Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Jayjay Jun 25 2012, 11:21 AM

The coaalition plan to remove housing benefit to under 25's. How does this work in the real world? Do we keep people in childrens homes until 25?

They also plan to remove benefit of families with more than three children. Will this also apply to military families where the bread winner dies in service to his country?

Wondering what bad news is being hidden as this plan is so unworkable it must be a smoke screen.

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 25 2012, 11:44 AM

They are not removing it, they will restrict bnefits to 3 children. Removing housing benefits for under 25s will encourage people to do the right thing, at the moment we have a generation of people who expect everything to be given to them.

Posted by: Timbo Jun 25 2012, 11:51 AM

Sorry I disagree Andy. Most under 25-s are very mature and responsible. Many have just come out of University or some other form of Higher Education and need to get onto the housing market. Surely those who are older should be EXPECTED to have more money, more real-estate, and those who are younger should get the help?

There are more young people who are actively searching for jobs than there are out of an equal number of unemployed people who are in their middle ages (say 40s and 50s). Yes I have seen this first hand! It's incredibly hard to go about being a young adult these days; first they say they are more stupid and lazy, reckless, party go-ers. Then you find out you need a 20% deposit to even get a mortgage plus a £40,000+ income.. I very much doubt many young people will get a house until their parents die, if they leave them a property, that is..

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 25 2012, 11:54 AM

I see where he is coming from with the housing benefit cut, but I don't see how it can be implemented. Limiting benefits to 3 children should have been done years ago/.

Posted by: Roost Jun 25 2012, 11:56 AM

There's this new possibility they've brought in.

It's called "renting".

Apparently, you pay some money to a 'landlord' in exchange for the use of a property.
Its meant to be cheaper than a mortgage, although not necessarily the case right now.

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 25 2012, 11:57 AM

yes, you pay your own money, not money handed out to you.

Posted by: Timbo Jun 25 2012, 11:57 AM

Why not restrict benefits on those people who actually PLAY the benefits system and milk it dry? Like those who are families whose almost entire house is benefit funded, who have children; don't pay anything... If you can't afford to have children then it's unfair to expect the state to cover it.

Conversely, more support should be provided to younger people who are working hard, who have invested in their futures, by helping to provide affordable and quality housing (none of that council house crap)

Posted by: Timbo Jun 25 2012, 12:01 PM

Problem with renting is that, as I had to find out, a mortgage is approx £550-£600 a month, there abouts. Plus bills and council tax so realistically, it's about £1100-£1200 a month to run a half-decent 3 bed.

While rent on an equivalent property is normally around £800 a month all inclusive. Or if you simply rent out a single room or something, more like £350. The point being that it's a large chunk of what would go towards a morgage already.... Also, benefits are handed out to people who rent as well.

I had been renting for 6 years after moving out when I was 18. I only (fairly) recently managed to get myself a house of my own....

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 25 2012, 12:05 PM

A morgage is dependant on lots of things, my morgage in my house is cheaper than renting the same house but only because I bought it using the huge equity I made on my first flat. If I had 100% morgage on current house would be much more than renting.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 25 2012, 12:14 PM

The coalition don't actually. Its something that the tories might like to push through if they secured a healthy majority errrr which they won't.
The subject of benefits in gereral tend to raise the hackles of those hard working middle earners that get no benefits and get taxed to pay for the benefits of some that don't actually even ever want to work. DC's just pandering to some of those in his party.
I don't think you will ever get a solution to the problem of HB. You'd need to address the social issues and mentality of those who see having a kid at 16 as a way of getting on the housing ladder. And unless you start a bit of social engineering by sterilising some parts of society you'll never resolve it.
Child benefit is something different all together. You max out at 2 or 3 kids and if you wany anymore you should be expected to pay for them.

Posted by: Baffers100 Jun 25 2012, 12:29 PM

Is not the point (or part of) of renting, that you only need to find one and a half's month rent to put down as a deposit? So University Graduates, and anybody who is working and saving a small sum of cash can save the £1200 or so required for a rental deposit much quicker than the £25k or so needed for a deposit on a mortgage?

I rented a "executive" 2 bedroom flat in Newbury for £795 per month. Why would somebody under 25 need 3 bedrooms? You can't sublet so presumably they have kids? In this case it is not the responsibility for the parent to make sure they can provide for their children before having them, as opposed to relying on the benefit system and council housing?

I would have thought not having housing benefit at 25 or under is an incentive to get your act in gear and get your own (private) place, renting or otherwise.

