed leaflets by The Welsh Assembly Government.
Targetting the feckless workshy scum with glossy brochures of sun, sea and chips, they are promo material for the revised 'Fit for Work' scheme whereby the unemployable will have first dibs on taxpayers organs when they die.
In reply to PopShot:
The min wage is being exploited by profitable business.
I can see that the taxpayer could perhaps be prepared to top up the wages of people on minimum wages to a living wage , of people working for fledgling companies, but as soon as the companies can afford to pay a living wage they should be forced to do so, and not be allowed to forever take the taxpayers subsidy of their employees as profit.
The snag of course s that some very successful and profitable companies paying the minimum wage , and being subsidised are posing as non profitable businesses, as we all know too well.
These rouge companies should be made to show their true profit, and then be made to pay a living wage to all their employees.
> (In reply to Skol)
> [...]
>
>
> I don't know if increasing the minimum wage is the answer. IMO it would subject businesses to unfair stresses during the recession and likely lead to many of them going to the wall I would fear
> [...]
>
>
> I don't know if increasing the minimum wage is the answer. IMO it would subject businesses to unfair stresses during the recession and likely lead to many of them going to the wall I would fear
The min wage is being exploited by profitable business.
I can see that the taxpayer could perhaps be prepared to top up the wages of people on minimum wages to a living wage , of people working for fledgling companies, but as soon as the companies can afford to pay a living wage they should be forced to do so, and not be allowed to forever take the taxpayers subsidy of their employees as profit.
The snag of course s that some very successful and profitable companies paying the minimum wage , and being subsidised are posing as non profitable businesses, as we all know too well.
These rouge companies should be made to show their true profit, and then be made to pay a living wage to all their employees.
In reply to llechwedd:
You've lost me there matey
I wasn't talking about the TV programme, it was the people who actually live across the road from me!
Skol
You've lost me there matey
I wasn't talking about the TV programme, it was the people who actually live across the road from me!
Skol
In reply to llechwedd:
Oh crikey! I wouldn't do that out of concern for your own personal safety. Police officers won't go to those kinds of houses without plenty of back-up. I dread to think how those neighbours would react of they caught you looking into their bins! Be careful.
> (In reply to Skol)
> Iknow-I looked in their bins - they weren't holiday brochures!
> Iknow-I looked in their bins - they weren't holiday brochures!
Oh crikey! I wouldn't do that out of concern for your own personal safety. Police officers won't go to those kinds of houses without plenty of back-up. I dread to think how those neighbours would react of they caught you looking into their bins! Be careful.
In reply to PopShot:
If the government was to scrap the entire welfare benefits system for the unemployed, what % of the total welfare budget would be saved ?
> (In reply to doz generale)
> [...]
>
> Isn't that what the goverments doing anyway with the welfare reforms?
> [...]
>
> Isn't that what the goverments doing anyway with the welfare reforms?
If the government was to scrap the entire welfare benefits system for the unemployed, what % of the total welfare budget would be saved ?
In reply to PopShot:
I don't think it would be that bad. GDP has been rising steadily for decades but wages have not risen so fast. There has been a steady move of capital from peoples pockets to business and their shareholders. It's apparent in this recession. The economy is flat lining however the rich still seem to be getting richer taking a far bigger slice of the pie year after year while 99% of the country get poorer. This is truly what is strangling our economy. I just hope some politicians with a bit of conviction turn up soon and offer to sway things back towards the people rather then pandering to big business.
> (In reply to Skol)
> [...]
>
>
> I don't know if increasing the minimum wage is the answer. IMO it would subject businesses to unfair stresses during the recession and likely lead to many of them going to the wall I would fear
> [...]
>
>
> I don't know if increasing the minimum wage is the answer. IMO it would subject businesses to unfair stresses during the recession and likely lead to many of them going to the wall I would fear
I don't think it would be that bad. GDP has been rising steadily for decades but wages have not risen so fast. There has been a steady move of capital from peoples pockets to business and their shareholders. It's apparent in this recession. The economy is flat lining however the rich still seem to be getting richer taking a far bigger slice of the pie year after year while 99% of the country get poorer. This is truly what is strangling our economy. I just hope some politicians with a bit of conviction turn up soon and offer to sway things back towards the people rather then pandering to big business.
