# Meaningful debate



## Baldhead (29 Mar 2015)

I've just watched a local TV production entitled, 'Have benefit sanctions worked?' Could we manage to have an adult discussion amongst ourselves?

Stew


----------



## Jacob (29 Mar 2015)

Have they worked? What were they supposed to do anyway?
As far as I can see they were just an unpleasant extension of the blame culture virus where societies problems are blamed on those at the bottom of the heap, who in reality are the principle victims of economic downturns and definitely not the causes.
We need an adult discussion to be held by politicians, the media and the people with power, and a lot less kicking of the underdogs.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (29 Mar 2015)

"those at the bottom of the heap, who in reality are the principle victims of economic downturns" Not always. 
Many if not most of them in this area are there because it pays them and suits them. We are overrun with Poles (and good luck to them) doing jobs that our idle would lose money taking.


----------



## Jacob (29 Mar 2015)

phil.p":36o839jm said:


> "those at the bottom of the heap, who in reality are the principle victims of economic downturns" Not always.
> Many if not most of them in this area are there because it pays them and suits them.


Doubtful. It doesn't make sense. Nobody chooses benefits if there is an option of work - in fact a large chunk of the benefits bill goes to people actually in work but underpaid, insecure and renting at inflated prices. Landlords and low pay employers get the benefit (literally) - our taxes subsidise low pay and high rents.


----------



## clk230 (29 Mar 2015)

phil.p":qu2zv4b3 said:


> "those at the bottom of the heap, who in reality are the principle victims of economic downturns" Not always.
> Many if not most of them in this area are there because it pays them and suits them. We are overrun with Poles (and good luck to them) doing jobs that our idle would lose money taking.



The 'poles' in our area & london are happy to work for low pay as they are also happy to share a house or even a bed and send any spare money back home most are here short term , you can't want/have decent standards of living and low pay


----------



## Jacob (29 Mar 2015)

clk230":2b3hbdtr said:


> phil.p":2b3hbdtr said:
> 
> 
> > "those at the bottom of the heap, who in reality are the principle victims of economic downturns" Not always.
> ...


There are people working and having to sleep rough. You can do it for a short spell if you are young and fit but it's unsustainable.


----------



## clk230 (29 Mar 2015)

Thats it its ok short term , but as you say unsustainable , the problem in deprived areas is the children grow up seeing parents , relatives , neighbours not working and they loose HOPE its a sad world when youngsters have no motivation .


----------



## Phil Pascoe (29 Mar 2015)

"Nobody chooses benefits if there is an option of work"
I ran a shop on a council estate. I also had another job. I had customers who were having their rent and council tax paid, and were still picking up more on benefits than I was earning. Why would they work by choice?


----------



## clk230 (29 Mar 2015)

to be honest benefits will only increase as the population increases where are the jobs going to come from unless the government build factories and produce something that we currently import .


----------



## Jacob (29 Mar 2015)

phil.p":20blutg9 said:


> "Nobody chooses benefits if there is an option of work"
> I ran a shop on a council estate. I also had another job. I had customers who were having their rent and council tax paid, and were still picking up more on benefits than I was earning. Why would they work by choice?


It sounds as though you were entitled to benefits too. 
But the answer to your question very likely would be "the benefits trap". The whole set up is badly run and designed to intimidate and harass the punters - the transition from benefits to work is fraught with obstacles, especially if the work is low paid and/or insecure. Getting a rubbish job can lead towards eviction when they suddenly find they can't afford the rent etc.


----------



## Jacob (29 Mar 2015)

clk230":12p96pz2 said:


> to be honest benefits will only increase as the population increases where are the jobs going to come from unless the government build factories and produce something that we currently import .


Well yes. Unemployment figures don't go up because of life style choices - they go up because there aren't enough jobs. Tax and spend creates jobs - and the benefits to society of whatever it is those jobs produce.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (29 Mar 2015)

No, Jacob - I wasn't entitled to anything, I was working and not in a council house.


----------



## Jacob (29 Mar 2015)

phil.p":2fknqx13 said:


> No, Jacob - I wasn't entitled to anything, I was working and not in a council house.


Would you rather have swapped places/circumstances with any of them?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (29 Mar 2015)

No. But I'd have been richer.


----------



## Jacob (29 Mar 2015)

phil.p":2wczwmr8 said:


> No. But I'd have been richer.


Now? Do you think they would be better off than you now?


----------



## monkeybiter (29 Mar 2015)

Jacob":i0tubfel said:


> Nobody chooses benefits if there is an option of work



If you believe that [I know you often don't] then you need to get off your bike and mix with a wider spectrum of people. There are plenty of young folk who choose the appeal of a low income for pipper-all. That's not speculation or hearsay, I've met plenty and I know it to be fact.


----------



## finneyb (29 Mar 2015)

A good discussion - congratulations !!!

My 2p worth
1. The more I see parental influence is the key to a lot of success ie providing opportunity either by education or work experience or just the values of working to pay your way. Poor parenting will lead to generations of unemployable people, as Blair said we can spot the problem children before they are born. Those in the care system must find it particularly difficult. 

2. I am sure it makes financial sense for some people to be on benefits rather than working. I would do the calculation and make my decision as I am sure most of those people do. The answer is to change the system. I avoid taxation so far as is legal so why should I expect them to do anything less with the benefit system?

3. Tax credits and even housing benefit should be phased out quickly. Tax credits subsidise low paying employers and housing benefits drive up the property rents market. Phase out the housing benefit and rents would have to reduce and thereby property prices would settle. 

Brian


----------



## Jacob (29 Mar 2015)

monkeybiter":r4cx505r said:


> Jacob":r4cx505r said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody chooses benefits if there is an option of work
> ...


I know plenty too - mostly in between various things, school/jobs etc.  I also know that anyone who ends up benefit dependant in the long term will lead miserable lives. It's not a life style choice. You wouldn't chose it would you?



finneyb":r4cx505r said:


> .........
> 3. Tax credits and even housing benefit should be phased out quickly. Tax credits subsidise low paying employers and housing benefits drive up the property rents market. Phase out the housing benefit and rents would have to reduce and thereby property prices would settle.
> 
> Brian


OK but you'd have to give security of tenure and make rent collecting a separate issue. It's appalling how people are evicted - the landlords benefit but we the taxpayers bear the burden - and the other consequences of peoples' disrupted lives. Housing is a basic human need.