Posted by: JeffG Jun 25 2012, 02:28 PM

Apart from the few who genuinely can't live in the parental home for whatever reason, what is wrong with under-25's living with their parents rent-free and contributing what they can, until they are able to pay for their own accommodation? It's how it always used to work. Why should the taxpayer subsidise those who want their own place just because they want to?

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 25 2012, 02:44 PM

I agree, in fact I agree with all the welfare cuts we spend far too much on 'benefits'

Posted by: lordtup Jun 25 2012, 03:06 PM

Yet another piece of political rhetoric that has more to do with the ubiquitous spin than actual policy implementation.
The plain fact is that we do not have sufficient available , and I use the word advisedly , housing in this country. Now I am informed that there are nearly 1,000,000 properties lying idle for want of some TLC .Place that figure against the number seeking low cost housing ,or high cost for that matter,at the tax payer's expense and you don't have to be a genius to see the answer.
It is the right of everyone to have a roof over their heads if we are to be considered a civilised country,but how this is paid for must be sorted out .I would suggest by the monies earned in the workplace and not the taxpayer which I am sure we all agree with .
So what happens to the unemployed / unemployable I hear you mutter , good question and the one that the government should have addressed years ago not when the coffers have run dry , but they are all capable of using a paint brush .

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 25 2012, 03:09 PM

It's MORTGAGE.
Sorry, breaking the forum unwritten rule but it was irritating me.
Maybe just because it's Andy.

Posted by: Jayjay Jun 25 2012, 03:34 PM

It is not just being removed from the unemployed, but from everyone under 25. How would you advise a youngster working a 40 hour week and earning £4.98 an hour?

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 25 2012, 03:53 PM

As long as their are exceptions, I think it could work pretty well.

Posted by: Strafin Jun 25 2012, 04:04 PM

Nobody should be allowed to own more than one home. That way there would be more hushing stock, and rents would be cheaper enabling people to save whilst they rent as well.

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 25 2012, 04:10 PM

Why cannot buy another house and have a buy to let ?

Posted by: Newbelly Jun 25 2012, 04:25 PM

How on earth could that work? Apart from the legal issues as to definition, people could use trusts, companies or other family members to buy/own property.

Posted by: GMR Jun 25 2012, 04:30 PM

I agree with you, however, one size fits all won't work. It is OK targeting those that won't work, but what about those that do want to work but can't get a job? Punishing everybody for a few miscreants will backfire. It would be better to deal with each claimant individually/ on their own merit.

Posted by: Baffers100 Jun 25 2012, 04:42 PM

We call it the death loan in our house!

It comes from the french 'mort' meaning dead, and 'gage' from Old English which means 'pledge.' How very apt!

Posted by: Baffers100 Jun 25 2012, 04:49 PM

And what about when your parents are in ill health, and having the property signed over to you to avoid firstly ridiculous levels of inheritence tax, and your parents losing everything they've worked for all their lives.

The problem is we're all too willing to give people benefits for sitting on their *****. It's not so much as you get out in benefits what you've out in in terms of work and commitment to the community. It's an absolute joke.

I lost my contract from Vodafone a few years back and while I was out of work I signed of for Job Seekers Allowance. I felt ashamed to do so, which is ridiculous as I had been working since 15 (part time, and full time once I had finished with my education). I was even told by the Job Centre that I could not get job seekers allowance as I had a degree (of course this was incorrect).

Yes cut the benefit. Let people put a few pennies in the pot before we dish out handouts.

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 25 2012, 04:55 PM

Houses are slow to sell at the moment, alot of people are just renting them out and buying a bigger one. If some unfortunate person wants to pay my mortgage for me then happy days.

Posted by: Timbo Jun 25 2012, 06:11 PM

£1200 is very hard to save up for especially if you are already having to pay rent (see my point below).



There is a case, especially in todays market, that it would be more beneficial to get a larger house to begin with, that way you can rent out rooms you don't need (eg in a 3 bedroom house you could rent out perhaps 1, keeping the other as a spare, or both, or even convert your lounge area into a living and sleeping space for you, and rent out ALL 3 bedrooms - This helps keep an income and support the running of the property - So renting out rooms at £400 a month inclusive with internet, etc - That would (hopefully) cover your entire household spent each month! Or at the very least contribute towards it. It also means that as a homeowner if you lost your job you would not be in the shoot and also allows for easier saving.

Also you'd be hard pressed to find parents who were willing to let their children reside for free in their 20s. Infact I had to give £250 a month when I was working in a supermarket, when I was 16. This was not far off half my earnings at the time. And it was non-negotiable....... many parents are doing similar so I have found out when I was at doing some youth/young adult work with some post-grads at a course a while ago. From our little group of around 40 (across 3 sessions) the normal sort of rent was around £200 a month.



