# Welfare reform bill.



## flanajb (23 Jan 2012)

Not sure what others think on this, but I am fed up listening to stories of people who have not one, but 5 kids saying that capping the welfare cap to £26,000 is unfair. Makes my blood boil that people in this country think that they should have the right to a decent handout. Benfit should be a last resort and being on benefit should be tough and just provides enough for you to have a basic roof over your head and food in your mouth. In fact, I would go so far as to say that you should not receive cash and your benefits should be paid in food vouchers.

Just struggle to get my head around the fact that people who work can be on less than someone on welfare.

To hear that the bill has been defeated is a bloody joke.


----------



## Dibs-h (23 Jan 2012)

Read somewhere that Ministers were saying that if it gets defeated and comes back to the commons, they will pass it. How long it takes or what compromises they have to make, I don't know. 

I agree with your sentiments tho! I, for one would like to to how the taxpayers can continue with the system as it is? Now I'm hearing that some folk want the cap to exclude Child benefit, effectively taking it way past 26k. That's hardly going to discourage feckless pineapples from having large families, with no intention of working and the taxpayer picking up the tab.

Bloody annoying and bonkers!

Dibs


----------



## fluffflinger (23 Jan 2012)

I think we would like to see benefits capped at a reasonable level and a most definitely a far better system of allocation in the 1st place. However the pendulum has swung so far that to cap these benefits without a reasonable method of transition would cause unreasonable suffering and potentially anarchy. 

I'm with you one hundred percent of the way and a cap of £26k seems reasonable to me (actually it sounds very generous) but I worry about the consequences of asking the "heroin addict" to just go cold turkey with no time to re-structure his life or to adjust to a reduction in income. 

Isn't this yet another example of our society having travelled so far (the wrong way) down a road that it can't see away to retrace it's steps? 

There are so many things that sadden me about this once great nation, so I say let's all be thankful that we have a hobby/pastime/career that can so absorb us as to make these irritations take a back seat for awhile.


----------



## Jacob (23 Jan 2012)

If benefits systems need reforming so be it, but a flat cap could be very bad news for some, especially if the are paying inflated rents. Not necessarily feckless pineapples either - could be just fallen on hard times.
If rents were also capped and means tested that could improve the balance.
I'm more worried about the bankers and directors with their grossly inflated salaries, bonus's, pensions. 40 times £25000 is £1 million. Many of the plutocrats pay themselves far more than that. Well we pay them actually, one way or another


----------



## cambournepete (23 Jan 2012)

flanajb":17blp368 said:


> Benfit should be a last resort and being on benefit should be tough and just provides enough for you to have a basic roof over your head and food in your mouth. In fact, I would go so far as to say that you should not receive cash and your benefits should be paid in food vouchers.


Thanks, I'm now unemployed.
Nice to know you feel my life should be tough through no fault of my own.
I'm not necessarily against a limit, but individual circumstances vary so much it's very hard to generalise and define such a limit.


----------



## mailee (23 Jan 2012)

Well I have to say that I thought it was a lot of money considering when I was employed I was earning £15,000 per year! and that was a full time job! If they can't manage on £26,000 per year there is certainly something wrong. :roll:


----------



## Lons (24 Jan 2012)

Am I missing something here?

It isn't £26000 pa it's all of that in their hands. No income tax, pension payments, national insurance, union dues or travelling expenses to work every day. It's - unearned income, and as a contributing taxpayer I resent it.

My wife earns £26k works extremely hard and has a great deal of responsibility. After offtakes excluding her travel costs she brings home little more than £19k. If we can't afford our house we would have to move as we did many years ago when the company I worked for went to the wall. Why shouldn't people cut their cloth accordingly? The genuine claiments do their utmost to find employment because they usually have some pride, we have allowed the others to become "comfortable" as they know that they can get more on benefits than in work. They abuse the lack of discipline in the system and know that if caught the penalties are light :roll: 

Unfortunately, the vast number of leeches, many of whom are deliberate single mothers (of their own choosing to get a house and benefits) and the hard core who have no intention of ever finding employment, have spoiled it for those genuine claiments who have fallen on hard times.

My understanding of the benefit system is that it was intended as a short term safety net to help those in need until they can get back on their feet. it's become a monster "cash cow" for those who milk the system and the country, i'e. us - cannot afford it.