NB in conversations like this you have to remember that the bulk of benefits goes to people in low paid work - not skivers. Wages are too low and jobs too insecure.
And benefit fraud is chicken feed compared to tax evasion/avoidance semi legal fraud. There are many bigger issues than benefits!!


----------



## finneyb (29 Mar 2015)

Jacob":18jwwj5k said:


> ..... Housing is a basic human need.



Agreed. AND better housing reduces the burden on the NHS in the form of lower ill-health and ability to be cared for at home, the cheapest way and in a lot of cases a personal preference. 

Brian


----------



## monkeybiter (29 Mar 2015)

Jacob":35i8fki8 said:


> It's not a life style choice. You wouldn't chose it would you?



Irrelevant what I'd choose; assuming everyone has the same aspirations, motivations or even personal morals as ones-self seems either ignorant or arrogant.



Jacob":35i8fki8 said:


> Housing is a basic human need!



As an ex-landlord I'd never considered that, and it's a very good point. Food for more thought.


----------



## Jacob (29 Mar 2015)

finneyb":ia91wzpe said:


> Jacob":ia91wzpe said:
> 
> 
> > ..... Housing is a basic human need.
> ...


And better housing is the single biggest thing to improve the quality of many peoples' lives at all ages - having somewhere safe, warm, dry, to do your own stuff, over and above merely surviving. It's "investment in human capital" as they say. As also is good rates of benefits - we don't people to be struggling to survive it's pointless and unnecessary.


----------



## Jacob (29 Mar 2015)

monkeybiter":3hb8npi8 said:


> Jacob":3hb8npi8 said:
> 
> 
> > It's not a life style choice. You wouldn't chose it would you?
> ...


so that's a NO then? :lol:


----------



## doctor Bob (29 Mar 2015)

My BIL has chosen to live on benefits for the last 25 years. It most certainly is a lifestyle choice, he has no intention to ever apply for a job.


----------



## monkeybiter (29 Mar 2015)

Jacob":3mx9myfs said:


> monkeybiter":3mx9myfs said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":3mx9myfs said:
> ...



If you re-read my answer you'll maybe see that it wasn't a NO, a YES or even a MAYBE. 
I have been constantly employed since before I left school, apart from Uny. I've had concurrent part time jobs, soul destroying low-paid jobs, and jobs I subsequently find moraly regrettable. But, again, my choices are irrelevant. The topic is a generalised mass of people who can't all be assumed to be the same, they certainly can't be assumed to all be as potentially hard working as you'd like to believe, or are yourself.


----------



## RogerBoyle (29 Mar 2015)

I know of at least a dozen people that over the last 25 years have made living on benefits a lifestyle choice.
At least five of them carry out work (cash in hand) by delivering fast food all week ,I know of others that claim disability and also work as taxi driver's for a local company.
I also know of a family that have been abroad every year for the last 6 years and all claim benefits 

So yes for some benefits is a way of life


----------



## Phil Pascoe (29 Mar 2015)

It would appear that the only place in the UK this does not happen is Middleton by Wirksworth.


----------



## finneyb (29 Mar 2015)

RogerBoyle":zwif23b0 said:


> I know of at least a dozen people that over the last 25 years have made living on benefits a lifestyle choice.
> At least five of them carry out work (cash in hand) by delivering fast food all week ,I know of others that claim disability and also work as taxi driver's for a local company.
> I also know of a family that have been abroad every year for the last 6 years and all claim benefits
> 
> So yes for some benefits is a way of life



I think you need http://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud

Brian


----------



## Logger (29 Mar 2015)

I spent 20 years working in the recruitment industry and the number of people registering with recruitment agencies to ensure they kept their benefits was incredible. After they registered, we would soon afterwards get a form to complete for the benefits agency. The form asked when they had registered, but that was it. It did not ask if they had turned down temp work or job interviews. The most annoying thing was that after spending time and effort registering these people who would tell you that would take any work available, after registering them, they would happily tell you that they only registered to avoid losing benefits and had no interest in getting a job. Some used to brag how much they got. 

I know that there are people are genuine need benefits to keep a roof over their heads, but unfortunately there are and will always be people who will abuse the system. Some may call this fraud, others i guess a stroke of genius. 

A chap near where i live suffers with the worst case i idleitus (a severe desease diseas) i have ever seen. He came so close to actually working, he claimed that he was bitten by a spider that has caused his hand not to work (i kid you not). To top it off, he has managed to claim incapacity benefit and disability living allowance into the bargain.


----------



## RogerBoyle (29 Mar 2015)

finneyb":3el4mhd8 said:


> RogerBoyle":3el4mhd8 said:
> 
> 
> > I know of at least a dozen people that over the last 25 years have made living on benefits a lifestyle choice.
> ...


Total and complete waste of time........... Unfortunately


----------



## Jacob (29 Mar 2015)

RogerBoyle":14d7ixci said:


> I know of at least a dozen people that over the last 25 years have made living on benefits a lifestyle choice.
> At least five of them carry out work (cash in hand) by delivering fast food all week ,I know of others that claim disability and also work as taxi driver's for a local company.
> I also know of a family that have been abroad every year for the last 6 years and all claim benefits
> 
> So yes for some benefits is a way of life


Nobody is condoning fraud. But there have been studies done on these sorts of stories and more often than not the truth is not that simple.


----------



## doctor Bob (29 Mar 2015)

Jacob":388rznnz said:


> RogerBoyle":388rznnz said:
> 
> 
> > I know of at least a dozen people that over the last 25 years have made living on benefits a lifestyle choice.
> ...



Exactly, the poor sprouts can only afford to go to Tenerife or costa del sol........... got to feel for them


----------



## finneyb (29 Mar 2015)

RogerBoyle":zh43jfpj said:


> finneyb":zh43jfpj said:
> 
> 
> > RogerBoyle":zh43jfpj said:
> ...



Have you tried it?