For young people it's incredibly hard!!!! £120k will get you a fairly decent 1 or 2 bedroom flat that's not in a scummy area full of ruffians. Back when I was a wee lad, a 3 bedroom house cost less than half that! Even accounting for inflation etc it's a massive difference between the time when most adults (so in their late 30s, or early 40s), or for example our parents, bought their house, from when young people (or I) had to buy their first homes.

You can't just say "under 25's are not getting housing benefit" because that's not FAIR. And benefits is supposed to be FAIR to all. Everyone under 25 gets the shoot thrown at them and then they are expected to carry the weight of the country on their shoulders. And yet they will harbour all of the blame when anything goings wrong... all thugs, druggies and drunks!!??

Aside from the J.K show never have I see young people willingly take advantage of the benefits system as I have the types of families that feature on the Daily Mail (of course a fantastic newspaper........) - Always Moreen and her Husband dave, mid to late 40's, family of 900, all on benefits.

David Cameron did not have to worry about a harsh upbringing, or being strapped for cash, he had everything for him delivered on a silver platter by Jeeves. Which is why I can't understand why he feels he is in a position to be talking about, or backing, these types of proposals - he simply does not have the experience.

Some reading to support......
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jun/25/economic-gap-young-old-worse



(Basically that while a house cost 6x annual salary in 2000, it's, as of 2010, 12x... So twice as expensive.)

It's a http://www.if.org.uk/archives/960/if-analyses-ess-research-of-56000-people-across-29-countries that throughout Britain young people are viewed with contempt and disrespect. As some may know of my youth work took up a fair amount of adult life and the passion I have supporting the younger people in this nation (but equally I am able to say when they are wrong), but in this instance I think David Cameron is being a nob.

Why not ban benefits for those in their 40s? They should have jobs and savings. Don't push yet more of the economic crisis on those who were not old enough to be held accountable during the downfall. #!£%ing sick of it to tell you the truth.

Posted by: Newbelly Jun 25 2012, 06:43 PM

I agree, benefits should be fair to all, including those who pay for them and do not claim.

If you have never seen "young people" take advantage of the benefits system then you need to widen your experience. At 0730 this morning I was on email dealing in respect of a benefit dependant young man who drinks, smokes and procreates like there is no tomorrow. He is of the view that any attempt to curtail his activities is a Tory conspiracy to remove his rights.

Posted by: Timbo Jun 25 2012, 06:54 PM

I was only speaking from my experience when doing youth work and interacting with young people. I presume if you were dealing with a claim then your experiences may be very different. I didn't say no young people took advantage, I'm saying that I believe a smaller percentage of young people play the game, and that those who are older are less "keen" to get work and are of the mindset that the state will pay for them..

Posted by: Strafin Jun 25 2012, 07:06 PM

Re my idea:

Of course people would find a way around it in certain situations, but the rich buy up the property stock and then charge ridiculous rents on them. Their house gets paid for (as well as a nice car and an annual holiday), and those who can't afford to buy are forced in to a never ending ending circle of rent. The house prices are driven up because they are profit making items rather than a dwelling, so they then sell to each other at inflated prices, so that they can rent them out again. It is all about greed, and in my opinion, property investment by individuals is one of the main things dividing the rich and poor in our country. There is no hard work involved, no shrewd business decisions or risk taking it is almost guaranteed profit, taken from the hardest up members of our society and given to the rich. Those in private rents begrudge paying all the money and so seek help, which normally comes in the form of benefits.

Posted by: Strafin Jun 25 2012, 07:07 PM

I feel the same about public sector pensions but that's for another day...

Posted by: Newbelly Jun 25 2012, 07:22 PM

I do not write-off the younger generation, far from it - they are our future. There are many clever, hard-working and kind young people. I just wish we could break this cycle of dependency and this attitude of rights over responsibilities that a (growing) minority have. I take your point that some older people abuse the system as well.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 25 2012, 09:05 PM

Ironically, the welfare state as proposed by the Beverage Report was a broadly insurance based programme. Its the politicians who have damaged it - thinking they are pleasing the electorate. Alex Salmond the last to 'change the rules' - free prescriptions in Scotland.

Posted by: Newbelly Jun 25 2012, 09:18 PM

I think Beveridge was born in India, and his early experiences there formed his later opinions as to welfare. I do not think he intended what we have now!

Posted by: Squelchy Jun 25 2012, 09:34 PM

Don't fall for it...

Cameron floated 17 specific ideas, but none of them represent goverment policy and he admitted that many of them are really at best submissions for the 2015 Conservative manifesto.