Citing bankers and fat cats doesn't change anything as two wrongs don't make a right. That's a seperate issue which also needs addressing. I would much rather deflect some of those benefit payments to poor pensioners who I think get around £200 a week (10500 pa) per couple?

Bob


----------



## Benchwayze (24 Jan 2012)

Yes Lons.

And the way I see it, that was precisely what Cameron was getting at. More power to his elbow on this one.

I have no issue with persons who are disabled having a hand-up, but I do not agree with giving the skivers a hand-out! 
There was one on a news clip yesterday, moaning about the fact she'd have to move house, or cut her food to the bone. She certainly didn't look underfed that's for sure. Then another overweight couple began to bleat about it, between draws on their ciggies and making a fuss of their dog and cat. 
Lunacy! 


It's time they had their wings clipped for sure. 

John :evil:


----------



## RogerM (24 Jan 2012)

As a health visitor my wife had to deal with these people on a daily basis. These are true anecdotes!

On one occasion the father announced that he was going out to get a job. The mother told him that if he got a job, don't bother coming back! She wanted him at home helping with the children. 

Countless fathers said they saw helping their partners look after the children as "their job".

When going through a weekly budget to help with a claim she suggested listing all their essential outgoings. This included Sky TV with all the extras (Sports etc) plus £50 per week on bingo "as a treat".

Running a 4x4 to do the 3/4 mile school run was an essential expense.

A 19 year old announced on getting a 2 bed flat from social housing "I'm set up for life now"!

Somehow we need to stuff the genie back into the bottle. £26,000 per annum net equates to about £35,000 per annum before stoppages. My guess is that there are countless families who can only dream of taking home £26,00 per year (£2,166 per month).


----------



## RogerS (24 Jan 2012)

Yup...for those in true need, support them. The rest...nothing.


----------



## cambournepete (24 Jan 2012)

RogerS":t1phlcif said:


> Yup...for those in true need, support them.


I think I agree with the sentiment, but how to define "in true need"?
That will vary from case to case and I'm sure you're not advocating putting people and children on the street, however undeserving of benefit you may think they are...


----------



## Benchwayze (24 Jan 2012)

RogerS":xhjl8nxm said:


> Yup...for those in true need, support them. The rest...nothing.



Yeah! I would love to get me a German Shepherd Dog, but I can't even afford to nourish a toy poodle. After all, I have a woodworking addiction to feed! 

It's a good job I have a pension. 8) But then, I paid in since I was 15 years old! 

Having said that, I don't get anywhere near £26,000 PA tax free. 8) 

Who was the fool?
I watched 'Coppers' last night, (For old time's sake), and i got so angry at what out taxes go towards, I gave m'self indigestion!


----------



## Dibs-h (24 Jan 2012)

cambournepete":29a62ugd said:


> RogerS":29a62ugd said:
> 
> 
> > Yup...for those in true need, support them.
> ...



Perhaps a look at their employment history in the last 5 yrs might be a start? No jobs in the last 5yrs (or ever) might be indicative of a "lifestyle choice".

Food Vouchers - I wouldn't be too keen on those. It can be belittling to have to pay with those & I would not want to watch someone's dignity affected like that. For every genuine person in need, there could be more than 1 "lifestyler" or less than one, but either way - a genuine person's dignity is worth something.

Dibs


----------



## Benchwayze (24 Jan 2012)

Dibs-h":4yadxzyt said:


> cambournepete":4yadxzyt said:
> 
> 
> > RogerS":4yadxzyt said:
> ...



Plus the fact there would be a nice line in forged and/or black-market vouchers. As there was with 'coupons' issued during rationing in the 40s & 50s. 8)


----------



## chipmunk (24 Jan 2012)

Trouble is I can see both sides of the argument.

As someone who chose to only have one child so that as a couple we could provide well for them, it's tough to see parents having kids as a means to obtain more benefit - and being effectively rewarded for it.

But for the kids who are born into households with irresponsible and feckless parents, is it fair on them to make them carry the burden? They didn't choose the lifestyle and yet they are being condemmed to the pain.

Jon


----------



## Dibs-h (24 Jan 2012)

Unfortunately there will always be irresponsible and feckless parents - from all sorts of socio-economic classes. It's just that the type of damage inflicted on the children will be different.

What I do know - is that the present system is unsustainable. You can not seriously expect to be housed, fed, etc. and yet not be willing to get of your @rse and contribute to society, no matter large or small contribution.

