Jump to content

Family Life on Benefits


enodreven

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 239
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I think there's little doubt that the WHOLE benefit system needs sorting out...ALL means tested(even the O.A.P stuff) and child benefit limited to first couple of kids..

 

but as with everything,the devil is in the detail..

 

...Take that BBC item for instance.."..Father of 7.."..immediately paints a picture of someone who's sat on their backside and just had kids for the sake of it.

 

Yet of the six that live with them,all but one are from previous marriages/relationships and this is very common nowadays(...having said that,they did have the youngest,whilst he's been unemployed.. *-) )

 

The trouble is a good many people have an "image" of unemployed people on benefits,as being something akin to the tv show "shameless"..yet in reality the vast majority are just ordinary people who are going through a rough patch and in need of assistance...

(..I've always been of the view that with most ordinary working folk,they're only a couple of pay cheques away from hardship....)

 

You are however always going to get the extreme,anecdotal examples...

(.."...a bloke up our street's never worked in 'is life..always in the bookies...blah blah..." etc.. *-) )

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pepe63 - 2012-02-02 12:36 PM

 

I think there's little doubt that the WHOLE benefit system needs sorting out...ALL means tested(even the O.A.P stuff) and child benefit limited to first couple of kids..

 

but as with everything,the devil is in the detail..

 

 

 

 

" Means testing " always sounds like a good idea until you realise that we would need to recruit a new army of public sector workers to maintain it.

( Not sure why you want to have a go at O.A.P's though - don't like the sound of that).

 

;-)

 

The BBC case mentioned is a very good example of why a cap is needed.

 

I sympathise with anyone who finds themselves in this chaps position, but just why he thinks that taxpayers should supply all his family with mobile phones, and a Sky package, I can't imagine.

 

:-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

malc d - 2012-02-02 12:48 PM

 

..I sympathise with anyone who finds themselves in this chaps position, but just why he thinks that taxpayers should supply all his family with mobile phones, and a Sky package, I can't imagine.

 

:-(

 

Yes,I thought the same,he(WE) are paying as much on his Sky,as on his water rates?!..

 

..and having another kiddy,after 4 years of being unemployed,doesn't really make much sense..

 

Malc..sorry didn't mean to have a go at OAPs ... :-D ...I just don't see why "winter fuel allowance"(which I assume was implemented to help poor,hard up pensioners through the winter...?),should be getting spent on the Xmas sherry or on French or Spanish diesel as they tour europe... ;-)

 

If means testing isn't an option(which realistically,it probably isn't),what about vouchers, which are only redeemable at shops/outlets that have signed up to the scheme and only against certain items?

(..not alcohol or cigarettes etc...and NOT Sky subsriptions... ;-) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doing without 24 cans of lager, 200 cigarettes, a large pouch of tobacco, mobile phones for the kids and the Sky film package would help their household budget. In their situation there's no excuse in paying for Sky films when there's lots of free channels. It all depends on their priorities regarding bringing up healthy kids or kids that may be appearing on Jeremy Kyle in a few years time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

pepe63 - 2012-02-02 12:36 PM.......................Take that BBC item for instance.."..Father of 7.."..immediately paints a picture of someone who's sat on their backside and just had kids for the sake of it.

.................................

Er, can you actually do that, while doing that? :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Received this e-mail today & thought it quite appropriate for this thread.

 

A Lesson in SOCIALISM

 

An economics professor at a college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

 

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the s! ame grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.

 

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

 

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

 

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

 

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, people ar! e less inclined to try or want to succeed.

Think of grades as dollars and remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.

These may be the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

 

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

 

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

 

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

 

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

 

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

 

Can you think of a reason for not sharing this? Neither could I.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched a young ethnic single mother of two being interviewed on television about the benifit caps. She said she did not see why her good standard of living should be lost and why she should be expected to move to a less desirable area where the rents were lower. The alarming thing was that she obviously believed this. As far as she was concerned it was quite normal that we the tax payers should go on paying for a life style of her choosing rather than be grateful that we are supporting her at all.

 

A perfect illustration of just what is wrong with our over generous provision of benefits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

colin - 2012-02-02 8:12 PM

 

I didn't recieve this email today.

 

A lesson in capitalism.

 

If bankers are allowed to gamble huge sums of money then governments will step in and bail them out and leave the counties of the world with trillions of pounds of debt.

Hi Colin - this is not a lesson in capitalism. Because with true capitalism you have to allow things to fail and then something new and better rises, phoenix like, out of the ashes of the old. What we have in the UK at the moment is cronyism. More specifically re the Banks, we had Brown insisting that the Banks were too big to fail, because Governments of all types had pandered to a section of the Financial World far far too much.

 

If RBS had been allowed to fail as it should have done, I suspect by now the FSCS (Fin Serv Compensation Scheme) would have picked up the pieces as it was designed to do.

 

You can not blame "capitalism" when the last thing we actually have is a true free market capitalist economy. RBS was saved because Brown wanted\to save face, save his own reputation. It is not capitalism when:-

 

" governments will step in and bail them out"

 

One poster on here has the fantastic sign off that is something like:-

 

"The more laws and legislation the more corrupt the govrnment"

 

How true is that!