In reply to Jim C:
Probably about 50% as the rest would be sickness and disablment benefits. If you include those benefits then 100%
> (In reply to PopShot)
> [...]
>
> If the government was to scrap the entire welfare benefits system for the unemployed, what % of the total welfare budget would be saved ?
> [...]
>
> If the government was to scrap the entire welfare benefits system for the unemployed, what % of the total welfare budget would be saved ?
Probably about 50% as the rest would be sickness and disablment benefits. If you include those benefits then 100%
In reply to balmybaldwin: Just spent 20 minutes reading through this thread. Yes there are some people who have got comfortable with recieving handouts, but there are others who are long term claimants who have no relevent or up-to-date experience, and since it is the employer's markey at the minute, they don't want to take a risk with them.
MORE IMPORTANTLY though, and it has been mentioned once already, this is just another distraction tactic. The BBC is just the Government's spin machine. This is done to keep your eyes off where the money is really going such as thier back pockets, corperations and foreign agancires.
MORE IMPORTANTLY though, and it has been mentioned once already, this is just another distraction tactic. The BBC is just the Government's spin machine. This is done to keep your eyes off where the money is really going such as thier back pockets, corperations and foreign agancires.
In reply to danny_whew:
It's funny how the right wing tabloids consider the bbc as being too liberal, whereas others accuse them off serving the tory agenda. This to me suggests that the bbc are getting the impartial balance pretty much spot on.
> The BBC is just the Government's spin machine.
It's funny how the right wing tabloids consider the bbc as being too liberal, whereas others accuse them off serving the tory agenda. This to me suggests that the bbc are getting the impartial balance pretty much spot on.
In reply to knthrak1982: I have never known the BBC to be liberal however, they always seem to push the government's agenda regardless of which party is in power. But hey, that might just be a synical view.
In reply to knthrak1982:
No, it suggests that in trying to achieve "balance" the BBC has limited itself to the established centre ground and treated anything else as "extremist".
> (In reply to danny_whew)
> [...]
>
> It's funny how the right wing tabloids consider the bbc as being too liberal, whereas others accuse them off serving the tory agenda. This to me suggests that the bbc are getting the impartial balance pretty much spot on.
>> [...]
>
> It's funny how the right wing tabloids consider the bbc as being too liberal, whereas others accuse them off serving the tory agenda. This to me suggests that the bbc are getting the impartial balance pretty much spot on.
No, it suggests that in trying to achieve "balance" the BBC has limited itself to the established centre ground and treated anything else as "extremist".
In reply to biker bill: a banker, a daily mail reader and a person on the dole are sitting having coffee and biscuits. The banker opens the packet and takes 11 of the biscuits, leaving just one. The dole claimant takes the other. The banker turns to the daily mail reader and says "that benefit claimant just took your biscuit"
In reply to Skol:
/ This
> (In reply to PopShot)
>
> I was thinking more along the lines of creating, or recreating, suitable industries that allow people to earn a living wage, and not have to rely on benefits. We used to have them. Somebody made a big mistake 30 years ago , and now we are mainly all regretting it.
>
> I was thinking more along the lines of creating, or recreating, suitable industries that allow people to earn a living wage, and not have to rely on benefits. We used to have them. Somebody made a big mistake 30 years ago , and now we are mainly all regretting it.
/ This
In reply to doz generale:
A forlorn hope I fear.
> (In reply to PopShot)
> [...]
>
>I just hope some politicians with a bit of conviction turn up soon and offer to sway things back towards the people rather then pandering to big business.> [...]
>
A forlorn hope I fear.
In reply to Dax H:
Incredibly confused by your post. How does this occur, i know of no way that one can obtain such benefits.
Job seekers allowance for over 21's is £70 per week. It is rare that housing benefit matches your rent, it is nearly always less.
Incredibly confused by your post. How does this occur, i know of no way that one can obtain such benefits.
Job seekers allowance for over 21's is £70 per week. It is rare that housing benefit matches your rent, it is nearly always less.
In reply to PopShot:
Actually only about %10 of thwe welfare budget goes on the unemployed. It's mostly pensions
> (In reply to Jim C)
> [...]