Dibs


----------



## Digit (24 Jan 2012)

The inflated rent argument is a non-sequitur Jacob. If the landlord is faced with the same reality as the person who has their rent paid for them he will either, a, sell up, or b, reduce the rent.
It's Maggies 'Market Forces' old son. I _do not_ expect to see London et al, over flowing with empty properties, do you?

Roy.


----------



## Max Power (24 Jan 2012)

I can't be pineappled with politicians normally , but Three Cheers for David Cameron for having the balls to stand up and be counted =D> 

Should have been sorted out long ago. There should be *NO* career layabouts, if you want to live a good lifestyle get a job, benefits should be to meet your basic essentials while you seek work and if you want to produce a tribe of children then bloody well be prepared to work to keep them, don't expect the country to undertake your responsibility.
I also saw an immigrant woman on the tv complaining that she might have to move house and it was unfair :shock: well lifes a puppy isn't it :roll:


----------



## Digit (24 Jan 2012)

> Should have been sorted out long ago. There should be NO career layabouts, if you want to live a good lifestyle get a job, benefits should be to meet your basic essentials while you seek work and if you want to produce a tribe of children then bloody well be prepared to work to keep them, don't expect the country to undertake your responsibility.



That strikes me as a pretty reasonable attitude, doubtless others will disagree.

Roy.


----------



## Dibs-h (24 Jan 2012)

Digit":2b6xplsv said:


> > Should have been sorted out long ago. There should be NO career layabouts, if you want to live a good lifestyle get a job, benefits should be to meet your basic essentials while you seek work and if you want to produce a tribe of children then bloody well be prepared to work to keep them, don't expect the country to undertake your responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## RogerS (24 Jan 2012)

+2


----------



## RogerM (24 Jan 2012)

+3


----------



## Benchwayze (24 Jan 2012)

Alan Jones":3kynshr1 said:


> I can't be pineappled with politicians normally , but Three Cheers for David Cameron for having the balls to stand up and be counted =D>
> 
> Should have been sorted out long ago. There should be *NO* career layabouts, if you want to live a good lifestyle get a job, benefits should be to meet your basic essentials while you seek work and if you want to produce a tribe of children then bloody well be prepared to work to keep them, don't expect the country to undertake your responsibility.
> I also saw an immigrant woman on the tv complaining that she might have to move house and it was unfair :shock: well lifes a puppy isn't it :roll:



And didn't she look well-fed, and wasn't her house luxurious? yes on both counts. I don't care where she comes from. She is living a better life than any of our hardworking dedicated Nurses, et al. :twisted:


----------



## DIY Stew (24 Jan 2012)

Perhaps the money the government save can be put to good use i.e. supporting local businesses to ensure local people are in gainful employment.

Please let me explain.
A local international employer has issued redundancy notices to its workforce, it has a full order book and is making a profit, so why close? It is my understanding that it cant meet the emissions standards set by Europe so it is cheaper to close than upgrade the plant. The town I live in (once the largest mining village in Europe) will become a ghost town nearly 600 people will be unemployed, mostly men, I doubt whether many of them will find alternative employment locally. 
They were very well paid but their savings will not last forever, so they will end up claiming benefits. I am fortunate, I had a long career in the fire brigade before I was pensioned out because of illness, unlike my two neighbours who will join the queue at the 'labour exchange' and possibly end up as till operators at Asda! 
I totally agree, it is wrong that anyone should live off the welfare state but please remember some of the unemployed are unemployed through no fault of their own.

Stew


----------



## Digit (24 Jan 2012)

> I totally agree, it is wrong that anyone should live off the welfare state but please remember some of the unemployed are unemployed through no fault of their own.



Absolutely! Having been made redundent on 3 occasions I can only agree. Take Camborne pete, (if I may Pete). In my world for as long as Pete can demonstrate that he is serious about finding another job, or he's deemed too old to re-employ or too ill or infirm now, then I believe that the welfare system should support him, to the degree of helping with any mortgage etc.
_But_ those who show an unwillingness to work, and there are some, I speak from experience, they should have their welfare progressively reduced till they damn well do take the idea of working seriously.
And good luck for the future Pete.

Roy.


----------



## Max Power (24 Jan 2012)

Yes best of luck in finding work Pete. Anyone genuinely wanting work has my full sympathy


----------



## Dibs-h (24 Jan 2012)

Couldn't agree more with Roy and Alan.