This is never going to happen.

Posted by: Jayjay Jun 26 2012, 07:01 AM

Totally agree it will not happen as it unworkable. That is why I wonder I wonder what bad news is being hidden beneath it or it is just to keep the fact he called his dad and most of his colleagues imoral off the front pages of the media.

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 26 2012, 07:34 AM

I hate the welfare state, we would save billions if we scrapped large parts of it

Posted by: On the edge Jun 26 2012, 10:00 AM

Quite agree! Lets get back to total freedom. That would at least get the excess weight off some kids, otherwise they'd get stuck up the chimneys.

Posted by: Jayjay Jun 26 2012, 01:17 PM

Which part. Age related pension, the NHS, sick pay, income related sick benefit?

Posted by: Timbo Jun 26 2012, 01:28 PM

Not forgetting all the massively obese middle aged people.

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 26 2012, 01:35 PM

The NHS is not included in the welfare state. I would review the following

Tax Credits
Child Benefit Limited to 2 children
Maternity Grant
Assisted nursery for people in low paid jobs

Posted by: Timbo Jun 26 2012, 01:37 PM

Think that's fair.

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 26 2012, 02:03 PM

It is economically pointless to be able to claim more in tax credits than you pay in tax. It is a waste of money paying private nursery fee's for someone to sit on checkout for minimum wage and pay very little or no tax.

Posted by: Timbo Jun 26 2012, 02:27 PM

I think there should be a tax-buffer. Ideally everyone should pay more tax then they recieve... like for example say you can not recieve more than 4 times what you have paid in regards to unemployment benefits..?

Eg I pay approx £500 a month tax with NI contribution. So if I work for a year, I pay £6000 tax. So then if I needed to claim an UNEMPLOYMENT benefit I could not claim back more than £6,000 (which would be about half a year on the dole). I guess different things such as tax credits or disability beneit may get different rules but generally trying to make it so each person pays more tax than they recieve in compensation should be the end goal.

Another option would be to start with a buffer such as £2,000, so you can claim up to negative £2,000 .. like an overdraft but with tax!

And I hate to say it but I think the elderly get far too much spent on them in terms of proportion. Yes I understand they may require help but someone said why not have children move in with parents, why not have the children (who may be in their 30s or 40s) look after their adults?! I think if you want to single out the bottom third of the population you need to do the same to the top third too.

Posted by: Jayjay Jun 26 2012, 02:29 PM

But then they would be labelled work shy scroungers who cant be asked to go to work.

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 26 2012, 02:36 PM

But at least they would be scroungers who cost us less

Posted by: Strafin Jun 26 2012, 06:42 PM

On that note then, if you claimed £6000 in benefits should you then start to get other services restricted, such as NHS treatment?

Posted by: Jayjay Jun 26 2012, 07:08 PM

Using the same comparison, people who are in their 50's/60's started work at 15 (university was only for teachers, doctors). Therefore they will have worked 50+ years when they retire. Under 40's left school later, had a gap year, went to uni, then started work. So surely, under your criteria, they should get a higher pension than younger people.

Posted by: JeffG Jun 26 2012, 07:50 PM

Really? Where does that idea come from?

Posted by: Timbo Jun 26 2012, 08:36 PM

Healthcare, under UK law is a right, everyone deserves health. 90% of the time you can't help whatever illness, or cancer, or disease you may have. Where as 90% of the time you can help your job situation. not wishing to start a debate, but just giving a for-example - Do I think smokers who smoke themselves into lung cancer should be treated differently, perhaps with a lower priority, than a non smoker with lung cancer? Absolutely.

So vital services such as policing and healthcare should not be excluded, I am only talking about employment and housing related benefits. Unless there are immediate circumstances such as a 18 or 19 year old running away because of abuse at home or something, which can then be proved and in these emergency cases the rules would need fixing but on the whole I think it's a good idea?

Posted by: Strafin Jun 26 2012, 09:33 PM

So how does that work if you can't take more out of the system than you put in? You could argue that smokers pay more tax for example.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Jun 26 2012, 09:38 PM

I would advise then to see an employment tribunal. There is a minimum wage AFAIK and it's over £6/hr

Posted by: Timbo Jun 26 2012, 09:55 PM

No idea. I just came up with a fairly feasible (in my eyes) idea, where such as with banks, you get an overdraft to help you when you are in need of the money however you are expected to keep yourself in the black.

Although directly relating to your point, I think as smoking and alcohol are purely optional past-times, and not legal requirements such as basic tax and NI contributions, they should not be counted. Fuel again would be under the same boat - it would only take into account contributions via tax PAYE and NI.

