Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Newbury Today Forum _ Random Rants _ Proposed benefit cuts

Posted by: massifheed Feb 1 2012, 02:17 PM

Was just reading this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185

and wondered what people's thoughts were. The example family in the link get approx £30,000 per year in benefit, and could stand to lose £4000 if the cap were introduced. Looking at the family's ougoings I find it hard to have a great deal of sympathy. The guy has been out of work for 10 years (so one wonders why he hasn't retrained or at least found something in that time), they manage to find the funds for a Sky TV subscription - with movies, 200 cigarettes and 24 cans of lager a week.

They clearly go without in other areas - they have no car and don't go on holiday every year (although many other people don't either!), but it seems obvious to me that if people are able to be in receipt of the equivalent of a respectable salary (30k is way more than I earn) without, in theory, having to leave the house or even get up in the morning, then we will end up with generations upon generations of families who will simply choose not to work. Cutting benefits so that people can no longer afford to use them to fund Sky TV, 24 cans of lager and 200 fags a week may be the start needed.

Posted by: Bloggo Feb 1 2012, 02:30 PM

QUOTE (massifheed @ Feb 1 2012, 02:17 PM) *
Was just reading this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185

and wondered what people's thoughts were. The example family in the link get approx £30,000 per year in benefit, and could stand to lose £4000 if the cap were introduced. Looking at the family's ougoings I find it hard to have a great deal of sympathy. The guy has been out of work for 10 years (so one wonders why he hasn't retrained or at least found something in that time), they manage to find the funds for a Sky TV subscription - with movies, 200 cigarettes and 24 cans of lager a week.

They clearly go without in other areas - they have no car and don't go on holiday every year (although many other people don't either!), but it seems obvious to me that if people are able to be in receipt of the equivalent of a respectable salary (30k is way more than I earn) without, in theory, having to leave the house or even get up in the morning, then we will end up with generations upon generations of families who will simply choose not to work. Cutting benefits so that people can no longer afford to use them to fund Sky TV, 24 cans of lager and 200 fags a week may be the start needed.

I agree. Their benefits should be cut.

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 1 2012, 03:25 PM

Agree, I saw this and was thinking exactly the same...sorry but a good chunk of your money goes on booze and tobbaco...They have £585 a week or something, regardless of them being unable to understand the concept of contraception, that's a little over 4 times what I have a week to live on (and I work for it!!!) and I can get by, even with buying stupid bits for my car. rolleyes.gif

Cut their benefits, I agree. Maybe it'll teach them to be more choice with their spending. Also Mr Software Engineer should know that in IT it's evolve or die - being a software developer, if you know C# or C++ or some other coding format you can easily (well, relatively) learn to code other things which means you could get a job.
Work is hard to find especially in specialised sectors but it's out there if you want it.

Posted by: stewiegriffin Feb 1 2012, 04:21 PM

Agree completely, they could and should have their benefits cut. £26k is way more than the average person earns, especially when you take tax into account.

This lot have the cheek to suggest they need to choose between heating and eating. How about choosing between 24 cans of lager and heating? They are spending £30 a head on food too. That's more than my weekly supermarket budget. I can't afford lager and fags, or £32 a week on mobiles either.

I'm all for people on benefits having enough to live on, but this family are extracting the urine big time. Just like the woman on the One Show a while back who was scrounging food aid from a charity, whilst at the same time owning a large dog, a couple of budgies and watching Jeremy Kyle on her big plasma screen.

I hope the govt spends the money saved on all these scroungers by increasing benefits for people who actually need them, such as the disabled for instance.

Posted by: massifheed Feb 1 2012, 04:22 PM

QUOTE (xjay1337 @ Feb 1 2012, 03:25 PM) *
...being a software developer, if you know C# or C++ or some other coding format you can easily (well, relatively) learn to code other things which means you could get a job.
Work is hard to find especially in specialised sectors but it's out there if you want it.


This is what struck me too. He's been out of work for ten years, but if he came from a job where he was writing educational software then it's straightforward enough to learn to code another language. And there is work out there for good developers.

However, if you have decided that the only thing you're ever going to do is write educational software, and you've decided that you'll wait until exactly the same type of job comes along that pays more than the £30k in benefits that you're currently receiving - well, I can see why you could be out of work for ten years.