----------



## RogerBoyle (29 Mar 2015)

Yes


----------



## Jacob (29 Mar 2015)

RogerBoyle":3ax3fbbv said:


> Yes


You reported people for suspected fraud - what happened?


----------



## RogerBoyle (29 Mar 2015)

After 6 weeks I received a letter stating that after a thorough investigation it was decided that there was insufficient evidence against the People involved and that two of them had just been re examined by a Doctor and had been confirmed to be to ill to work and in the opinion of the council as they had failed to find any evidence to prosecute them they considered the matter dealt with 

The council had been given high Quality video of all the persons complained about showing them driving taxis and walking without the use of Crutches or Zimmer frames. over a 7 week period. as well as dates and times.
And before you all start to think I'm a Curtain twitcher lol The video, Logs etc. were all given to me by a neighbouring business after I came out of Hospital with my Back Problems 

Instead I reported them to the Immigration Department and supplied the same documentation... after 18 days the taxi firm was raided by Immigration officers from East Midlands ... I know for a fact that 3 were deported and 4 others just disappeared from the public view before action could be taken against them( probably to Staffordshire LOL)

The taxi firm was I believe supposed to have been prosecuted but So far I haven't heard of it been prosecuted.
My Source at the Council later told me that there was no repercussions for the councils Investigation and I shouldn't hold my breath as things will never change LOL


----------



## Jacob (30 Mar 2015)

RogerBoyle":1a7biehl said:


> After 6 weeks I received a letter stating that after a thorough investigation it was decided that there was insufficient evidence against the People involved and that two of them had just been re examined by a Doctor and had been confirmed to be to ill to work and in the opinion of the council as they had failed to find any evidence to prosecute them they considered the matter dealt with .....


Glad to hear it!
I was on the other end of this sort of thing many years ago. We were living in a semi derelict cottage (under improvement!) and often driving around with our young family in a scruffy van, obviously not "at work". 
We found out on the grapevine that a lot of the locals thought we were on benefits and living the life. I don't know if anybody tried to inform on us but they would have got the same response "insufficient evidence" because in fact we were running a successful small business from home perfectly legitimately, and paying tax etc etc. A lot of our time out in the van was to and fro out-workers with part finished items, and also general fetching and carrying, sales trips etc.

There is a lot of that about - curtain twitching and inaccurate (malicious) assumptions being made.

Meanwhile tax dodgers get away with many millions and there are reports this week of MPs fiddling their housing benefits. HSBC gets away with helping drug cartels and terrorists, mis-selling in general and nobody ends up in prison. 
The pathetic twerps at the bottom end of the system are nothing in comparison. Many of them just desperate and falling in between bureaucratic traps but wanting nothing much more than somewhere to live, a quiet life and proper jobs.


----------



## Woodmonkey (30 Mar 2015)

Jacob":1vj4r2jw said:


> RogerBoyle":1vj4r2jw said:
> 
> 
> > After 6 weeks I received a letter stating that after a thorough investigation it was decided that there was insufficient evidence against the People involved and that two of them had just been re examined by a Doctor and had been confirmed to be to ill to work and in the opinion of the council as they had failed to find any evidence to prosecute them they considered the matter dealt with .....
> ...



Quite right. There seems to be an awful lot of "my neighbour knows this bloke who....." Etc. Mostly anecdotal or hearsay. The actual cost of people falsely claiming benefits is miniscule compared to the billions of tax dodged by large corporations etc


----------



## Jacob (30 Mar 2015)

Baldhead":35k0oxd6 said:


> I've just watched a local TV production entitled, 'Have benefit sanctions worked?' Could we manage to have an adult discussion amongst ourselves?
> 
> Stew


There you go then Stew - a fairly calm discussion so far!

I think there is a reason for this. 
Following all that TV stuff; "Shameless" "Benefit Street" "The Romanians are Coming" "Raised by Wolves" (very watchable this one!) whilst initially stirring up a good deal of knocking of the poor, it's gone full circle and a lot of people are a good deal more sympathetic, especially when comparing and contrasting with the disgusting huge frauds and fiddles going on at "higher" levels.
You still get the occasional nutter in the pub going on about "single mothers on benefits" etc but it's very much on the decrease.
Times are changing.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (30 Mar 2015)

My friend, a GP, says he knows perfectly well that half the sickness and invalidity claimants he sees are fraudulent but as he works 12hr. days and 8hrs. of that is paperwork the last thing he needs is more paperwork so he signs them off as if he doesn't they'll just see someone else who will. He maintains that they would ultimately be unemployed anyway as most of them are unemployable.


----------



## Jacob (30 Mar 2015)

phil.p":xy4v2q23 said:


> My friend, a GP, says he knows perfectly well that half the sickness and invalidity claimants he sees are fraudulent but as he works 12hr. days and 8hrs. of that is paperwork the last thing he needs is more paperwork so he signs them off as if he doesn't they'll just see someone else who will. He maintains that they would ultimately be unemployed anyway as most of them are unemployable.


He's probably doing us all a favour then.
Being unemployable (for whatever reason - "being an obnoxious moron" is only one of many possibilities) IS a handicap however you look at it. Keeping them off the streets is a good idea we don't want them turning to crime, drugs, prostitution. They'd spoil our lives as well as their own.
"It costs £65,000 to imprison a person in this country once police, court costs and all the other steps are taken into account. After that it costs a further £40,000 for each year they spend incarcerated". - a few much cheaper interventions could save us a lot of money.


----------



## Mark A (30 Mar 2015)

Jacob":scpcwrqh said:


> a few much cheaper interventions could save us a lot of money.



Culling?


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (30 Mar 2015)




----------



## Phil Pascoe (30 Mar 2015)

Neutering.


----------



## Jacob (30 Mar 2015)

Mark A":25joy4zu said:


> Jacob":25joy4zu said:
> 
> 
> > a few much cheaper interventions could save us a lot of money.
> ...


Expensive. Hangmen and the judicial process cost a bomb. Never worked as a deterrent though it'd prevent repeat offences (assuming you'd got the right chap, which was never 100%)


phil.p":25joy4zu said:


> Neutering.