Posted by: Strafin Jun 26 2012, 10:17 PM

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/employment/employees/thenationalminimumwage/dg_10027201

Current rates

Posted by: Jayjay Jun 27 2012, 05:50 AM

The idea that you left school at 15? That was the legal leaving age then.

The idea that only teachers/doctors went to uni? Maybe I should have written the professions. There were no media studies, nurses trained in hospitals, plumbers/hairdressers on job training and evening technical college.

Posted by: Jayjay Jun 27 2012, 05:53 AM

Driving is purely optional, so if you crashed your car you would have to pay for treatment?

Posted by: Timbo Jun 27 2012, 08:03 AM

I am not sure, I think all healthcare should be covered regardless. Like I've said twice before it would only relate to unployment related benefits.

Posted by: blackdog Jun 27 2012, 08:05 AM

So what happens when the credit runs out - do we sit by and watch people starve?


There is a lot to be said for families taking care of their young and old - but I know pensioners who are still financially supporting their 40+ year old children.

Posted by: booboo Jun 27 2012, 08:15 AM

Because I had an apprenticeship to go to I was allowed to leave school at 14. 2 weeks before my 15th birthday.
My employer paid for my education for my degree when I was 34.

Posted by: Timbo Jun 27 2012, 08:33 AM

Maybe that's what it would take - you are what you make yourself and and everyone is given a fair level of support. If after the support you are not able to support yourself then why should you expect the state?

People don't bother working because they know that the state will cover them. As soon as they realise they can't rely on other people I'm pretty sure they'd pull their finger out. And if not then, well - I don't think that's something we should have to worry about!

Posted by: Jayjay Jun 27 2012, 08:45 AM

Just been reading of someone made redundant from Glaxco who has just sent off his 450th job application. There are 23 people chasing every vacancy and, with the pupils leaving school next month, this is due to get worse. But in your view if they are not lucky enough to win the lottery of employment we should let them starve. Last time it was the jews, this time the poor and unemployed.

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 27 2012, 08:54 AM

That's just unlucky am sure someone who worked at Glaxco would have addequote inusrance and redundancy money and would be entitled to job seakers. The ideas you can leave school, not get a job but claim housing benefit is beyond stupid.

Posted by: NORTHENDER Jun 27 2012, 08:55 AM

Timbo said.

People don't bother working because they know that the state will cover them. As soon as they realise they can't rely on other people I'm pretty sure they'd pull their finger out. And if not then, well - I don't think that's something we should have to worry about!

And what about the poor innocent children born into these families, do we let them starve also.

Posted by: JeffG Jun 27 2012, 09:00 AM

Not just the professions. I did an engineering degree. I doubt that many of my contemporaries went into the professions or teaching. I agree that there were no media studies and other nonsense courses in those days before technical colleges started calling themselves universities.

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 27 2012, 09:01 AM

That's life, will take a generation but will flish out this generation of people who expect life on a plate.

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 27 2012, 09:04 AM

Then that's just the fault of the parents being too soft.

Posted by: Jayjay Jun 27 2012, 09:13 AM

They don't care really. They think they have charmed lives where they will not get old or sick, their jobs will always be secure and their children will have the brightest of futures. Their view is let the poor and unemployed die from hunger as long as it cuts my contribution to society.

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 27 2012, 09:18 AM

I agree, if you are not willing to work and are able bodied then frankly you deserve to starve.

Posted by: Jayjay Jun 27 2012, 09:31 AM

May you live in interesting times.

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 27 2012, 09:43 AM

Realistic times where the government don't wipe your bottom

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 27 2012, 09:45 AM

I do hope you do not loose your job.

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 27 2012, 09:46 AM

that's why you have insurance

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 27 2012, 09:47 AM

LOL, you post this only 12 hours after this -

Do I think smokers who smoke themselves into lung cancer should be treated differently, perhaps with a lower priority, than a non smoker with lung cancer? Absolutely.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 27 2012, 09:48 AM

So you are paying in what you expect to get out?

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 27 2012, 09:49 AM

it's a private company it costs other tax payers nothing.

Posted by: Jayjay Jun 27 2012, 09:57 AM

Realistic? Where you want people to die because they are poor or unemployed? That is not realism my friend, that is sickness and I feel sorry you have no humanity or compassion in your soul.

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 27 2012, 09:59 AM

I dont't, we need a period of hard times to flush out the generation of spongers.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 27 2012, 10:34 AM

Jayjay - andy's just a WUM. I would suggest ignoring him.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 27 2012, 12:06 PM

Think about what you wish for. The idle become hard workers who intern put you out of a job because they are prepared to work more for less. I see benefits as an 'opiate' for the people that are prepared not to work so that we may. It is the 'cost' of having a job and living a relatively secure existence.