>
>
> Probably about 50% as the rest would be sickness and disablment benefits. If you include those benefits then 100%
> [...]
>
>
> Probably about 50% as the rest would be sickness and disablment benefits. If you include those benefits then 100%
Actually only about %10 of thwe welfare budget goes on the unemployed. It's mostly pensions
In reply to doz generale:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_2012UKbn_12bc1n_40#ukgs302
Depending on whether you count pensions as 'welfare spending', unemployment spending was in 2012-3 £8.9bn. Which looking at some of the other numbers involved, unemployment spending is not as big as some would make it out to be.
> (In reply to PopShot)
> [...]
>
> Actually only about %10 of thwe welfare budget goes on the unemployed. It's mostly pensions
> [...]
>
> Actually only about %10 of thwe welfare budget goes on the unemployed. It's mostly pensions
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_2012UKbn_12bc1n_40#ukgs302
Depending on whether you count pensions as 'welfare spending', unemployment spending was in 2012-3 £8.9bn. Which looking at some of the other numbers involved, unemployment spending is not as big as some would make it out to be.
In reply to PopShot: Those feckless (expletive here) really annoy me too. They give everyone a bad name. I get tarred with the same brush because of my circumstances. I have all my own teeth and know how to cook from scratch (its far cheaper and healthier because I know exactly what is in my food). I even have an education that is beyond my GCSE's. People see my circumstances and lump me in with all those feckless Jeremy Kyle show candidates.
The point I was trying to make regarding the interview process I just went through, was that I had 3 interviews for a measly 4 hrs a week post, that I could do standing on my head and probably better than the manager. That is the sort of process I would expect for a management post not a assistant sales assistant post of only 4 hours a week.
I try to get feedback from applications, so that I can work on my letters and cv and application forms but there is never any.
Oh and retail, although its a job and I have relevent experience and quals isnt the career choice I actually re-educated and spent a fortune on chainsaw licence and other quals when i had the chance to but thats a lost dream. So, if anyone knows of any retail jobs in east cheshire, let me know!
The point I was trying to make regarding the interview process I just went through, was that I had 3 interviews for a measly 4 hrs a week post, that I could do standing on my head and probably better than the manager. That is the sort of process I would expect for a management post not a assistant sales assistant post of only 4 hours a week.
I try to get feedback from applications, so that I can work on my letters and cv and application forms but there is never any.
Oh and retail, although its a job and I have relevent experience and quals isnt the career choice I actually re-educated and spent a fortune on chainsaw licence and other quals when i had the chance to but thats a lost dream. So, if anyone knows of any retail jobs in east cheshire, let me know!
In reply to Skip:
If that were the case why would there be a need to limit benefits to 26k a year?
> (In reply to Dax H)
>
> Incredibly confused by your post. How does this occur, i know of no way that one can obtain such benefits.
>
> Job seekers allowance for over 21's is £70 per week. It is rare that housing benefit matches your rent, it is nearly always less.
>
> Incredibly confused by your post. How does this occur, i know of no way that one can obtain such benefits.
>
> Job seekers allowance for over 21's is £70 per week. It is rare that housing benefit matches your rent, it is nearly always less.
If that were the case why would there be a need to limit benefits to 26k a year?
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Meanwhilee the real crooks are laughing all the way to their bank(s)- which are not in this country of course.
Meanwhilee the real crooks are laughing all the way to their bank(s)- which are not in this country of course.
In reply to RockAngel:
Sorry to hear that. I hope something turns up in your field.
> (
>
> The point I was trying to make regarding the interview process I just went through, was that I had 3 interviews for a measly 4 hrs a week post, that I could do standing on my head and probably better than the manager. That is the sort of process I would expect for a management post not a assistant sales assistant post of only 4 hours a week.
> I try to get feedback from applications, so that I can work on my letters and cv and application forms but there is never any.
> Oh and retail, although its a job and I have relevent experience and quals isnt the career choice I actually re-educated and spent a fortune on chainsaw licence and other quals when i had the chance to but thats a lost dream. So, if anyone knows of any retail jobs in east cheshire, let me know!