Criminal tendencies aren't inherited (in spite of the propaganda) and anyway you could still charge around being an ars&hole, without your bits


----------



## Phil Pascoe (30 Mar 2015)

Criminal tendencies might not be transmitted genetically, but they are certainly familial traits. *0% of the crime in our area is committed by members of 4 or 5 families.

 That was meant to be 80%.


----------



## monkeybiter (30 Mar 2015)

80% ?


----------



## bugbear (30 Mar 2015)

phil.p":1dmh66ot said:


> Criminal tendencies might not be transmitted genetically, but they are certainly familial traits. *0% of the crime in our area is committed by members of 4 or 5 families.



A propensity (not a certainty) to some criminal behaviour IS genetic (and hence transmitted)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29760212

BugBear


----------



## Phil Pascoe (30 Mar 2015)

Yes, I meant 80% - I got called out and posted without proofreading.


----------



## RogerBoyle (30 Mar 2015)

Jacob":3apf6ry4 said:


> RogerBoyle":3apf6ry4 said:
> 
> 
> > After 6 weeks I received a letter stating that after a thorough investigation it was decided that there was insufficient evidence against the People involved and that two of them had just been re examined by a Doctor and had been confirmed to be to ill to work and in the opinion of the council as they had failed to find any evidence to prosecute them they considered the matter dealt with .....
> ...



Selective Quoting Again Jacob 

If you had actually read and understood What I posted you would have realised this wasn't about some random family milking the system 
This was individuals of a foreign nationality that had been claiming benefits and working at the same time as well as the taxi firm employing Illegal immigrants.

Or more likely you understood perfectly well and decided to carry on in your usual manner 


Two years ago in one of your posts you tried to twist what I had posted about my one and only experience with the benefits system as a claimant So make your mind up I'm either trying to milk the system or I'm a curtain twitching busybody LOL 

Yes I do get the argument that the Country should be chasing tax Dodgers bla bla bla as does most of the population... BUT We should also be helping those that need the help rather than those who make a career out of abusing it....


----------



## monkeybiter (30 Mar 2015)

The OP referred to the question of 'Have benefit sanctions worked?'. Chasing tax dodgers is vitally important to the country, but it's outside of the scope of this question.

Or maybe the real question was/is 'Could we manage to have an adult discussion amongst ourselves?', the answer seems to be 'yes' so far. Opposing views and detours, but fairly well behaved. Again, so far.


----------



## Baldhead (30 Mar 2015)

phil.p":2tjckxbt said:


> "those at the bottom of the heap, who in reality are the principle victims of economic downturns" Not always.
> Many if not most of them in this area are there because it pays them and suits them. We are overrun with Poles (and good luck to them) doing jobs that our idle would lose money taking.


So are you saying that the people in your area should have sanctions imposed on them?


----------



## Baldhead (30 Mar 2015)

phil.p":3qxauea1 said:


> No, Jacob - I wasn't entitled to anything, I was working and not in a council house.


I don't understand how you were working and we're making less than the benefit claiments were getting, yet you didn't quailify for any benefit yourself? 
Are you suggesting that benefit claiments only live in council houses?

Stew


----------



## Baldhead (30 Mar 2015)

phil.p":cx7m5mty said:


> My friend, a GP, says he knows perfectly well that half the sickness and invalidity claimants he sees are fraudulent but as he works 12hr. days and 8hrs. of that is paperwork the last thing he needs is more paperwork so he signs them off as if he doesn't they'll just see someone else who will.


You are actually saying that a health care professional assists a fraudulent claim, this is precisely why RogerBoyle thinks reporting benefit fraud is a waste of time. Using the excuse 'if he doesn't they'll just see someone else who will' is a cop out.

Stew


----------



## Phil Pascoe (30 Mar 2015)

1/ Yes
2/ I had some assets and I didn't have ten children.
3/ He's better things to do than embark on a one man crusade to change the system.


----------



## Baldhead (30 Mar 2015)

49 vulnerable benefit claiments died in the last 3 years, that is unacceptable, all to often people only see the negative side of things, programs such as Benefit Street create an enormous predujice against millions of people, it's gutter TV, produced to shock.

One trust runs over 1400 food banks, this in its self must show there is something fundamentally wrong with the system, imposing sanctions only creates greater financial problems for the most vulnerable in society.

Stew


----------



## Baldhead (30 Mar 2015)

RogerBoyle":2g5zv6li said:


> I know of at least a dozen people that over the last 25 years have made living on benefits a lifestyle choice.
> At least five of them carry out work (cash in hand) by delivering fast food all week ,I know of others that claim disability and also work as taxi driver's for a local company.
> I also know of a family that have been abroad every year for the last 6 years and all claim benefits
> 
> So yes for some benefits is a way of life


There is nothing wrong with disabled people working, this is not illegal.

Stew


----------



## Baldhead (30 Mar 2015)

monkeybiter":4no9ffzd said:


> The OP referred to the question of 'Have benefit sanctions worked?'. Chasing tax dodgers is vitally important to the country, but it's outside of the scope of this question.
> 
> Or maybe the real question was/is 'Could we manage to have an adult discussion amongst ourselves?', the answer seems to be 'yes' so far. Opposing views and detours, but fairly well behaved. Again, so far.


My main question was Have benefit sanctions worked, I didn't want a mod to lock the thread because someone said, Thatcher this or Blair that, hence the 'Could we have an adult discussion amongst ourselves, I wanted a proper debate, which I think we have managed, although I am a little concerned at some of the posts that have been made. 

Stew


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (30 Mar 2015)

well....to be honest. My reading of the riddle is that certain protagonists are doing their level best to wind people up but no-one is biting (for the most part) which is a step forward from last spring I have to say. At that time whether the issue was sharpening or politics, certain folks would deliberately lob hand grenade after hand grenade into the debate just to get a rise out of people.....and it worked! People, were naïve enough to take the comments at face value and take a (personal) pot shot back and it quickly deteriorated into an insulting brawl.

This time, the notable difference is that folk seem to have learned NOT to be drawn so they're not taking counter pot shots. So...one side of the debating society appears to have wised up. It would be nice if the other side would...but I fear that may be asking a little too much!