The other thing, and I'll admit it's just my opinion, is that I don't think this is a family that was chosen as an example of people milking the system. I'd be willing to bet that this kind of set-up is widespread.


Posted by: blackdog Feb 1 2012, 07:39 PM

Looking at the article it is easy enough to get worked up about the Sky TV, mobiles, fags and booze - cutting those out might fit this family into the £26 limit.

But imagine what the same limit would mean to a family around here, or in London - where £76 a week wouldn't get you a tent, let alone space (just) for a family of eight.

Sure the chap should be retrained which would, ideally see him working - but he lives in North Wales - where the chances of getting a job with his CV must be below zero. If they relocate to somewhere where jobs exist - say Newbury, could he get a job paying enough to support and, notably, to house the family - I doubt it.

The £26k cap will force families to move to places where they can exist on £26k - usually areas with high unemployment. I'm not sure how that will help?

Another simple issue - a family with 6 kids has to survive on £26k in N Wales, a family with 2 kids in the south-east will get the same £26k owing to massively higher housing costs. Is that fair? All unwaged large families must move to sink estates in poverty striken areas.

Unless the government subsidises housing in some other way (eg building thousands of council houses) I can't see how this 'one size fits all' cap will work in any way that could be defined as fair.

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 1 2012, 08:09 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Feb 1 2012, 07:39 PM) *
Looking at the article it is easy enough to get worked up about the Sky TV, mobiles, fags and booze - cutting those out might fit this family into the £26 limit.

But imagine what the same limit would mean to a family around here, or in London - where £76 a week wouldn't get you a tent, let alone space (just) for a family of eight.

Sure the chap should be retrained which would, ideally see him working - but he lives in North Wales - where the chances of getting a job with his CV must be below zero. If they relocate to somewhere where jobs exist - say Newbury, could he get a job paying enough to support and, notably, to house the family - I doubt it.

The £26k cap will force families to move to places where they can exist on £26k - usually areas with high unemployment. I'm not sure how that will help?

Another simple issue - a family with 6 kids has to survive on £26k in N Wales, a family with 2 kids in the south-east will get the same £26k owing to massively higher housing costs. Is that fair? All unwaged large families must move to sink estates in poverty striken areas.

Unless the government subsidises housing in some other way (eg building thousands of council houses) I can't see how this 'one size fits all' cap will work in any way that could be defined as fair.



So why doesn't he look for jobs nationally and if he gets one then relocate? That's a stupid amount of money to be getting on benefits and after 10 years this guy has clearly got no will to get another job.. angry.gif
Location isn't an excuse really, not when you've been bone idle for a decade. You can happily live in pretty much any area in and around Newbury for a **** of a lot less than £26k...I was on £15k and managed to rent my own place, pay finance, insurance, and what not.. it's not really that hard to look for cheaper places to live.

Posted by: massifheed Feb 1 2012, 08:20 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Feb 1 2012, 07:39 PM) *
Unless the government subsidises housing in some other way (eg building thousands of council houses) I can't see how this 'one size fits all' cap will work in any way that could be defined as fair.


I agree, and I wasn't aiming to just demonise this particular family, but rather demonstrate that the problem of getting people that are out of work to want to get back into work isn't helped (and certainly will never succeed) all the while it's possible to receive enough benefit to sit at home watching movies on Sky while smoking and drinking lager.


Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 1 2012, 08:44 PM

"I see eight people here having to choose between eating or heating." ... if we want to keep our full Sky subscription (£15.00), £60 worth of fags, £18.00 worth of lager and £20.00 down the pub every Friday! laugh.gif blink.gif

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 1 2012, 09:32 PM

I've never been on benefits. What is the tax situation on (say) #26k? Does that amount include the reliefs, such as Council Tax, free school meals etc?

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 1 2012, 10:03 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 1 2012, 09:32 PM) *
I've never been on benefits. What is the tax situation on (say) #26k? Does that amount include the reliefs, such as Council Tax, free school meals etc?

£26k is net before council tax, which will be no less than 75% of the original amount. Free school meals probably will be provided, but I cannot prove that.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 1 2012, 10:07 PM

Nope, they will probably be getting all that too. I think this family is fairly typical of one on benefits. Thing is there is too much they can claim, if they had to struggle a bit more it would perhaps make them want to get a job more. Cut their benefits and put the money into training? Anyone out of work for a year could go on a free course (qualification needed), or get free on the job training to help them out.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 1 2012, 10:18 PM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Feb 1 2012, 10:07 PM) *
Nope, they will probably be getting all that too.