>
> The point I was trying to make regarding the interview process I just went through, was that I had 3 interviews for a measly 4 hrs a week post, that I could do standing on my head and probably better than the manager. That is the sort of process I would expect for a management post not a assistant sales assistant post of only 4 hours a week.
> I try to get feedback from applications, so that I can work on my letters and cv and application forms but there is never any.
> Oh and retail, although its a job and I have relevent experience and quals isnt the career choice I actually re-educated and spent a fortune on chainsaw licence and other quals when i had the chance to but thats a lost dream. So, if anyone knows of any retail jobs in east cheshire, let me know!
Sorry to hear that. I hope something turns up in your field.
In reply to PopShot:
You are Off your head, Job seekers is under 3% last year. So ever if you got 100% of the people off Jobseekers you would only save 5billion. Of 167 billion pretty small, you are so far off the mark, it is hard. To understand how you can have been so critical of the unemployed. Just one of the tax dodging companies cheat the treasury our of bigger sums than that.
The cost of schemes to help them get a job is a billion on its own.
The bulk of the 'welfare' is pensions, and when I claim my pension I will have worked and contributed for over 40 years, that is NOT a handout, I don't consider all pensions should be included as welfare, it is just inflating the apparent welfare budget.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spen...
> (In reply to Jim C)
> [...]
>
>
> Probably about 50% as the rest would be sickness and disablment benefits. If you include those benefits then 100%
> [...]
>
>
> Probably about 50% as the rest would be sickness and disablment benefits. If you include those benefits then 100%
You are Off your head, Job seekers is under 3% last year. So ever if you got 100% of the people off Jobseekers you would only save 5billion. Of 167 billion pretty small, you are so far off the mark, it is hard. To understand how you can have been so critical of the unemployed. Just one of the tax dodging companies cheat the treasury our of bigger sums than that.
The cost of schemes to help them get a job is a billion on its own.
The bulk of the 'welfare' is pensions, and when I claim my pension I will have worked and contributed for over 40 years, that is NOT a handout, I don't consider all pensions should be included as welfare, it is just inflating the apparent welfare budget.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spen...
In reply to RockAngel:
?????
> Im qualified for and have relevent experience in (over 20 years retail, and some of that as a manager and book keeper).
> oh, and me and my son (who is now 17) have never had a holiday,
?????
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Most people are failing to understand that getting in a lather about this makes not difference whatsoever. Stopping benefit for anyone like these guys is ludicrous and only increases costs.
If you look at how our neighbours do it then there are some interesting angles. These include a need to work for two years before getting benefit. Benefit rates far higher than here. Substantial benefits for those bringing up children. Generally, one of the ways that the richest countries have become the richest is by looking after the unemployed.
As Nick and Margaret appear to conclude, the cost of not doing this stuff is excessive.
Falsely identifying vulnerable sections of society as scroungers and threatening their ability to feed and house themselves is a typical high-cost, authoritarian, right-wing position aimed at recruiting the stupid and ignorant to their banner. The high welfare costs in the UK and elsewhere are largely about old people. Unless you are planning euthanasia on a scale that would make Adolf Hitler blush then just get over it and let's get on with making some money to pay for it.
Most people are failing to understand that getting in a lather about this makes not difference whatsoever. Stopping benefit for anyone like these guys is ludicrous and only increases costs.
If you look at how our neighbours do it then there are some interesting angles. These include a need to work for two years before getting benefit. Benefit rates far higher than here. Substantial benefits for those bringing up children. Generally, one of the ways that the richest countries have become the richest is by looking after the unemployed.
As Nick and Margaret appear to conclude, the cost of not doing this stuff is excessive.
Falsely identifying vulnerable sections of society as scroungers and threatening their ability to feed and house themselves is a typical high-cost, authoritarian, right-wing position aimed at recruiting the stupid and ignorant to their banner. The high welfare costs in the UK and elsewhere are largely about old people. Unless you are planning euthanasia on a scale that would make Adolf Hitler blush then just get over it and let's get on with making some money to pay for it.
In reply to balmybaldwin:
And another thing. After pensions, Housing Benefit is the killer benefit as far as cost is concerned. Not all of HB goes to the unemployed and sick. A large portion goes to pensioners.