----------



## RogerBoyle (30 Mar 2015)

Baldhead":3sp5s7vf said:


> RogerBoyle":3sp5s7vf said:
> 
> 
> > I know of at least a dozen people that over the last 25 years have made living on benefits a lifestyle choice.
> ...


It is when they do not declare it


----------



## RogerBoyle (30 Mar 2015)

Baldhead":2y4h931g said:


> 49 vulnerable benefit claiments died in the last 3 years, that is unacceptable, all to often people only see the negative side of things, programs such as Benefit Street create an enormous predujice against millions of people, it's gutter TV, produced to shock.
> 
> One trust runs over 1400 food banks, this in its self must show there is something fundamentally wrong with the system, imposing sanctions only creates greater financial problems for the most vulnerable in society.
> 
> Stew



Agreed 100 %
Unfortunately the ones that really need the help are very rarely the ones that receive it


----------



## CHJ (30 Mar 2015)

Unfortunately I still see more rhetoric than factual debate from some quarters in this well intentioned thread.

I personally believe that a large percentage of the population that receive benefits or social subsidies of one form or another could well get themselves out of the situation if they had the ambition to do so.
Most is a matter of setting personal or family priorities.

For my family it was.
Work all hours that were available for the both of us in whatever job or spare time work available in houses, fields, local show grounds etc. including so called holiday time for nearly two years to get a deposit for a house as social or company housing was not available.

Go without most house contents like carpets, televisions, telephones, going out on the town socialising in the evenings, etc, for 5 years + so that we could pay the bills without credit, still taking every opportunity to work whatever hours and 2nd & 3rd. casual jobs where available regardless of hourly pay.
Limit the number of children until we had enough combined income to support them.
Forgo any Family holidays for thirty + years, other than the low end of rural UK camping with the cheapest of tenting.
Allocate all non essential bill paying cash to further the children's education and life experiences.

Only after children cleared university did personal income get diverted to holidays outside UK, the first not associated with staying with a family member based in Europe was for our 40th wedding anniversary celebration.

So from my perspective it's a case of setting personal targets and priorities, if in a hole develop a way to get out of it, not keep digging ever deeper waiting for someone else to earn enough to pay taxes to provide unending support or wave a magic wand, because that just isn't going to happen any time soon and is only providing a very bad example to the next generation. 

And yes there are folks in the wider family group who live on benefits by choice.
One deliberately got pregnant, father undeclared, and manipulated homelessness to get social housing.
A widowed mother who is bringing up unwanted deserted grandchildren with the support of great grandparents. 
Another who we helped buy their first house rather than them pay exorbitant rentals, rewired it and re-plumbed it for free and who in the intervening years has just continued to let the place fall to pieces and live off various charities or the state rather than keep it in good order and move up the housing market.

The only positive result that has come from the last mentioned group is that Our family group has a solid example of how not to conduct your life.


----------



## Mark A (31 Mar 2015)

It is all about priorities.

Unfortuantely _some _ people seem to believe they are automatically entitled to everything they want, with no thoughts as to whether they can afford it or not. A family friend who works for the local council remarked recently that a lot of benefit claiments she deals with magically can afford such luxuries as cigarettes, alcohol, scratch cards and iPhones... yet some of their children don't have any shoes to wear.

There was an interesting debate on Radio 2 a while ago about family allowance and should it still apply to more than two kids. Naturally some said yes (it's my right etc.) though a refeshing number believed people should think long and hard before commiting themselves.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (31 Mar 2015)

Can someone give me one - just one will do - good reason why I should pay taxes to subsidise lifelong "social" housing for someone who earns two, three, four times what I do? All this housing should be called "subsidised housing", not "social housing" and be means tested. People who had to pay the market rent would probably move, and leave the property to someone who needed it more.
I know one person who's lived in a council house all his life who smokes for England, drinks every night (to what most would call excess), changes his car every three years and goes abroad every year. His pension is nearly twice what I've ever earned. Who's the fool?


----------



## Baldhead (31 Mar 2015)

RogerBoyle":3a7qm2zg said:


> Baldhead":3a7qm2zg said:
> 
> 
> > RogerBoyle":3a7qm2zg said:
> ...


I assume you mean that they don't declare their taxi job and therefore don't pay tax, you are allowed to claim disability benefit and work, that is definitely not illegal.

Stew


----------



## Baldhead (31 Mar 2015)

Phil I don't think it's fair to claim benefits because you don't want to work, the benefit system should be a temporary safety net, not a lifestyle choice, however reading your posts you seem have a stereotypical view of benefit claiments, comments such as, living in a council house, having 10 kids, changing their car every 3 years. 
My question was about sanctions.
It is strange that the vast majority of posters on this thread know someone who is on benefits and in their eyes they shouldn't be, or shouldn't have the lifestyle they have.
I know of one person who is on benefits and deserves more than they get! If I told you about their lifestyle you wouldn't believe it, there are some people out there who are in desperate need, but like a lot of people in our society, we see only the bad things, why? because we choose to close our eyes to problematic issues.
Phil I don't understand how on one hand you can agree to sanctions, yet not complain at what your doctor friend is doing, I can't see how honesty (or dishonesty) can be classed as a one man crusade to change the system.

Stew


----------



## finneyb (31 Mar 2015)

phil.p":31vueefj said:


> Can someone give me one - just one will do - good reason why I should pay taxes to subsidise lifelong "social" housing for someone who earns two, three, four times what I do? All this housing should be called "subsidised housing", not "social housing" and be means tested. People who had to pay the market rent would probably move, and leave the property to someone who needed it more.
> I know one person who's lived in a council house all his life who smokes for England, drinks every night (to what most would call excess), changes his car every three years and goes abroad every year. His pension is nearly twice what I've ever earned. Who's the fool?



So that the late Bob Crow of RMT on £100k+ pa could live there and satisfy his political agenda.

Brian


----------



## RobinBHM (31 Mar 2015)

There is no doubt that the benefit system needs to be reformed.

Benefit sanctions are being driven by the objective of saving money. The government is trying to balance the books and benefit sanctions are part of the wider cost reduction plan.