Best of luck Pete!

Dibs


----------



## No skills (24 Jan 2012)

I'm glad to see there is at least a few people that have similar views on the benifits capping as myself, I have no problem with the state helping genuine out of work cases but there needs to be controls on it - or monitoring, thats a better word, not making efforts to get work and refusing suitable jobs should result in zero payout. I wish my post deduction wage was 26k!

The biggest problem I see with the cuts is the rent pay out, this really does need to be done carefully - cant blanket cut this.


----------



## Digit (24 Jan 2012)

The problem with rents payed by the government is that they distort the market, look at the 'London Weighting' system, people push themselves to the limit to live there, for what ever reason, and as soon as the weighting kicks in prices rise.
Business rates, for example, are priced at what the business can pay, if they raise their prices, eventually the rates will also rise.
Pay a nurse a higher wage in London and eventually their costs will rise to match the extra.
Landlords now know that they can expect to face a limit on what they can recieve from the government, they will respond to the market.

Roy.


----------



## cambournepete (25 Jan 2012)

Aw, thanks guys!  

I am looking for work (IT/software anyone?), but already one recruitment agent has said I'm hard to place.  
I'm sure I'll get a job, I just don't know when or how much it'll pay.
I now realise how lucky I was before I got made redundant 18 months ago...


----------



## Lons (25 Jan 2012)

cambournepete":1ozvhw3x said:


> Aw, thanks guys!
> 
> I am looking for work (IT/software anyone?), but already one recruitment agent has said I'm hard to place.
> I'm sure I'll get a job, I just don't know when or how much it'll pay.
> I now realise how lucky I was before I got made redundant 18 months ago...



I really feel for you.

It's a very long time ago for me now and the words "you're over qualified" which I guess is what you hear, is a horrible thing to get when trying to persuade a new employer that you're willing to accept a lower position and salary to get back in the market.

I was lucky to get something but had to move my family 100 miles as well as getting home only at weekends during the 8 months it took to sell my house.
I had 2 very young kids, moved for half my previous salary and from a large 4 bed detatched to a very small 3 bed semi. More than a little depressing but allowed me to work my way back up the ladder again.
I almost didn't bother to go to my interview due to the distance :roll: but the guy gave me a chance even though he knew I would use it as a stopgap and I tried to give him value for money during the 12 months I was with him. 

Best wishes Pete, keep plugging away as you're likely to get a break when you least expect it.

Bob


----------



## Jacob (25 Jan 2012)

Digit":1svkobp4 said:


> The inflated rent argument is a non-sequitur Jacob. If the landlord is faced with the same reality as the person who has their rent paid for them he will either, a, sell up, or b, reduce the rent.
> It's Maggies 'Market Forces' old son. I _do not_ expect to see London et al, over flowing with empty properties, do you?
> 
> Roy.


It already is http://www.emptyhomes.com/ 
10,000 apparently, but that's not counting second or under-occupied homes, etc etc
and you will see London with an increasing population of homeless people. 

Market forces don't provide for people who can't afford what is on offer, whether it's housing, health, education, you name it. Markets aren't interested in the hard up - there's no money in it!

"People who dismiss the unemployed and dependent as “parasites” fail to understand economics and parasitism. A successful parasite is one that is not recognized by its host, one that can make its host work for it without appearing as a burden. Such is the ruling class in a capitalist society."

Just heard that the Lords have rejected the Welfare reforms. Good news.


----------



## Max Power (25 Jan 2012)

I don't think anybody on here would dismiss anyone unemployed by circumstance rather than choice as a parasite Jacob.
Any one of us could find ourselves in that scenario  
Its career layabouts that wouldn't want a job if it came gift-wrapped that I object to :evil:


----------



## Digit (25 Jan 2012)

> It already is



Eh Jacob, as the cap hasn't yet gone into operations AFAIK quite what does your link has to do with what I said?



> you will see London with an increasing population of homeless people.



Yep! In many cases due to the fact that they have left home/run away from home/absconded from care homes, because of alcoholism/drug addiction/illegal immigration, as dealt with regularly by such charities as the Sally army.
As yet your comments have no basis in fact.
It would require you to be a financial wizard to explain to me why a landlord would leave a house empty simply because the DSS refuses to pay what he is asking, would you care to try?
You delight in the Lord's decision. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you oppose the idea of the House of Lords?
There was an interview in the press some time ago with a Dutch national living here 'cos our welfare was more generous than in Holland. I object to that being a reason for living here as a starter.
He was moaning blind about any cap as he had a wife and 8 children, he claimed that as a practising catholic forcing him to limit his number off spring by refusing to support them all was an attack on his religion.
He then agreed that he would have to have no further off spring.
Your comments?
Please don't bother with any anti Daily Mail etc rants, just answer for a change.
Ta!