Posted by: Timbo Jun 27 2012, 12:55 PM

I said that was my personal opinion.

Different to the actual policy I would put in place..

"LOL".

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 27 2012, 02:01 PM

I would like a society where people don't just have to work 16 hours and get tax credits for the rest of their income, genius by Labour that one.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 27 2012, 03:02 PM

That wasn't my question.

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 27 2012, 03:25 PM

That's my answer :-)

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 27 2012, 03:46 PM

An interesting point of view. I presume you think that fat people should also be treated with a lower priority for heart disease and diabetes or at least treated differently? Obesity costs more to the NHS than smokers (who actually pay taxes to get ill!). Perhaps we should at least introduce a 'chubster' tax for those that are clinically obese.

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 27 2012, 03:50 PM

Hw about a sports injuries tax? I have broken two bones mountain biking, taking up valuable NHS time. Should I pay more ?

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 27 2012, 03:53 PM

So you agree with a state run tax funded Health Service then?

Why not just take out an insurance policy to cover you here?

Posted by: Timbo Jun 27 2012, 03:57 PM

Yes, in principle.

But the reason why I wouldn't personally implement that would be that there are many mitigating circumstances, depression, comfort eating, etc, as there might be with smoking and drinking -

So if I was implementing a policy it would only be related to tax paid from earnings and benefits recieved because of unemployment (including any housing benefit)

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 27 2012, 04:00 PM

I pay taxes, that covers my usage of the NHS. The problem is teen parents and unemployed families, a pregnancy costs the NHS thousands yet hundreds of single mothers have never paid a penny in tax.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 27 2012, 04:00 PM

I think the NHS should be there for all non-self inflicted health problems.
Having a child is everyone's right whether they pay taxes or not.
Smokers don't choose to get cancer and fat people don't choose to get diabetes. I don't see how you could differentiate or draw the line there.
Now, as for women changing the shape of their breasts and then running to the NHS because it goes wrong, and people coming to this country for free treatment - that's a different matter.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 27 2012, 04:03 PM

They will have paid tax, just not possibly any income tax. My mother didn't work when I was growing up - so she never paid any income tax on the 20 odd years she was a stay at home mother.

Unemployment isn't a career choice.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 27 2012, 04:05 PM

Neither did mine and I am the better off for it!

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 27 2012, 04:06 PM

I doubt very much whether women who have breast augmentation surgery choose for there to be health issues with their lifestyle choice either.

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 27 2012, 04:06 PM

I assumbe your father paid income tax?

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 27 2012, 04:07 PM

I suppose they pay duty on their cider and fags

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 27 2012, 04:09 PM

Lots of it!
And still paying it on his pension.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 27 2012, 04:10 PM

Just as my mother did on her cheeky little red from the small vineyard in Provence & her cheroots hand made by her tobacconist in Lisbon

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 27 2012, 04:11 PM

Yes, but that's what it is, a choice, it is not a health issue it is a cosmetic issue.
They must be warned of the health issues when they decide as a legal requirement?

Posted by: Strafin Jun 27 2012, 05:08 PM

So you claim to not need benefits, but then claim child benefit anyway? Does that not make you a scrounger as well?

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 27 2012, 06:08 PM

No, a scrounger who is someone who is out to do the minimum in order to gain the maximum.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 27 2012, 06:18 PM

90% of us then?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 27 2012, 06:37 PM

Probably higher than that, really!

Posted by: NORTHENDER Jun 27 2012, 06:46 PM

You only have to read through the posts on here to see that we have more than one misanthrope and sociopath on here. Now I wonder who they could be?

Posted by: Berkshirelad Jun 27 2012, 08:39 PM

Thanks

Posted by: Timbo Jun 28 2012, 01:42 AM

Ohh please enlighten us!

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 28 2012, 09:28 AM

I wonder if those who are against the cut, in fact it's funny to read about people moaning that 'thier' free money is being taken away are actually living on benefits themselves ?

Posted by: Rusty Bullet Jun 28 2012, 09:47 AM

Do us a favour, and for those of us with English as a first language, can you put this in a way that makes sense?

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 28 2012, 09:52 AM

I mean it is only ever seams to be people living on benefits, that moan about any cuts.