From what I have read, being on benefits alone will not make you exempt.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 1 2012, 10:54 PM

If benefits are 'cash in hand', how much would someone have to earn to be left with the same amount of cash? Including any other benefits that come on line because the person is on benefits?

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 1 2012, 11:03 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 1 2012, 10:54 PM) *
If benefits are 'cash in hand', how much would someone have to earn to be left with the same amount of cash? Including any other benefits that come on line because the person is on benefits?

Here you go: http://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php

Posted by: blackdog Feb 2 2012, 01:15 AM

QUOTE (xjay1337 @ Feb 1 2012, 08:09 PM) *
So why doesn't he look for jobs nationally and if he gets one then relocate? That's a stupid amount of money to be getting on benefits and after 10 years this guy has clearly got no will to get another job.. angry.gif
Location isn't an excuse really, not when you've been bone idle for a decade. You can happily live in pretty much any area in and around Newbury for a **** of a lot less than £26k...I was on £15k and managed to rent my own place, pay finance, insurance, and what not.. it's not really that hard to look for cheaper places to live.

If you can keep youirself and your wife (your bipolar wife), and your six kids on £26k paying Newbury rents then I am impressed. One person could easily live on that amount - but eight? That's £3250 each.

If I was in that situation I would be seriously p****d off to see the two child family next door getting exactly the same.

This cap will force people to move away from the places where the jobs are - making them even less likely to get off their sofas and get a job.

I'm not arguing that the benefits system is not overgenerous, just that this cap is an unfair and dumb way of trying to solve the problem.



Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 2 2012, 02:19 AM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Feb 2 2012, 01:15 AM) *
If you can keep youirself and your wife (your bipolar wife), and your six kids on £26k paying Newbury rents then I am impressed. One person could easily live on that amount - but eight? That's £3250 each.

If I was in that situation I would be seriously p****d off to see the two child family next door getting exactly the same.

This cap will force people to move away from the places where the jobs are - making them even less likely to get off their sofas and get a job.

I'm not arguing that the benefits system is not overgenerous, just that this cap is an unfair and dumb way of trying to solve the problem.


I agree with what you're saying, I understand that for me £15k was just enough to get by, more people would obviously increase the financial strain, but there comes a point where you have to stop. I mean, for me, I bought a brand new bike on finance, the bike cost nearly £10,000, it's basically £212 a month. Plus being young and having a swanky car my car insurance is £160 a month (actually my car is one of the cheapest cars to insure for me full stop) - you think that's bad, last year I was paying £350 a month!!. I have a phone contract which I shopped around for and got an iPhone 4 when they had only recently came out, for £37 a month with no up front cost. So good deal there.

Without giving my life story, what I'm trying to explain is that as you get older, general living costs DECREASE and that by being proactive you can still enjoy a decent lifestyle on a lower income. Being young I go out, driving, going to shows, whatever, I can burn though £80 of diesel a week if I'm not careful. But if I didn't have finance out and/or I was older with more years of no claims, my major outgoings (aside from my rent) would probably be halved.

I think stewiegriffin said it was £30 of food, per head, per week? That is a obscene amount considering £30 of shopping would last me 2-3 weeks, if I didn't eat so much laugh.gif And that's with premium products, if I were to by the cheapy versions of things (Which I do from time to time, no shame in it whatsoever) then it's more like £10 for a weeks worth of food, admittedly not healthy stuff, processed rubbish, but it's food nevertheless.

For example, looking around Newbury and Thatcham you can find PLENTY of double rooms to rent for under £400. If you want to rent a whole house then it's more like £600-£800 depending on size/location etc. Fair enough. But remember these people are on £540 a week (or something, too tired to remember) - Which is enough to pay for the bare essentials, such as your grounds rent, water and electric bills, and basic and necessary amenities such as washing powder, bog roll, and food. I think their choice to spend a large proportion of their income on alochol and tobacco sort of shows they're not very good at managing their money.

