• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Benefits

Seedy Ron said:
It is, but what do you do? I can't see the state ever taking children from their birth parents for the reason of them being feckless wasters (even if in the long run it'd probably be saving them from ending up in some "Grandad at 29" story), and if you deny the parents benefits then aren't you punishing the child for the sins of the parents?
Click to expand...

I agree I definitely don't see it as a step the politicians would ever take, but in theory I think it has merit.

I'm very torn over the issue of child poverty because reducing benefits only serves to hurt the child since in a lot of cases these scumbag parents will still spend their benefits on alcohol, cigarettes and drugs. It's one of the reasons I would like to see as much money as possible taken out of peoples hands and replace it with things like food stamps that can only be spent on certain items in shops that register with the scheme.

Restrict the choices for people who claim from the state, in all scenarios. Get the basics like meat, fruit, vegetables, eggs etc... and if you want more, go earn it.

Seedy Ron said:
My general view chimes with what you posted originally, that benefits should be a safety net to help people out when they need it, and to make sure members of our society who can't provide for themselves (disability etc) are provided for to be able live to a reasonable standard. I'm sure most people see the system that way, and use it that way, but sadly it does leave the door open for scum on the run to abuse it.

Maybe we need to start punishing misuse of the benefits system severly, disproportionately so.
Click to expand...

The problem, as I see it, is that a lot of people don't cheat the system as much as they just don't spend the money they get wisely. If you are entitled to £x amount of cash, you aren't cheating the system by claiming it and spending it on cigarettes and down the pub, but I think it should be considered such.

I remember seeing a thread on here about this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16876486 report, and I was disgusted. A family of EIGHT on benefits with Sky TV, buying 200 cigarettes, a pouch of tobacco and 24 beers per week. Not to mention the fact that even without those things, the food bill would still be well over £100.
 
Richie said:
I remember seeing a thread on here about this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16876486 report, and I was disgusted. A family of EIGHT on benefits with Sky TV, buying 200 cigarettes, a pouch of tobacco and 24 beers per week. Not to mention the fact that even without those things, the food bill would still be well over £100.
Click to expand...

Careful...some of the loony left on here came out and defended that family

Apparently their outgoing were more than reasonable
 
I've been out of work for the last six weeks or so but I haven't signed on, I didn't want to. I've done it before and it is a horrible process and I don't need an extra £60 a week to keep up my current lifestyle anyway.

I only have another 5 weeks until I start my new job(marine management), wish I was starting tomorrow tbh.
 
Leeds Spur said:
China's 'one child' system worked didn't it?

I'm not condoning forced abortion, but we need to say if you have another child then you get fudge ALL state aid.

Simple.
Click to expand...



Wouldnt work though Leeds. Cutting off aid to muppets breeding like rabbits will only end up with them eventually going bankrupt and the state having to bail them out at that point instead.

Schemes like the "write off your credit card debt" would get absolutely hammered.

The change needs to be cultural, and with the way council sink holes seem to be developing over the last 20 years I see little chance of that happening.

I know people from where I grew up who are second generation benefit lifers without any intention of working but plenty of kids around their feet.

I prefer the option of minimal benefit, with as little cash invovled as possible. Food stamps, travel stamps, rent paid for - just enough to cover essentials (bread and milk!) and no where near enough to stretch to smoking and sky subscriptions.

If being on benefits was a second rate existence, a shameful one even, people would be less inclined to use the facility IMO.
 
Leeds Spur said:
China's 'one child' system worked didn't it?
Click to expand...
It slowed their population growth certainly, the above average imbalance in the male/female ratio would suggest it didn't work out so well for baby girls, and I think they're worried now about the ageing population and too many oldies for the young to support (1 child ends up supporting 2 parents, and 4 grandparents etc).

Richie said:
I would like to see as much money as possible taken out of peoples hands and replace it with things like food stamps that can only be spent on certain items in shops that register with the scheme.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with that, that would at least make sure money given was spent in the right places. I just wonder if people would really be OK with seeing children put into abject poverty just because we need some way to punish their parents for being wasters? I don't have any children and I work, so I get nothing out of the system really, but I can't say I'd be happy if children - however much I may loathe the lifestyle of their parents - were living in poverty in 2012 Britain.

(I realise that's what Leeds calls the emotional blackmail argument, but it works on me).
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Wouldnt work though Leeds. Cutting off aid to muppets breeding like rabbits will only end up with them eventually going bankrupt and the state having to bail them out at that point instead.

Schemes like the "write off your credit card debt" would get absolutely hammered.

The change needs to be cultural, and with the way council sink holes seem to be developing over the last 20 years I see little chance of that happening.