> Such is the ruling class in a capitalist society.



Would you not include the ruling class in a non-capitalist society?

Roy.


----------



## Dibs-h (25 Jan 2012)

cambournepete":3rcn6x2k said:


> Aw, thanks guys!
> 
> I am looking for work (IT/software anyone?), but already one recruitment agent has said I'm hard to place.
> I'm sure I'll get a job, I just don't know when or how much it'll pay.
> I now realise how lucky I was before I got made redundant 18 months ago...



Pete

Have you thought about going Contracting? The pay can be far higher - a 3 month contract in some cases paying the equivalent of 12months PAYE. Yes - you are likely to have to travel away during the week, but the SE does hold a lot of potential.

Dibs


----------



## cambournepete (25 Jan 2012)

Dibs-h":3vxedts9 said:


> Have you thought about going Contracting?


Yup - quite happy to do perm or contract.


----------



## Jacob (25 Jan 2012)

Digit":5cscerxb said:


> ................
> There was an interview in the press some time ago with a Dutch national living here 'cos our welfare was more generous than in Holland. I object to that being a reason for living here as a starter.
> He was moaning blind about any cap as he had a wife and 8 children, he claimed that as a practising catholic ...


How many unemployed Dutch catholics with eight children have moved to Britain? What are the latest figures? 
Is this a serious threat to civilisation as we know it? 
What ever happened to single mothers on benefits? I thought they were most favoured enemies of the state. Have they been demoted? 
What about the single mother vegetarian lesbian muslim women students on benefits? Are things looking up at all?


----------



## Kalimna (25 Jan 2012)

Jacob - why should I, or anyone else who actually lifts a finger to go out and work, not feel agrieved that there are a number of people claiming benefits who have no desire to work?
Why shouldnt the benefits be capped so that being in work is more financially sound for the claimant than being out of work? (Obviously excepting those who are not actively trying to find work and other exceptions as mentioned in this thread).
And your parasite quote, whilst not your own perhaps, shows a lack of understanding of what a parasite is. Anyone with the malaria parasite might just feel they are burdened. If they havent yet died.

And perhaps we would know how many dutch catholics with multiple children are here claiming benefits, but I doubt they would fill in the census.

Cheers,
Adam, a hacked off public sector (anaesthetist) worker


----------



## Digit (25 Jan 2012)

> What about the single mother vegetarian lesbian muslim women students on benefits?



You're trying your old tricks of moving the goal posts again Jacob, give it up it, doesn't work.
Now about the house of lords? The facts that the caps that you say are so devastaing that haven't yet been put into law??
Would you care to answer those?

The subject of the Dutch national seems to have been totally misunderstood by you, or deliberately twisted, so I'll spell it out in words of one syllable to you. Here goes, do you think it reasonable that a man should father children that he knows, and understands, that he does not have the financies to support? And that to the extent that he moves from one country to another simply so that he can continue in that course of action?
There we are Jacob, some more questions for you to duck!

Roy.


----------



## Lons (26 Jan 2012)

Jacob":964qiqk6 said:


> Digit":964qiqk6 said:
> 
> 
> > ................
> ...



:lol: :lol: :lol: 

Absolute c**p - A deliberate attempt to deflect a perfectly reasonable argument!

Why any normal tax paying working or retired person should object to a cap of £26000 NETT being applied to benefits is beyond reason. The statistics if they are to be believed are that average salary is a fraction over £26000 GROSS. If as is the concensis that a lot of people are earning a fortune then the vast majority must earn well under that figure. Does that not imply as claimed that there is little incentive for the workshy to get off their backsides and find work. (Don't take that out of context as I have already stated my view that those trying to help themselves should be supported to do so).

£26000 is still far too high IMO and child benefit should very definately be included in the calculations.

It's the children who suffer and the a******s I've come across just drink, smoke and fritter the money so throwing more at them just doesn't work.