You may not know it or believe it but I actually have anxiety and up until about 8-12 months ago I had clinical depression as well. I get worried about a lot of things very quickly and it piles up as people at work have seen, find it hard to talk to people who I have not met before unless we "click", or how I completely lose the ability to speak when I am worried I'm going to screw something up, but yet I'm still working, doing my best every day, "beating the system", heaven forbid I was to lose my job for some reason then I'd do whatever work was necessary in order for me to get by, whether that means working in a supermarket or picking litter. Having a mental disorder (depression, anxiety and bi-polar(bear)ianism can be controlled by drugs, unfortunately it can take time to find which sets of drugs work for you) - Not saying the mental problems are fake but saying that it's not an excuse. It's not Huntingtons or anything debilitating so quit moaning and get on with life!!

Neither is saying how you were a software engineer, which is frankly a pretty amazing job, now are unable to find work. Well you did that to yourself by being unemployed for 10 years. If you found a job, retrained within 6 months to a year it would probably be OK.

Now in short, yes I think there should be some sort of structure to the benefit scheme and the proposed £26k should be the upper limit. A cap is fair to all. A family such as Mr "I spend Taxpayers money on Booze" in the feature would be on £26k but if I happened to be on benefits I would get much less, perhaps £12k. A couple with one child may end up somewhere in the middle, £18-20k.
Basically it should be enough to just about get by without many luxuries.

huh.gif huh.gif

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Feb 2 2012, 08:54 AM

I feel so sorry for this family.
I think there benefits should be increased so they can have 200 cans of lager a week, SKY Sports, with of course the Adult Channels thrown in, 1000 fags a week, and at least 2 or 3 holidays a year on the tax payer. Perhaps a cleaner and a chauffeur as well? I mean you would not want to drink and drive. blink.gif

Posted by: massifheed Feb 2 2012, 09:26 AM

QUOTE (xjay1337 @ Feb 2 2012, 02:19 AM) *
Basically it should be enough to just about get by without many luxuries.


That's pretty much my view on it. If, for whatever reason, you find yourself in a position of entirely relying on benefits to live (and who could say it would never happen to them?), then it should be enough only to put a roof over your head, provide heating when it's cold and put food on the table for your family. If I found myself in that position I would expect nothing more.

But even then, it shouldn't be an open-ended thing, and ten years on benefit means both this particular guy in question, and the system, have failed.


Posted by: blackdog Feb 2 2012, 05:51 PM

QUOTE (xjay1337 @ Feb 2 2012, 02:19 AM) *
Not saying the mental problems are fake but saying that it's not an excuse. It's not Huntingtons or anything debilitating so quit moaning and get on with life!!

A cap is fair to all.

I've cropped your reply to concentrate on just a couple of points.

Mental illness, specifically bipolar disorder can be totally debilitating - a friend of mine spends a few months every year or two in hospital having been sectioned during the manic phase. This is followed by months of severe depression when they could in no way be considered a responsible adult - barely able to speak to anyone, often suicidal. This is a pretty severe instance of bipolar disorder - but the chap's wife could have it that badly, if so I certainly do feel sorry for them.

A cap is most certainly not fair to all - most people on benefits get less than £26k - so it's okay that they can carry on buying their fags and booze while this family can't?



Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 2 2012, 06:49 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Feb 2 2012, 05:51 PM) *
I've cropped your reply to concentrate on just a couple of points.

Mental illness, specifically bipolar disorder can be totally debilitating - a friend of mine spends a few months every year or two in hospital having been sectioned during the manic phase. This is followed by months of severe depression when they could in no way be considered a responsible adult - barely able to speak to anyone, often suicidal. This is a pretty severe instance of bipolar disorder - but the chap's wife could have it that badly, if so I certainly do feel sorry for them.

A cap is most certainly not fair to all - most people on benefits get less than £26k - so it's okay that they can carry on buying their fags and booze while this family can't?