There are obviously some people on benefit for whom it is a way of life and have no intention if working. I imagine there are people who would prefer to work but would lose so much in benefits that they may not be able survive financially under the current benefits system. There are also people that are in genuine need of benefits due to illness or circumstances and really are unable to survive without financial help.

My issue with the current benefits sanctions is that there seems to be significant 'collateral damage', ie there is a percentage of vulnerable people, who need support that are losing it and a significant quality of life. There seems to be a lack of sensitivity in the sanction procedures for this group of people.

So what about those people for which benefits is a permanent way of life? My belief is that there will always be a a number of people that have not had any work ethic instilled into them and will always be unemployable. Will benefit sanctions get this group of people into work? I dont think so. Yes benefits could be taken away, but It isnt possible to force somebody to work and I wouldnt want to employ them, who would? No doubt they would still end up being funded by the public purse somehow, perhaps through the prison system. Its easy to feel angry about such a group of people, but can be done?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (31 Mar 2015)

"It is strange that the vast majority of posters on this thread know someone who is on benefits and in their eyes they shouldn't be, or shouldn't have the lifestyle they have." - Stew
It's hardly strange - it's quite common. The unfortunate thing is that others have to jump through hoops to get what they are genuinely entitled to. Someone in The Times a while ago made a good comment - if we are genetically programmed to do the best we can for our families (which seems likely) and someone is better off on social security than working, is it hardly surprising that it's a popular choice.


----------



## StevieB (31 Mar 2015)

You are genetically programmed to find food, fight disease, avoid predators and live to reproductive age and then produce offspring. Ensuring they survive childhood is also genetically influenced, but certainly not to the extent that humans take the family unit. Man is just an ape that can walk upright in genetic terms!

Steve (geneticist!)


----------



## Logger (31 Mar 2015)

Disabilty living allowance or personal independence payment as it is now called is not means tested, so you can have your taxi job and claim it. However, my experience is that most who claim that then also claim incapacity benefit. A guy i know claims both, getting the higher rate of the mobility part of it so uses that to get a motability car. This requires you not to be able to walk unaided. He claims he is disabled after getting bitten on the hand by a non poisonous British spider and has never used any aids. Presumably, our local doctor has signed to say he can't walk. 

I on the other hand get DLA but despite taking morphine to manage my pain and uses crutches permanently set up my own business to allow for all the time i need off for hospital appointments, and earn less than him. When i then had surgery last April and had my leg in plaster for 5 months, i could not claim as my business has made too much in the last 6months. So i had to keep trying to frame whilst i was supposed to be keeping my leg up. I then thought i would try to claim something submitting my 6 months where i was not doing as much due to my surgery. They said that now i was back at work, i would be earning what i did before my surgery. 

When i recently heard this guy complaining that incapacity was a joke and no where near enough i came very close making his disability claims legitimate!


----------



## Jacob (31 Mar 2015)

CHJ":164givxm said:


> ....
> And yes there are folks in the wider family group who live on benefits by choice.
> One deliberately got pregnant, father undeclared, and manipulated homelessness to get social housing.......


I just don't believe stuff like this. You'd have to be completely insane to go through childbirth and years of childcare to get housed. What a price to pay! And in the process severely limiting your ability to work and other forms of personal development with your life dominated by child care. 
There are easier ways - almost every other way is easier. 
If anybody does actually do this they should be cared for by the state anyway as they are obviously deranged.

So no I don't believe it. 

In any case the thread has gone downhill with a lot of people just churning out the same uninteresting tired old prejudices. Waste of time.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (31 Mar 2015)

"And in the process severely limiting your ability to work..."
Part of the plan.


----------



## CHJ (31 Mar 2015)

Jacob":znyafwzh said:


> CHJ":znyafwzh said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...


Jacob I do not appreciate being in effect called a liar, If you would wish to continue such statements I would request your solicitor, who I would hope had the integrity to keep things confidential to contact me and I will provide name, childs name and address location, and supporting explanation.

Your public retraction of the above might go some way to calming me down but at the moment I am considering my options and further reaction to the above.


----------



## Logger (31 Mar 2015)

A woman who i worked with in the late 1990's had a friend who used to pop in. Just after i started, she came in pregnant with her 3rd child. She was completely open saying as her 2nd child was soon to reach school age, she would lose benefits and would be able to get a job. She had got pregnant, claiming she didn't know who the father was to give her another 5years easy benefits. 

My wife was at school with someone who had her 6th child at the age of 28 the last 4 by the same partner who had never worked and her partner had certainly not worked since being with her.


----------



## CHJ (31 Mar 2015)

The trouble is that those that manipulate the system not only drain the system of monetary resources but the manpower that should be allocated to finding those struggling to make ends meet due to personal pride and a perception of shame and don't ask for help.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (31 Mar 2015)

No father on the birth certificate = no benefits. If the woman genuinely doesn't know his name she should be stopped from further breeding, not encouraged.


----------



## Logger (31 Mar 2015)

I assume that if they can name the father, he might be asked to pay child support thus reducing their benefits. I seriously doubt that many of these fathers would be doing anything but claiming benefits themselves. Perhaps i am being unfair.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (31 Mar 2015)

Just copied from today's Times :-
"An unemployed man has been labelled “Britain’s most feckless father” for having 15 children before the age of 30, leaving the taxpayer with a potential £2 million bill.
Keith MacDonald, from Sunderland, claims to have made at least ten women pregnant over 14 years after chatting them up on the bus. He is one of four fathers appearing in a Channel 5 documentary called 40 Kids By 20 Women.
Collectively, the men have fathered more than 70 children with more than 40 women.
Mr MacDonald, who relies on benefits, has had four children in the past two years and is expecting his sixteenth." 

Rather difficult to say it doesn't happen.


----------



## RogerBoyle (31 Mar 2015)

Stew[/quote]
It is when they do not declare it[/quote]
I assume you mean that they don't declare their taxi job and therefore don't pay tax, you are allowed to claim disability benefit and work, that is definitely not illegal.

Stew[/quote]
Sorry I should have made it clearer
It was Incapacity benefit that was being claimed for and as it turns out he was earning in excess of £400 a week on the taxi which was not declared to either the Benefits office or the Tax Man


----------



## rafezetter (1 Apr 2015)

Jacob":d7loqiiy said:


> phil.p":d7loqiiy said:
> 
> 
> > "those at the bottom of the heap, who in reality are the principle victims of economic downturns" Not always.
> ...