Posted by: FactFile Jun 28 2012, 10:04 AM

Better, but still gibberish. ("seems")

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 28 2012, 10:08 AM

what are you the spelling police ? Or just a complete ****

Posted by: Squelchy Jun 28 2012, 10:10 AM

I think we may have a case of the "I'm playing all the right notes—but not necessarily in the right order."
As made famous by Eris Morecambe and Andre Preview.

Posted by: FactFile Jun 28 2012, 10:13 AM

It is not I making myself look silly and uneducated. It is not I that have resorted to bad language.

Is further education not an option for you?

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 28 2012, 10:14 AM

been there done that and probably have a better job than you.

Posted by: FactFile Jun 28 2012, 10:21 AM

Oh dear, you think one is defined by their 'job' do you? Sad.
If you, as you say, have "been there done that" it's a pity you didn't pay more attention. Then you wouldn't go around making yourself look quite so daft.

As to your present employment, I guess some employers just don't pay too much attention to who they let in. Certainly, if you sent in a C.V. written in the same way as you write and spell on here, you wouldn't get a job with me, but that's because we already have a janitor.

Can you also cut down on the swearing please? It's not big and it's not clever.

Posted by: x2lls Jun 28 2012, 10:23 AM

Perhaps you should have listened then.


Why are you so negative and confrontational?

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 28 2012, 10:26 AM

because I don't like being told I am stupid

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 28 2012, 10:27 AM

If you even have a job that is

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 28 2012, 10:31 AM

I think he is the unofficial forum troll designed to get people wound-up. I have a feeling 'andy' is familiar to us else where.

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 28 2012, 10:36 AM

Do tell where ?

Posted by: Timbo Jun 28 2012, 10:40 AM

Not really a need to be confrontational Andy.. :S

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 28 2012, 10:47 AM

True, I apologise for my litte outburst.

Posted by: x2lls Jun 28 2012, 11:08 AM

There are many on this forum who have a problem with spelling, or even the completely wrong word, such as 'I do hope you don't LOOSE your job'.

I also make mistakes, BUT, there is a wonderful invention called a spell checker. It has saved me much embarrassment.= and it takes next to no time to type up, copy/paste into word or email for that matter, then paste back.

Posted by: Timbo Jun 28 2012, 11:22 AM

You know you can get spell checker in most decent browsers right?

Posted by: Newbelly Jun 28 2012, 11:27 AM

http://www.iespell.com/

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 28 2012, 12:11 PM

So smokers should be told the same then.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 28 2012, 12:13 PM

Lose Loose is an in joke.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Jun 28 2012, 12:25 PM

Now there's a REAL blast from the past. Takes me back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7GeKLE0x3s

Posted by: Jayjay Jun 28 2012, 01:06 PM

I dont exist then?

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 28 2012, 02:43 PM

Well they are - on every fag packet.
I understand what folks are saying about smokers and, as a non-smoker myself, am not happy with what it costs the NHS.
However, I fail to understand how you could differentiate a smoker who needed treatment from a non-smoker without being insensitive.
I suppose they could pay more in tax / nat. ins. but they already do that on the fags.
Just keep hiking the tax on them I suppose?
What I do find wrong on us taxpayers is people who choose to have private treatment (often cosmetic) and then, when it goes wrong, expecting the NHS to sort it out.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 28 2012, 03:48 PM

What bugs me is that most people think its ok to slag off a smoker as its "pc" to. You deserve to get lung cancer. You deserve to be ill.
Now if I went up to someone in the street who was 30stone and said 'god your fat - you'd better lose some weight or you will die or at least cost the NHS a packet chubby' I would be described as insensitive and hurtful. I'd be told they may have a glandular problem or its not 'their fault' when 99% of the time they would be fat because they gorge themselves on 5000 calories a day. Smokers DO risk illness and increase the chances that they will die early. But so do fat people. Let's target fatties. They are the real problem. Or would that not be 'pc' and fit into other peoples discriminations???

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 28 2012, 05:27 PM

You could always try just being civil, and respect the fact we are human and are getting fatter by design.

Posted by: JeffG Jun 28 2012, 06:29 PM

So it's evolution at work?

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 28 2012, 09:20 PM

I can't understand why you single out privately paid for cosmetic surgery which has gone wrong as something which the NHS shouldn't put right.

Posted by: Strafin Jun 28 2012, 09:28 PM

I don't think you can really make that claim, some people are fat because they overeat but you can't be sure of that. Smokers do it through choice, and not only do they stink, and mess themselves up, they affect other people as well. Passive smoking (in my opinion) probably isn't as bad as it gets made out to be, but it certainly exists whereas passive being fat doesn't!