I can understand what you're saying, perhaps it's just my cynical nature, that when someone who has been claiming off the state for 10 years says their wife is ill, yes she probably has some sort of problem but not bad enough to make her unable to work. A lot of people are claiming for mental illnesses when the degree of their disability is not bad enough to mean you are unable to leave the house. Sorry about your friend as well. You'd expect me to come up with some inappropriate and quick witted comment but even I have limits so I respect that and hope they can progress out of their situation. laugh.gif

I didn't say what the level should be capped at, there needs to be a maximum which any household can get which I personally think should be the national average income (that's like what £21k a year?) - In the case of this BBC report, you could easily cut down their living to £350 a week rather than £540 by cutting out the Sky, the booze and the alcohol and the stupid amount of shopping they clearly do. I have a mental picture of everyone and I imagine these people to be the sort of fat people sitting on a piss stained sofa, who would appear on an Ocean Finance advert.
(ok that last bit was a gag from a Marcus Brigstock gig but my point is there)

Regardless of this womans frame of mind, which we can only guess at this point, the fact is her husband has been on the dole for 10 years+ - This is a joke. He is, or was rather, a qualified Software Engineer which is big bucks jobs. Today you get £40k+ for that.. They COULD get by with their essentials on £21k a year. Literally just, but they seem to be having a comfortable life!! Where's the justice in that...

So, what I think would be good laugh.gif rolleyes.gif laugh.gif cap benefits to the national average Salary, design some sort of chart which has a base benefit rate upon your circumstances, area, whether you're single/partnered, having children or not, and then after 3 months you should have to go to the job centre or council offices and go through your statements with the claimant to see what their outgoings are, shopping reciepts, etc. If they are reasonable outgoings and they are still struggling to get by then you could give them a small increase in money. Likewise people who are living comfortable (like the "couple" in the BBC story) should get theirs cut.
You know, go up to say, 5 children living at home. If you are unemployed and continue to keep sh**ing out babies then sorry but you are not fit to be a mother or you seriously didn't pay any attention in sex-ed class. I did, ladies... wink.gif

What I'm trying to say is that having 8 or 9 children should not mean the taxpayer should have to fork out for your 8 or 9 children. One or two children is the norm, perhaps 3 - If you want more then you should have the finances and security to pay for them YOURSELF.

tongue.gif tongue.gif

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 2 2012, 09:44 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 1 2012, 10:54 PM) *
If benefits are 'cash in hand', how much would someone have to earn to be left with the same amount of cash? Including any other benefits that come on line because the person is on benefits?

According to the Minister, apparently the 'worked-for' equivalent income would be around #35k..... I reckon that is more than enough.
I try to be fair-minded, but I do struggle with people who have children with no means to support them. Funding bringing up children is not the responsibility of the state benefit system.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 2 2012, 09:49 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 2 2012, 09:44 PM) *
According to the Minister, apparently the 'worked-for' equivalent income would be around #35k..... I reckon that is more than enough.
I try to be fair-minded, but I do struggle with people who have children with no means to support them. Funding bringing up children is not the responsibility of the state benefit system.

Thing is, what do you do about it? Fortunately not that many people are 'reckless' like it.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 2 2012, 10:10 PM

'It'? 'Reckless'? You mean the money or the creation of children?

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 2 2012, 10:56 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 2 2012, 10:10 PM) *
'It'? 'Reckless'? You mean the money or the creation of children?

Creation.

Posted by: JeffG Feb 3 2012, 09:59 AM

I would have gone for the children thing myself, except that reading about this case, it's a "manufactured" large family caused by two people with existing children joining up. It's not as though they were pumping out children while he was on the dole.

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 3 2012, 04:02 PM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Feb 3 2012, 09:59 AM) *
I would have gone for the children thing myself, except that reading about this case, it's a "manufactured" large family caused by two people with existing children joining up. It's not as though they were pumping out children while he was on the dole.


Fair enough they didn't conceive children but they are still responsible for those children, still 8 children from 2 separate marriages is a large number... and that's not the responsibility of the tax payer.
And what for these children as they grow up, seeing their parents both stuck at home on benefits, do you think they will go out and be empowered and encouraged to get jobs?

I worry more for the children than I do the elders...what will they have to look forward to in life? Their future is looking bleak. (like Tracey Beaker but she turned out OK, and quite hot as well)

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 4 2012, 01:49 PM

Found this in the http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/national/9513043.Lottery_couple_defend_benefit_claim/?ref=fbrec

The vox pop comments are interesting

Posted by: On the edge Feb 4 2012, 03:12 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 4 2012, 01:49 PM) *
Found this in the http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/national/9513043.Lottery_couple_defend_benefit_claim/?ref=fbrec

The vox pop comments are interesting


As they say - you couldn't make it up!