I have to agree with this. Although the sanctions were supposed to dissuade those from other countries just turning up and claiming a council house and benefits - the reality is the far bigger share of money used in the benefit system is to prop up low income families and there is a far higher percentage of those than unemployed and immigrants.

Child benefit for example £20 for first or only child; an additional £13 for every child after that - and you get it almost regardless of income... why?

Essentially with the changes to low income tax rates almost everyone earning less than £16,000 per year is on benefits with every child also receiving benefits.

Edit..oh my ... I've just read this (paraphrased) "familes with four children can earn up to £45,000 per annum and STILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR GOVT SUBSIDISED HELP. (WHAT THE FU>>>>> !!!!)

Free TV licence and bus pass even if you are a millionaire.... why? There was a very public attempt by Sir Alan Sugar to give his back and the state "REFUSED!!"

Landlords charge high rents because people pay it - if the Govt removed benefits from all the working people and they had to leave to find cheaper accommodation, soon there would be a mass of empty rooms driving the prices down; So the Govt is inadvertently also supporting wealthy landlords too.

In Germany rents are state capped (with a bunch of other sensible laws regarding private renting) - which is why they have a significantly higher proportion of renters to home owners and their housing market is much more stable. While you might wonder what one has to do with the other it's because wealthy landlords were one of the few groups who truly profited from the housing market collapse 9 years ago, they got richer, bought more properties and forced more people to seek income based support. It's a circle the Govt COULD STOP, but won't.


^^ that's the problem. The mindset of those in power who refuse to do what has to be done, or they simply lack the intelligence to join the dots.

State sanctions against newly arrived immigrants (which I agree with) is but the tip of a dark dirty entire glacial shelf (as opposed to iceberg.)


----------



## rafezetter (1 Apr 2015)

Logger":11lntse1 said:


> I assume that if they can name the father, he might be asked to pay child support thus reducing their benefits. I seriously doubt that many of these fathers would be doing anything but claiming benefits themselves. Perhaps i am being unfair.



I wonder how many of the school age girls who get pregnant do so by responsibly working men - and how many more by other boys between 15-20? Try getting child support from a teenager.

The girls do it to get a "free" council flat, and can sit on benefits until the (youngest) child is 14-16.

I know this is a fact because we had a girl at our house as part of a couple who was 18 and was practically begging to have a child - the boyfriend refused sensibly saying they were too young, couldn't afford it etc. They split up, 10 months later she had a baby, 11 months after that she had another, not in a relationship, different fathers.



phil.p":11lntse1 said:


> No father on the birth certificate = no benefits. If the woman genuinely doesn't know his name she should be stopped from further breeding, not encouraged.



Controversial idea but one I'm in favor of - I've said openly that if a woman has 3/4 kids by different men she should be medically rendered incapable. In other word she should be spayed like a stray animal.

Yeah I said it.


----------



## finneyb (1 Apr 2015)

rafezetter":lrvp6dux said:


> I know this is a fact because we had a girl at our house as part of a couple who was 18 and was practically begging to have a child - the boyfriend refused sensibly saying they were too young, couldn't afford it etc. They split up, 10 months later she had a baby, 11 months after that she had another, not in a relationship, different fathers.



The issue here is also related to the self-worth of the woman. If she has failed education or been failed by education her only achievement in life will be to bear kids. There is also a biological need, sadly in some cases, to reproduce esp if the generations before have also had early babies.

As I said early on the older I get the more I see the vitally important role of parental guidance/influence - it's the parents who set the norm be that to work productively or claim benefits.

Brian


----------



## finneyb (1 Apr 2015)

The other side of the benefits argument is that to consider the cost in real terms ie if we had no benefits we would have far more crime which is expensive in personal, policing and prison costs - benefits may well be the cheapest alternative. 

And benefits will always be here, but need to be constantly controlled as they tend to grow like topsy, see below.

Take Barnardos as an example (most big charities are the same) - they advertise that almost a third of children live in poverty - BS in my opinion, use a real definition of poverty - but Barnardos and others are well paid professional fund raisers and lobbyists they will be lobbying Govt for more benefits, they distort the system.
http://www.barnardos.org.uk/what_we_do/ ... _facts.htm

Brian


----------



## doctor Bob (1 Apr 2015)

rafezetter":334yoxlx said:


> I've said openly that if a woman has 3/4 kids by different men she should be medically rendered incapable. In other word she should be spayed like a stray animal.
> 
> Yeah I said it.



and yet the successful city guys who have a family divorce at 40, remarry a trophy wife, have another family, repeat at 60 are not neutered, often admired for getting a bit of goer.


----------



## dzj (1 Apr 2015)

Meaningful debates such as this one usually only leave people more entrenched in their views.
At least there were no Hitler references.


----------



## monkeybiter (1 Apr 2015)

Until now


----------



## Jacob (1 Apr 2015)

dzj":j78ayjzj said:


> Meaningful debates such as this one usually only leave people more entrenched in their views.
> ...


Not so - I think I've moved on a bit. 
Reading the above and the usual descent into sanctimonious misogyny, misanthropy, general curtain twitching malice; if any of it is true I'm beginning to feel pleased that these people on the fringes are actually beating the system with their stupid scams and fiddles. 
Good luck to them.
I'm glad they getting the dosh rather than the bankers, tax evaders, MPs fiddling housing benefits etc who actually are a much bigger and more serious problem, a massive financial burden on the rest of us and a threat to the whole economy.

PS I have been looking forwards to the imminent arrival of hordes of Romanians but so far there's been no sign of them around here - they could liven the place up a bit.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (1 Apr 2015)

Jacob I strongly suggest you apologise to Chas!


----------



## bugbear (1 Apr 2015)

Jacob":2nyecki1 said:


> dzj":2nyecki1 said:
> 
> 
> > Meaningful debates such as this one usually only leave people more entrenched in their views.
> ...





It's almost as if you're being deliberately provocative...

NB Again.