I know people from where I grew up who are second generation benefit lifers without any intention of working but plenty of kids around their feet.

I prefer the option of minimal benefit, with as little cash invovled as possible. Food stamps, travel stamps, rent paid for - just enough to cover essentials (bread and milk!) and no where near enough to stretch to smoking and sky subscriptions.

If being on benefits was a second rate existence, a shameful one even, people would be less inclined to use the facility IMO.
Click to expand...

You're right, on second thoughts just shoot the lot of em! ;)
 
Seedy Ron said:
It slowed their population growth certainly, the above average imbalance in the male/female ratio would suggest it didn't work out so well for baby girls, and I think they're worried now about the ageing population and too many oldies for the young to support (1 child ends up supporting 2 parents, and 4 grandparents etc).
Click to expand...

Funnily enough I'm good friends with a Chinese woman. The current regulations mean if two people are both from single child households, they are allowed 2 children
 
Spursalot said:
True, but as a human being if your ever in position to take advantage of a system would you not on some moral imperative?


I doubt most people wouldn't.
Click to expand...

You're not wrong, which is why we need massive overhaul of the benefits system, its amazing how social security has nearly doubled since 1997 when Labour gained power.

Pensions and Welfare combine to account for nearly 1/3rd of our national expenditure at over £240bn. More than Education and Health combined.

Pensions is an issue that needs to be sorted ASAP. Rising the age of retirement is, IMO, inevitable as people are living much, much longer. I think the Govt. needs to introduce a system which honours all current pension commitments but starts to lower them from here on out.

For example, assuming the working age is 18-65, thats 47 years. For someone who is 60, they have worked 42 of those years (presumably), you reduce their pension by around 10% (5/47). Someone who is already retired keeps their current allowance, but make it clear to those still in work that they need to be planning towards their retirement.

You can then either hugely reduce National Insurance contribution and tell people to sort it out themselves, or just partially reduce it and give a basic, much lower pension than is currently offered. Government pension schemes around the world are going to collapse in the not too distant future unless something is done, especially the USA

Someone like me who is 24, I'm not expecting to get much out of the Govt. at all when I reach retirement age and I know I'm going to have to plan as such
 
We get 80.32 per month child benefit. Had it since last September when my little boy was born. 10 months down the line I have £800 in savings which I intend to pass on to my little man.

Me and the Missus have paid £4-600 in tax every month since starting work from school in 2001 (Well nearly every month anyway).

Not what it's intended or maybe but were entitled to it so fudge it.
 
Roy1983 said:
We get 80.32 per month child benefit. Had it since last September when my little boy was born. 10 months down the line I have £800 in savings which I intend to pass on to my little man.

Me and the Missus have paid £4-600 in tax every month since starting work from school in 2001 (Well nearly every month anyway).

Not what it's intended or maybe but were entitled to it so fudge it.
Click to expand...

This is the issue we need to address. I don't consider you a benefit cheat, you are entitled to the money just like everyone else, but it shouldn't be available to those in your situation. That is something the government needs to address, you can't expect people to just choose not to take money they are entitled to have under the current system
 
Richie said:
This is the issue we need to address. I don't consider you a benefit cheat, you are entitled to the money just like everyone else, but it shouldn't be available to those in your situation. That is something the government needs to address, you can't expect people to just choose not to take money they are entitled to have under the current system
Click to expand...

Im in the £28-32k category. Couldn't give a fudge if anyone thinks I deserve it or not I'm entitled to it. Paid over 50k in taxes over the years it's rightfully ours.

Takes me back to my original point. If you've paid into the system you deserve everything your entitled to.
 
Roy1983 said:
We get 80.32 per month child benefit. Had it since last September when my little boy was born. 10 months down the line I have £800 in savings which I intend to pass on to my little man.

Me and the Missus have paid £4-600 in tax every month since starting work from school in 2001 (Well nearly every month anyway).

Not what it's intended or maybe but were entitled to it so fudge it.
Click to expand...

We've discussed this before. Good luck to you and as we've said you can't blame people of taking it. But you haven't put in anywhere near enough to think you've 'paid in'. In fact you've probably received around £150k more from the government than you've paid in.

Remember, the state spends £11k for every man, woman and child in the uk. Your wife's pregnancy and birth plus developmental care has cost the state around £10k alone.

Not having a go, just pointing out that you don't 'deserve' anything. In fact very few people do. Not that we all don't put into the pot as such.

On that point, your national insurance is just general taxation. It doesn't go into a fund for Roy's pension and benefits in later life. Although most people do think this way. Another myth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back