Posted by: blackdog Feb 5 2012, 10:40 AM

QUOTE (xjay1337 @ Feb 3 2012, 04:02 PM) *
Fair enough they didn't conceive children but they are still responsible for those children, still 8 children from 2 separate marriages is a large number... and that's not the responsibility of the tax payer.

It's actually six children.

The problem with examples such as this is that we really don't know enough about the circumstances. It is, for instance, entirely possible that for months on end the chap was the sole carer for a seriously sick and incapable wife and six young children - a situation where it could even have cost the state more if he had gone out to work. As the children grow up this will become far less of an issue (apart from funding the seemingly mandatory mobiles) - but the chap would now have an employment record that goes a long way towards rendering him unemployable. Of course he could equally well be a work-shy scrounger ...

The individual case is used to obscure the inherent unfairness of a cap - that some are having their benefits cut while others, no more deserving, aren't. It is okay to fund the fags, booze, Sky, mobiles, etc for one family because they only get £25.9k but the family next door with an extra kid will have to give them up. If we have to cut benefits then cut them fairly.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 5 2012, 11:51 AM

Actually it's 8 children from two marriages, six of whom still live in the family home. My poersonal opinion is that more than two children is pretty irresponsible anyway, for anyone.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 5 2012, 12:32 PM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Feb 5 2012, 11:51 AM) *
Actually it's 8 children from two marriages, six of whom still live in the family home. My poersonal opinion is that more than two children is pretty irresponsible anyway, for anyone.


Oi!!! They have rights.......

Posted by: blackdog Feb 5 2012, 04:16 PM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Feb 5 2012, 11:51 AM) *
Actually it's 8 children from two marriages, six of whom still live in the family home. My poersonal opinion is that more than two children is pretty irresponsible anyway, for anyone.

Sorry I was going by the six at home - the other two don't influence the benefits paid.

I sympathise with the idea of two kids being enough - the world is ludicrously over-populated. But then we would need more immigrants to keep the economy going.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 5 2012, 04:26 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Feb 5 2012, 04:16 PM) *
I sympathise with the idea of two kids being enough - the world is ludicrously over-populated. But then we would need more immigrants to keep the economy going.

Interesting thought.... we need more people to create economic growth, but more people need more jobs/services/benefits. We need more people to pay tax to pay for the services...... We need to reduce the use of limited material, but we want more people using them.
A circular argument, surely?

Posted by: blackdog Feb 5 2012, 06:25 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 5 2012, 04:26 PM) *
Interesting thought.... we need more people to create economic growth, but more people need more jobs/services/benefits. We need more people to pay tax to pay for the services...... We need to reduce the use of limited material, but we want more people using them.
A circular argument, surely?

True - but it is the basis of economic theory that we need growth (good) -more people, more consumption and all that entails - or suffer recession (bad). Until we can figure out how to handle recession without pain we will continue to strive for growth. Eventually it seems inevitable that the whole teetering edifice of world economics will collapse - and there will be real hardship, not just the little cutbacks we are seeing at present. Being selfish I am hoping it won't happen while I'm still around.





Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 6 2012, 11:53 AM

How would people feel about imposing a limit on children that you can have? I'm not saying I'm for or against it, but for example in this situation we have a family of 8 being supported by our state benefit system, which isn't what it's designed for.
I'm not saying go all communistical like the Chinese and kill babies who are born but, clearly we have a bit of a capacity problem, especially with the influence of immigration and increased childbirth...how many of those parents are claiming off the state?

Something fair to all would need to be worked out...but if you are unable to pay for your own lifestyle then why should you have (more?) children and further suck the system dry...?

Posted by: blackdog Feb 6 2012, 04:42 PM

QUOTE (xjay1337 @ Feb 6 2012, 11:53 AM) *
How would people feel about imposing a limit on children that you can have?

It's a moot point in the UK as the birth rate is already too low to sustain our population level - those who have lots of children are doing those who don't a big favour.



Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 6 2012, 06:28 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Feb 6 2012, 04:42 PM) *
It's a moot point in the UK as the birth rate is already too low to sustain our population level - those who have lots of children are doing those who don't a big favour.

Only if they get jobs and pay tax.