Why is the HB cost so high? Because property values are so high.
Why was there a financial crash? Principally because property values were too high and property values were seen as a replacement for having a proper sustainable economy.
Now there might be the odd merchant banker who has fallen on hard times amongst the long term sick or unemployed but I suggest that, as a general rule, neither the unemployed, not the long-term sick, nor pensioners in rented accomodation, have culpability in the matter of irrationally high property values.
As bad as any of that, Council Tax Benefit costs about as much as Job Seekers Allowance. Why? Council Tax fails to meet the first requirement of a viable tax. It, and its predecessor, were aimed at people who did not have money in the first place. So why, 20+ years after its failure was demonstrated, do we still have Council Tax?
Be careful who you vote for.
And another thing. After pensions, Housing Benefit is the killer benefit as far as cost is concerned. Not all of HB goes to the unemployed and sick. A large portion goes to pensioners.
Why is the HB cost so high? Because property values are so high.
Why was there a financial crash? Principally because property values were too high and property values were seen as a replacement for having a proper sustainable economy.
Now there might be the odd merchant banker who has fallen on hard times amongst the long term sick or unemployed but I suggest that, as a general rule, neither the unemployed, not the long-term sick, nor pensioners in rented accomodation, have culpability in the matter of irrationally high property values.
As bad as any of that, Council Tax Benefit costs about as much as Job Seekers Allowance. Why? Council Tax fails to meet the first requirement of a viable tax. It, and its predecessor, were aimed at people who did not have money in the first place. So why, 20+ years after its failure was demonstrated, do we still have Council Tax?
Be careful who you vote for.
In reply to Jim Fraser: Well what's the point in having council tax if you just give the working classes the money to pay it? It's just moving around money it's insane! They need to scrap housing benefit completely.
In reply to PopShot:
Oh yes, class. That ludicrous concept that the English and the Indians in particular use to stifle economic progress.
Sorry mate but if they scrap housing benefit completely then you will need CTB and HB during your retirement because the ever increasing property values that you rely on to underpin your personal security will be undermined again.
I don't think you understand the scale of this, the mechanisms that lead us to where we are now, or the immense cost of what you suggest.
> (In reply to Jim Fraser) Well what's the point in having council tax if you just give the working classes the money to pay it? It's just moving around money it's insane!
Oh yes, class. That ludicrous concept that the English and the Indians in particular use to stifle economic progress.
Sorry mate but if they scrap housing benefit completely then you will need CTB and HB during your retirement because the ever increasing property values that you rely on to underpin your personal security will be undermined again.
> They need to scrap housing benefit completely.
I don't think you understand the scale of this, the mechanisms that lead us to where we are now, or the immense cost of what you suggest.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
The immense cost of what I suggest? What would be costly about stopping the payment of hand outs and actually having people pay council tax to local authorities? Surely all of that would bring in a lot of cash? I do not see how stopping paying poor/poverty people’s council tax for them would wreck the property market. I'm sorry but that is just pro-marxist conspiracy theories.
> (In reply to PopShot)
> [...]
>
> Oh yes, class. That ludicrous concept that the English and the Indians in particular use to stifle economic progress.
>
> Sorry mate but if they scrap housing benefit completely then you will need CTB and HB during your retirement because the ever increasing property values that you rely on to underpin your personal security will be undermined again.
>
>
> [...]
>
> I don't think you understand the scale of this, the mechanisms that lead us to where we are now, or the immense cost of what you suggest.
> [...]
>
> Oh yes, class. That ludicrous concept that the English and the Indians in particular use to stifle economic progress.
>
> Sorry mate but if they scrap housing benefit completely then you will need CTB and HB during your retirement because the ever increasing property values that you rely on to underpin your personal security will be undermined again.
>
>
> [...]
>
> I don't think you understand the scale of this, the mechanisms that lead us to where we are now, or the immense cost of what you suggest.
The immense cost of what I suggest? What would be costly about stopping the payment of hand outs and actually having people pay council tax to local authorities? Surely all of that would bring in a lot of cash? I do not see how stopping paying poor/poverty people’s council tax for them would wreck the property market. I'm sorry but that is just pro-marxist conspiracy theories.