Disability should be closely looked at as well. Whilst all deserving disabled people should be fully supported, it is far too easy to dupe the system and I know 4 personally who do exactly that.
One a 43 year old who has worked no more than a few months in his whole life - has 3 kids by 2 partners but manages to dig and plant a large allotment with a "serious back injury".
Another who gets both government and police benefits after "falling over a binbag" many years ago whilst in the force and is allegedly crippled. I've seen him break concrete with a hammer I would struggle to lift :roll: 
I've already posted in a previous thread about the mothers / daughters I've encountered who had kids to get a local authority house. Really P****s me off!

Bob


----------



## Jacob (26 Jan 2012)

Lons":3c69s2yd said:


> .......
> I've already posted in a previous thread about the mothers / daughters I've encountered who had kids to get a local authority house. Really P****s me off!
> 
> Bob


 :lol: :lol: So they _are_ still with us! :lol: 
I was beginning to worry about them. They used to be top of the pops in the "Hate thy Neighbour" charts.
What's at number one now? Is it just large families on benefits or do they have to be foreign as well?


----------



## devonwoody (26 Jan 2012)

Its unfair, I'm a pensioner and I cannot get on that gravy train.  :wink: 

If I change my faith to Islam, get three more wives,get a family, (that would be nice) set them up in different houses, perhaps I could get 3 x £25k that way.

Those benefit claimants will find away around the £25K cap whatever they do at Westminster. 

Perhaps I ought to start advertising on those 'get a partner page in the local press'.


----------



## Lons (26 Jan 2012)

Jacob":2iv1d3kl said:


> Lons":2iv1d3kl said:
> 
> 
> > .......
> ...



Yes sadly they are still around only more of them....... and apparently so are those misguided do gooders who have provided them with the platform to sponge off the taxpayer and caused this class of people who will never work and see benefits as a "salary" for which they just need to turn up for 10 minutes once a fortnight whilst out shopping and sign a form. Some even don't need do that but just post a pre paid envelope :roll: 
Many of them aren't really to blame, they've been brought up to know nothing else. See children as cast iron way of obtaining more money and the all important local authority house. I'ts the system that has allowed it that's at fault and that's what the government are trying to address by putting a cap on it.

And one other thing Jacob - I understand large families as I'm one of 9 and though my parents found it very difficult and we lived in a 3 bed council house for many years (guess that made us "homeless" as bedrooms had to be shared :roll: ), my father never claimed benefits, it was their choice to have a lot of kids and his duty to support us to which end he had full time shift work as a miner plus 2 part time jobs. He got a lot of respect for that and most importantly was the role model for us.

I guess we are all guilty of making sweeping statements and there are guenuine people and exceptions amongst all groups but where it's patently obvious it isn't working, it has to be changed.

Bob


----------



## Lons (26 Jan 2012)

devonwoody":2ifjl3ci said:


> Its unfair, I'm a pensioner and I cannot get on that gravy train.  :wink: Perhaps I ought to start advertising on those 'get a partner page in the local press'.



:lol: :lol: :lol: Why don't you put a wanted on UKW :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Jacob (26 Jan 2012)

Lons":2tn6uhfd said:


> Jacob":2tn6uhfd said:
> 
> 
> > Lons":2tn6uhfd said:
> ...


Oh good. I thought perhaps they had been rounded up in the old fashioned way and sent off; Guantanamo Bay or somewhere - like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl9XO7GukQk


----------



## Digit (26 Jan 2012)

> What's at number one now? Is it just large families on benefits or do they have to be foreign as well?



Still dodging questions then Jacob, nothing new there then, just the same old drivel.

Roy.


----------



## devonwoody (26 Jan 2012)

Lons":fe2oonok said:


> devonwoody":fe2oonok said:
> 
> 
> > Its unfair, I'm a pensioner and I cannot get on that gravy train.  :wink: Perhaps I ought to start advertising on those 'get a partner page in the local press'.
> ...




Noooooooooooooooooooooooo! 

I dont think thats the best place :roll:

You lot dont seem sympathetic enough. :wink:


----------



## Digit (26 Jan 2012)

Big Aaaaaaah for DW! :lol: 

Roy.


----------



## cambournepete (26 Jan 2012)

Lons":2cfkb487 said:


> ...Whilst all deserving disabled people should be fully supported, it is far too easy to dupe the system and I know 4 personally who do exactly that.
> One a 43 year old who has worked no more than a few months in his whole life - has 3 kids by 2 partners but manages to dig and plant a large allotment with a "serious back injury".
> Another who gets both government and police benefits after "falling over a binbag" many years ago whilst in the force and is allegedly crippled. I've seen him break concrete with a hammer I would struggle to lift :roll:


I assume you have done your civic duty and reported all of them to the authorities?