BugBear


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (1 Apr 2015)

Here we go.....is this what we genuinely believe passes for meaningful debate chaps?


----------



## Jacob (1 Apr 2015)

Random Orbital Bob":iu7h6haw said:


> Here we go.....is this what we genuinely believe passes for meaningful debate chaps?


Actually - being provocative is a perfectly reasonable thing to do if a debate is to be meaningful, in a grown up sort of way. Though it can upset the children!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (1 Apr 2015)

doctor Bob":1q93cjup said:


> rafezetter":1q93cjup said:
> 
> 
> > I've said openly that if a woman has 3/4 kids by different men she should be medically rendered incapable. In other word she should be spayed like a stray animal.
> ...



The difference being they are paying for their own. I don't care if they have 100 children.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (1 Apr 2015)

dzj":2t0cvx8w said:


> Meaningful debates such as this one usually only leave people more entrenched in their views.
> At least there were no Hitler references.


  Yup. No Godwins Law yet.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (1 Apr 2015)

Rafezetter mentioned spaying, which of course extreme or at least tongue in cheek, but I see no reason why a contraceptive implant shouldn't be a condition of benefit payment. It's not their breeding hat annoys me, it's my paying for it.


----------



## Jacob (1 Apr 2015)

Random Orbital Bob":1zjk11lh said:


> Jacob I strongly suggest you apologise to Chas!


What for?

In the interests of meaningful grown up debate (I wouldn't bother otherwise!) can I explain that not believing a tale that someone relates is not the same as accusing them of being a liar. It is merely suggesting that they may be misinformed. I could be wrong - but so far I still don't believe it.


----------



## Jacob (1 Apr 2015)

phil.p":3swt3qr0 said:


> Rafezetter mentioned spaying, which of course extreme or at least tongue in cheek, but I see no reason why a contraceptive implant shouldn't be a condition of benefit payment. It's not their breeding hat annoys me, it's my paying for it.


I think they should spay all Etonian school boys. It's not the breeding that annoys me is just they way they end up controlling everything and running things so badly.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (1 Apr 2015)

I'm going to remember that one for future use - Just because I say I don't believe you, it doesn't mean I think you're lying ...  =D>


----------



## Jacob (1 Apr 2015)

phil.p":1w370aaa said:


> I'm going to remember that one for future use - Just because I say I don't believe you, it doesn't mean I think you're lying ...  =D>


Work on it - it's the difference between "I don't believe *it*" and "I don't believe *you*". But they get confused e.g. people tell tall stories and saying you don't believe them isn't quite the same as calling them liars.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (1 Apr 2015)

CHJ gave you a list of facts (not tales) you did not not like. You said you did not believe him. Therefore you were calling him a liar. Q.E.D.


----------



## Jacob (1 Apr 2015)

phil.p":189vt383 said:


> CHJ gave you a list of facts (not tales) you did not not like. You said you did not believe him. Therefore you were calling him a liar. Q.E.D.


No - I said I didn't believe *IT*
I'm of for a few days - so you'll have to carry on arguing quietly amongst yourselves.
Have a nice Easter!


----------



## bugbear (1 Apr 2015)

Jacob":2tuj0nk6 said:


> Random Orbital Bob":2tuj0nk6 said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob I strongly suggest you apologise to Chas!
> ...



Interesting.

post761516.html?hilit=%20norton%20fine%20#p761516

BugBear


----------



## Fat ferret (1 Apr 2015)

Come on chaps the whole idea of forums is one poster says something and the other decides how useful it is and weather they agree or not. You can't get cross because someone you in all likelihood will never meet says he doesn't believe what you say, why should you care? Makes no difference to you what they believe right?

Re the babies had for the express reason of claiming benefits. Some people just want children because they think that having children is what life's all about. 

Regarding people who don't work it is the same as large companies not paying taxes, why would they if they don't have to? The government should legislate against. If there's a way out some will take it. When it comes to people who say why work if you don't have to well I don't actually know many like that. I do know plenty who work in low paid jobs because they think you should work and it bring independence and self respect which claiming benefits doesn't.

Speaking of work I had better get on with painting doors  .


----------



## Baldhead (1 Apr 2015)

phil.p":3snh4l53 said:


> Rafezetter mentioned spaying, which of course extreme or at least tongue in cheek, but I see no reason why a contraceptive implant shouldn't be a condition of benefit payment. It's not their breeding hat annoys me, it's my paying for it.


Phil I have disagreed to several things you have said in this debate, and I think I have put up a good argument to oppose your comments, but I have to say, forcing contraception on people takes the biscuit, there have been people in history who (fortunately they were defeated) wanted perfection, if people were not perfect they were got rid of, your beliefs I could never agree with, simply because I am not blonde and I don't have blue eyes.

Any man who would see a child suffer through no fault of their own doesn't deserve to draw breath, unfortunately that is exactly what some people are saying, I hope I sound angry, because I am.

I had hoped to have a meaningful discussion, unfortunately it was not to be, there have been digs at not only other members of this site, but also of deceased trade unionsts who have no bearing whatsoever on benefit sanctions.

I dislike the fact that there is a minority who claim benefits and would never contemplate working, that minority tarnish the majority of genuine benefit claiments, as I have already said, we only see or choose to see the bad side of society, gutter TV programs such as Benefit Street distort the truth, if we can't see beyond that then we are only fooling ourselves. 

Stew

Mod-edit. The meaningful aspect has somewhat disappeared. Nice symmetry Stew being the OP and posting the final post : ) With that bombshell it's goodnight.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (1 Apr 2015)

Right guys. I'm just off to the nippers school to see the end of term play after which point I'm locking this thread. Like a self fulfilling prophecy, it has proven beyond reasonable doubt that religion and politics are out of bounds because they incite the worst of people. Folks feel inclined to defend their belief systems and it gets nasty and/or personal.

I hope you all now agree (those reasonable amongst you at least) that the rules viz-a-viz religion and politics have a sound basis. I'm sure some of you don't and when/if you're invited to moderate something you can exercise your right to decide. Until then, people with a "moderate" perspective will continue to implement the rules as we interpret them.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (2 Apr 2015)

test to see if posting unlocks the thread


----------