In reply to PopShot:
>
> The immense cost of what I suggest? What would be costly about stopping the payment of hand outs and actually having people pay council tax to local authorities? Surely all of that would bring in a lot of cash? I do not see how stopping paying poor/poverty people’s council tax for them would wreck the property market. I'm sorry but that is just pro-marxist conspiracy theories.
No, you hopeless id10t.
First, you have to understand that there are real people out there in 2013 Britain who do not have enough money to keep themselves housed, clothed and fed, and complete all the obligations that government ask of them. There are even people who do not have enough money to get a job because they cannot clothe and transport themselves effectively. These are people who do not have the privelege of being able to go to the bank of mum and dad when the electricity has been cut off or they run out of food. Many of them are mum and dad.
Second, you need to understand that you can only collect taxes from people who actually have money in the first place. For instance, if someone has £70 a week, £30 of which goes on rent because the Housing Benefit does not cover all of it, and they have to feed and clothe themselves and look for a job using the rest, you cannot ask them for £40 a week Council Tax.
Third, if you take away housing benefit, it means that (estimating here) perhaps a million or more households in Britain become non-viable and possibly homeless. Because you don't want all those dreadful "working class" scroungers begging outside your posh pad, or breaking into your holiday home to stop their children dying of hypothermia, we ask government to clean up the mess and put them in hostels and B&B. Unfortunately, this is where the ideas that mentally sub-normal "middle class" clowns come up with fall apart. You see governments are not entirely stupid and they don't like spending bucket-loads of taxpayers money when they don't need to. They noticed that they can have this thing called Housing Benefit that keeps the rabble in their own homes for a fraction of the cost of the hostels and B&B and prisons and clearing up all those bodies of dead frozen children. Not only that but loads of right-wing voters love it because it expands the viable rented property market and helps to keep rent and property values up.
Please emigrate.
> (In reply to Jim Fraser)
> [...]>
> The immense cost of what I suggest? What would be costly about stopping the payment of hand outs and actually having people pay council tax to local authorities? Surely all of that would bring in a lot of cash? I do not see how stopping paying poor/poverty people’s council tax for them would wreck the property market. I'm sorry but that is just pro-marxist conspiracy theories.
No, you hopeless id10t.
First, you have to understand that there are real people out there in 2013 Britain who do not have enough money to keep themselves housed, clothed and fed, and complete all the obligations that government ask of them. There are even people who do not have enough money to get a job because they cannot clothe and transport themselves effectively. These are people who do not have the privelege of being able to go to the bank of mum and dad when the electricity has been cut off or they run out of food. Many of them are mum and dad.
Second, you need to understand that you can only collect taxes from people who actually have money in the first place. For instance, if someone has £70 a week, £30 of which goes on rent because the Housing Benefit does not cover all of it, and they have to feed and clothe themselves and look for a job using the rest, you cannot ask them for £40 a week Council Tax.
Third, if you take away housing benefit, it means that (estimating here) perhaps a million or more households in Britain become non-viable and possibly homeless. Because you don't want all those dreadful "working class" scroungers begging outside your posh pad, or breaking into your holiday home to stop their children dying of hypothermia, we ask government to clean up the mess and put them in hostels and B&B. Unfortunately, this is where the ideas that mentally sub-normal "middle class" clowns come up with fall apart. You see governments are not entirely stupid and they don't like spending bucket-loads of taxpayers money when they don't need to. They noticed that they can have this thing called Housing Benefit that keeps the rabble in their own homes for a fraction of the cost of the hostels and B&B and prisons and clearing up all those bodies of dead frozen children. Not only that but loads of right-wing voters love it because it expands the viable rented property market and helps to keep rent and property values up.
Please emigrate.
In reply to Ridge:
Final line still stands.
> (In reply to Jim Fraser)
>
> Excellent post Jim, but wasted on a troll.
>
> Excellent post Jim, but wasted on a troll.
Final line still stands.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Le Toit de Ben - Quebec 1958
This week's Friday Night Video whisks us back to Val-David, Quebec, in the Autumn of 1958. Two daring young climbers embark on the ascent of a route that seemed unattainable, resembling a roof suspended in the air, defying all the conventions of the time....
3 May
Loading Notifications...