Posted by: EvieG2017 Dec 11 2017, 12:02 PM

QUOTE (massifheed @ Feb 1 2012, 02:17 PM) *
Was just reading this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185

and wondered what people's thoughts were. The example family in the link get approx £30,000 per year in benefit, and could stand to lose £4000 if the cap were introduced. Looking at the family's ougoings I find it hard to have a great deal of sympathy. The guy has been out of work for 10 years (so one wonders why he hasn't retrained or at least found something in that time), they manage to find the funds for a Sky TV subscription - with movies, 200 cigarettes and 24 cans of lager a week.

They clearly go without in other areas - they have no car and don't go on holiday every year (although many other people don't either!), but it seems obvious to me that if people are able to be in receipt of the equivalent of a respectable salary (30k is way more than I earn) without, in theory, having to leave the house or even get up in the morning, then we will end up with generations upon generations of families who will simply choose not to work. Cutting benefits so that people can no longer afford to use them to fund Sky TV, 24 cans of lager and 200 fags a week may be the start needed.


The benefits system here in the U.K functions in such an abysmal way... This link/story isn't even the worse example I've seen of people taking advantage of the benefits dished out by the government. When compared to other European countries, the U.K benefits system is almost comedic. 30k a year equates to a take-home salary of almost £2,000 every month https://www.income-tax.co.uk/ which to me is just ridiculous, considering this person has not worked for 10 years.

I've been working all my adult life so far, pay taxes and still don't have a take-home salary of £2,000 per month. Whilst cutting benefits may seem unfair to some, I do empathize with those who are genuinely unable to work or have to care for sick relatives etc, it is absolutely needed. Or as you rightfully said we will end up with a generation of spongers is the only way to put it. Choosing not to work should not be an option, it infuriates me that my taxes are going towrds the likes of this and as mentioned that isn't even the most extreme benefits story I've read.

angry.gif

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 11 2017, 03:13 PM

Yes,there are some scroungers, but not just at the gutter end either.

Posted by: newres Dec 11 2017, 03:40 PM

This family with 7 children is an extreme example, but saying that I see nothing wrong with a benefits cap in long term examples.

Posted by: Turin Machine Dec 11 2017, 05:38 PM

If you cap those abusing the system there will be more to go toward's helping those truly in need. In theory.

Posted by: SirWilliam Dec 11 2017, 06:45 PM

Funnily enough I was debating this very subject with a friend today . The consensus being that those who choose to have a family should be financially viable to support their new responsibility . If at a later date they fall upon hard times then the tax payer should be prepared to help them short term . I do not know what the truth behind these ridiculously high benefits figure is but if accurate it poses the question why does anyone work ?

Posted by: On the edge Dec 12 2017, 06:57 AM

This is all pretty old stuff; look at the start date of the thread. Yesterday's news. I suspect what has awoken interest, is the imminent introduction of the Universal Credits scheme locally. This should satisfy the worries expressed here as even prime mover Iain Duncan-Smith and the traditionally supportive treasury believe its perhaps a little loop harsh and have been seeking to mitigate the worst effects. Most people, when giving the welfare system a little thought, thoroughly agree with making it as simple as possible and having 'a cap'. After all, that's no different from earning a wage that won't increase just because you've had an extra child. The real, and perhaps only point iof contention ought to be the amount paid and whether it is sufficient to sustain an existence. Yes, there are those who milk the system, just as there are those who seek to maximise earnings by avoiding tax in a thing called the gig economy.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 12 2017, 09:59 AM

Benefit scroungers are small fry in cash terms, but the simple test I apply is: would I swap existence. Usually the answers is no.

Posted by: Mr Brown Dec 16 2017, 08:59 AM

From time immemorial, just do sufficient to keep the underclass happy. Give them bread and circuses.

Posted by: SirWilliam Dec 16 2017, 09:15 AM

QUOTE (Mr Brown @ Dec 16 2017, 08:59 AM) *
From time immemorial, just do sufficient to keep the underclass happy. Give them bread and circuses.


Now reads lager and mobile phone . Things were so much simpler back in the day , send the proletariat off to some god forsaken country to fight a battle or two, which had the effect of gaining wealth for the state and reducing the population . All comes back to education........Or lack of it .

Posted by: je suis Charlie Dec 16 2017, 09:41 AM

QUOTE (Mr Brown @ Dec 16 2017, 08:59 AM) *
From time immemorial, just do sufficient to keep the underclass happy. Give them bread and circuses.

Try fags an strictly come preening. Seems to work these days.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)