----------



## devonwoody (26 Jan 2012)

I don't think the suggested cap amount is right.

It should not be greater than you last pay position for starters. (if you earned £15k per annum that should be the cap)

If you genuinely earned £45k the cap should perhaps be higher for sickness and involuntary unemployment. 

But MPs would find that too difficult to understand and cop out.


----------



## cambournepete (26 Jan 2012)

But how would you cap it for someone who has never worked - quite possibly though no fault of their own?
Nothing?


----------



## Lons (26 Jan 2012)

cambournepete":24tk0ilr said:


> I assume you have done your civic duty and reported all of them to the authorities?



Not personally Pete but it has been done.
You wouldn't believe how much resource has to be put into operation to nail these people and unfortunately the punishment doesn't often fit.


----------



## Jacob (26 Jan 2012)

Lons":lq5szyqi said:


> ...
> You wouldn't believe how much resource has to be put into operation to nail these people ..


I can believe it. Mainly because a lot of malicious gossip turns out to be completely without foundation.


----------



## Digit (26 Jan 2012)

> You wouldn't believe how much resource has to be put into operation to nail these people



In my case I received a letter informing me that a DSS rep wished to discuss my benefits with me, that was all, no suggestion of anything improper having taken place, and the idea never ocurred me, till the lady informed me that I had been reported as working.
I burst out laughing, I explained that I had worked pretty well non-stop for X number of years and working for a living again was about the last thing on my mind.
I showed her my bank statement and she left after about half an hour and that was the end of that!

Roy.


----------



## Lons (26 Jan 2012)

Jacob":y5bmnwya said:


> Lons":y5bmnwya said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I'd agree with you and all reports must be thoroughly investigated for the protection of the innocent but that definately is not the only reason as many of the fraudsters know how to escape punishment and the case has to be cast iron or some smart lawyer (paid by the taxpayer) will get them off on a technicality.


----------



## Lons (26 Jan 2012)

*Especially for Jacob * :wink: 

Now look what you made me do: I don't agree with all that's said but there is some irony in there  

This dropped into my in box today and I would normally delete is as whilst I care not one jot if it is "PC", I do consider it to be innacurate. However purely for the sake of Jacobs "entertainment"...............


The new breadwinner in the family...

A doctor told me that a woman in her late 20's came to the hospital today with her 8th pregnancy.
She told the first doctor she saw: "My mum told me that I am the breadwinner for the family."
He asked her to explain.
She said that she can make babies and babies get money from the State for the family.

It goes like this:
The Grandma calls the Department for work and pensions, and states that the unemployed daughter is not capable of caring for all of her kids.
DWP agrees, and tells her the children will need to go into foster care.
The Grandma then volunteers to be the foster parent, and receives a cheque for £700 per child each month.
Total yearly income:
£58,800 soon to become £67,200 when the 8th one is born, tax-free and nobody has to go to work ! In fact, they get more if there is no husband/father/man in the home! The brother does not count.
Not to mention free dental treatment, free housing, free council tax free school dinners, free tuition fees at college or University, free eye care and glasses, free prescriptions and various other benefits...
Total value of all benefits combined probably approaching £100,000 per annum which would require an income of around £148,000 to create.
About my salary as a senior consultant with years of experience and surgical skills in a central London teaching hospital.

Indeed, Grandma was correct that her fertile daughter is the "breadwinner" for the family. 
This is how the politicians spend our taxes. When this generous programme was invented in the the Great Society architects forgot to craft an end date... and now we are hopelessly overrun with people who vote only for those who will continue to keep them on the dole.....
No wonder our country is broke !

Don't forget to pay your taxes !! There are a lot of 'breadwinners' depending on you !


----------



## Jacob (26 Jan 2012)

Lons":agoga58x said:


> *Especially for Jacob * :wink:
> 
> Now look what you made me do: I don't agree with all that's said but there is some irony in there
> 
> ...


But we all know that this is total pineapples. Why are you bothering to post such nonsense? Do you get some sort of kick out of it? A bit weird IMHO. :shock:
Is it something to do with young women having babies which gets you going?