 

The post from Flicka above is one of the best and most thought provoking on this subject of "have and have nots" that I have seen for some time. Obviously geared up to the US elections - but applicable to us here in the UK and the EU never the less.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:-S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colin Leake - 2012-02-02 10:34 PM

 

I watched a young ethnic single mother of two being interviewed on television about the benifit caps. She said she did not see why her good standard of living should be lost and why she should be expected to move to a less desirable area where the rents were lower. The alarming thing was that she obviously believed this. As far as she was concerned it was quite normal that we the tax payers should go on paying for a life style of her choosing rather than be grateful that we are supporting her at all.

 

A perfect illustration of just what is wrong with our over generous provision of benefits.

 

Could not agree more.

 

I saw the interview and was so shocked that I had to watch it again when it came arround.

 

No wonder we are seeing a huge increase in the "black economy" where jobs are done for cash. Who wants to have their tax £'s spent in this way?

 

Sadly this is the route Greece went down with high taxes and huge benefit bill such that the working population just bi-passed the tax system. Once that mind set takes over, the State and all its hand-outs becomes unsustainable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colin Leake - 2012-02-02 10:34 PM

 

I watched a young ethnic single mother of two being interviewed on television about the benifit caps. She said she did not see why her good standard of living should be lost and why she should be expected to move to a less desirable area where the rents were lower. The alarming thing was that she obviously believed this. As far as she was concerned it was quite normal that we the tax payers should go on paying for a life style of her choosing rather than be grateful that we are supporting her at all.

 

A perfect illustration of just what is wrong with our over generous provision of benefits.

 

I also saw that and posted similar on another forum which was debating the same subject. What surprised me though was that it was the BBC who shown it 8-)

Two days ago they also reported on 'eating or heating' and interviewed a woman who was the size of the proverbial 'outhouse' <<< no smut (lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst on the subject of "eating or heating"...I'm getting bl**dy fed up with tv reports,with folk wingeing how they're houses are so cold, that they're having to wear pullovers and two pairs of socks etc! ... 8-) ..

..isn't that what you're supposed to do when it's cold.? WEAR MORE CLOTHES!!

 

(..Oh! and the interview is usually filmed against a backdrop of a ruddy great big flat screen tele.. *-) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pepe63 - 2012-02-02 7:04 PM

 

Bl**dy 'ell!..I missed the bit about his 24 cans and 200 cigarettes! 8-)

 

Jeeez!..and I thought the Sky subcription was bad enough!?... *-)

 

Did you notice what their total benefits is?

£30,284.80 per year 8-)

 

My son-in-law doesn't get that and my daughter is a stay at home mother looking after the two youngest. And they have a mortgage to pay plus tax etc. on his wages. So in affect he's working full time to pay taxes to keep others on a greater wage than he gets so they can sit on their arses puffing away on fags with a can of lager in his hand while watching a film on Sky. Is it any surprise that something needs doing to stop the scroungers?

And is it any surprise that C of E attendances are falling when you get the bishops voting against the government proposals and the Lambeth Palace druid speaking in support of those camped outside St. Pauls?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that many people think that this is a new problem - it certainly is not.

 

Over 50 years ago, when I was a stay-at-home mother, I remember watching a programme on the (black and white) television about a similar family who were moaning about their lot in life. Huge TV in the background, a lot of children, drinking beer and smoking etc. whilst I was staying up all hours making Christmas presents for my child and family. I remember feeling very angry at the time but I realised afterwards that I had gained emense satisfaction from what I was doing and it was they who were missing out on the best things in life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

flicka - 2012-02-02 7:45 PM................................. These may be the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

 

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

 

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

 

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

 

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

 

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation...................................

But this is not anything to do with socialism, capitalism, or any other ism. They are just a series of SOTBOs that could be strung together to justify just about any philosophy of governance from totalitarian Maoist to totalitarian Fascist, including all the intermediate variants!

 

Hope this mythical "economics professor" doesn't charge too much for his courses, or he risks epitomising No 2! :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's plain that this bloke is quite capable of develop other skills, so in 11yrs he could have re-trained for another job. With that in mind I would suggest that he still received benefits on the condition that he does a full time work. If it is minimum hourly rate £6.08p = £243.20p for forty hrs.

Multiply this by 52 weeks gives him £12646.40p annually. This would mean the benefits he receives would be £17638.40p instead of £30284.80p. If he would not be 'willing' to do this then cap the benefits at £17638.40p, that might give him the initiative to go and find work, and likewise with all the others.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lord Braykewynde - 2012-02-03 8:40 AM

 

 

I also saw that and posted similar on another forum which was debating the same subject. What surprised me though was that it was the BBC who shown it 8-)

Two days ago they also reported on 'eating or heating' and interviewed a woman who was the size of the proverbial 'outhouse' <<< no smut (lol)

 

 

 

And where do you see these oversized people when they are in a supermarket

 

Of course they are all around the chocolate shelves, the biscuit shelves, the crisps shelves and the beer shelves

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Syd - 2012-02-03 10:08 PM

And where do you see these oversized people when they are in a supermarket

 

Of course they are all around the chocolate shelves, the biscuit shelves, the crisps shelves and the beer shelves

 

Yeah I struggle to get by with my beer belly *-).......................The fat b*******ds (lol) (lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...