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 29 2012, 07:28 AM

But fatties quite often smell and polute my air. As I suspected everyone seems to think that fat people don't have a problem. It's not their fault. MOSTLY it is and should be frowned on just as much as smoking. It is not because it is not 'pc'. This in my opinion is hypocrisy.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 29 2012, 07:59 AM

Why not? Explain.
(Unless it affects you or your family directly!)
P.S. I could single out other instances where I think the taxpayer shouldn't pay but this was a main example.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 29 2012, 08:30 AM

Some of the 'smelliest' people I know are not over weight. Body odour is not carcinogenic to others, as far as I know. People are doing what comes natural. Hardly a reason to torment, except by those that are naturally cruel and arrogant.

Posted by: Jayjay Jun 29 2012, 08:57 AM

If you have a high BMI you are greedy, if you are slim you are anorexic. If you are poor you are a scrounger, if you are rich you are greedy. A woman has male friends, she is a slapper, a male has female friends he is a player. If you are a smoker or a driver you pollute the air. If you like a pint in your local you are an alcoholic. If you are a mother who goes to work you are taking our money for child credit, if you are a mother who stays at home you take our money for unemployment. If you are a teenager you are idle and feckless, if you are old you have outlived your usefulness and a drain on the NHS.

Why can't we just lose the labels and judge people on whether they are good or bad people?

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 29 2012, 09:25 AM

I would go for that yep, you can be a mother and work and not claim child credit though. I approve of those type.

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 29 2012, 05:20 PM

There were no fat people in Belsen (apart perhaps from the guards.)

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 29 2012, 05:22 PM

That is because they were starved.

Posted by: Newbelly Jun 29 2012, 08:30 PM

I think the (albeit rather clumsily put) point here is that obesity, when allegedly caused through factors other than over-eating is, in the main, a rather modern phenonemon.

If over-eating/lack of exercise or dependency on alcohol or other drugs is to be classed as an illness, then expect it to increase.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 29 2012, 08:40 PM

I knew what he meant, although your summary is valid.

My point is that if you give man more than enough to eat they will get fat. We are programmed to eat, rest, and reproduce. People, on the other-hand, think it is simply a choice we make. Most people who are overweight, I'm sure, would like to be slimmer; however, we are fighting primeval instincts to get that way.

I know not everyone is fat, but I would imagine the reasons for that are similar to those reasons why others are overweight.

Posted by: Nothing Much Jun 29 2012, 08:56 PM

I have been Looking at my youtube channel to check I am not being taken to court for 3rd party content.

Seeing the old films ....
I have to say I was a bit porky at about 7 years old. My older brother was as thin as a rake,if you could find one.
I am now 62 and have been over the top for my build at 15 stone. For 205 years now. (Nod to Andy!)
It is too much and is beginning to hurt knees. Walking hurts because of other joint problems.

I did see a cardiologist years ago about blood pressure. He was a miserable chap and mentioned weight loss
and Belsen. I think his great idea was canned mackeral on Ryveta...... Actually I quite like that.
I have to cut out the ale as well though.
ce

Posted by: x2lls Jun 30 2012, 01:46 AM

An 'in' joke? Yeah right!

Posted by: Baffers100 Jul 3 2012, 12:15 PM

"Quod est demonstratum"

Posted by: Nothing Much Jul 3 2012, 01:26 PM

Oh dear, Baffers. A little too hasty with the comment in 'Larfin and Grief'..
You should have stuck with Kennedy's Latin Primer. Or as most books were altered,
to "Eating Prime Beef". Still the best textbook.
I don't know but he may have been a headmaster who taught Darwin,
a bit too old for Palin, Rushton and Ingrams.(and me)
cve.

Posted by: JeffG Jul 3 2012, 06:46 PM

Biter bit, eh?

Posted by: Nothing Much Jul 3 2012, 07:05 PM

Well I am off to watch John Sergeant and his Bomber Command comments.
An uncle is carved in stone at Runnymede. Just one of thousands never to be found.
It was long before I was born. I shall mosey on down to the newly created memorial after the rain stops.
ce

Yes JeffG
I do howlers as well but mostly after a bottle of Rioja . I don't post after 10pm now!!!

Posted by: JeffG Jul 3 2012, 07:19 PM

Might I recommend http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/caesar/gall1.shtml as a good read to go with the Rioja?

Posted by: Nothing Much Jul 3 2012, 07:58 PM

Thanks for that JeffG. I did "De Bello Gallico " for O level.
Caesar jacet a pont across the fluvium. (or such). I passed as well!
No wonder I did so well in Sorrento a few years ago. Apart from the kerosene Grappa.
It does go on a bit. Asterix and Obelisk were much more fun.

ce