----------



## Lons (26 Jan 2012)

Jacob":244gvp7k said:


> But we all know that this is total pineapples. Why are you bothering to post such nonsense? Do you get some sort of kick out of it? A bit weird IMHO. :shock: Is it something to do with young women having babies which gets you going?



:lol: :lol:  :lol: Oo..er ........ Can't take what you dish out then :lol: :lol: :lol: indicitive of those who like to stir the pot but don't like it back :wink: (hammer) (hammer) 

Clearly no sense of humor then :roll:


----------



## Digit (26 Jan 2012)

Well at least he's answering your question Lons, he makes a point of dodging my awkward ones. I'm still waiting for him defend his 'moron' statement from months ago.

Roy.


----------



## ankledeep (26 Jan 2012)

Back to the original post, whilst i indeed agree to the idea of a cap on benefits, that surely, in all fairness can only apply "from now". If you are going to move the goalposts, i.e refuse to pay benefits sufficient to pay the rent for the overly large house in Richmond, then for those who are ALREADY there, you must either provide suitable sized accomodation in a cheaper area or continue to fund , since babies cannot be unmade..It is ok to say to a family ok ...you have two kids now and remember the cap...if you produce more , YOU will have to fund them, but for those already in the situation of having a large family...what would you suggest...put them on the street?...take their kids off them and into care (and how much will that cost???) No those already in the "system will, for the foreseeable future have to be treated as a "legacy cost", Unless you want to see the slow creep of a very inhumane system of devil take the hindmost.


----------



## Digit (26 Jan 2012)

Which was why the Lords wouldn't back a cap on child benefit, on the large house scenarion, I'm not so sure, as I have suggested earlier.
Jacob pointed out, sarcasticly, but correctly, it's all about money, thus I suggest that landlord faced with the alternatives of a reduced sum from the DSS or an empty property will in most cases choose the former. Wouldn't you?

Roy.


----------



## studders (27 Jan 2012)

Lons":1nxil0hk said:


> Jacob":1nxil0hk said:
> 
> 
> > But we all know that this is total pineapples. Why are you bothering to post such nonsense? Do you get some sort of kick out of it? A bit weird IMHO. :shock: Is it something to do with young women having babies which gets you going?
> ...


Yup.



Lons":1nxil0hk said:


> I do consider it to be innacurate. However purely for the sake of Jacobs "entertainment"...............


Obviously missed(ignored) this bit.

And, it is not complete 'pineapple'. I know of a young(ish) woman whose marriage lasted five minutes and she was left to look after a young kid. As far as I know she has never worked, mainly because she never needed to, parents quite well off and husband(ex) had a good job in the city.
To cut a long story short, a family friend approached her and told her he owned a house that he wanted to rent out, offered it to her and told her how she could get the Benefits Agency to pay the bill. To my dismay they did, despite the fact that Daddy was 'looking after' a not inconsiderable amount of money 'on her behalf'.


----------



## devonwoody (27 Jan 2012)

There is a good side to these benefit payments, it creates more GDP.  :mrgreen: 

(which I suspect the chancellor looks on as a plus)


----------



## Jacob (27 Jan 2012)

devonwoody":mbts0005 said:


> There is a good side to these benefit payments, it creates more GDP.  :mrgreen:
> 
> (which I suspect the chancellor looks on as a plus)


Well yes. The whole cuts thing is a nonsense. As it takes money out of the economy other businesses and services suffer, leading to unemployment etc and the whole situation gets worse. 
In the meantime bankers, directors, tax dodgers, are creaming off their millions whilst the going is still good. 
They are the real problem, not pathetic feckless families of ne'er-do-wells. It's the financial system which has failed and needs correcting.


----------



## Digit (27 Jan 2012)

> As it takes money out of the economy other businesses and services suffer,



That is a daft assumption! You are assuming that if you were not contributing to the benefits via your various tax payments that you would be putting it under your mattress, as opposed to using it to purchse items from such people as yourself who manufacture things.
Cars, houses etc etc blah blah blah!!!!
At the moment a massive amount of money is being removed from the economy by being used to pay interest on the loans that are having to be paid, stop the cuts and you would have to borrow more, more interest, more money removed from economy.
The larger your overdraft Jacob the less you have to circulate.

Roy.


----------



## devonwoody (27 Jan 2012)

Just think, without high social security benefits, GDP might have been MINUS 10% or whatever! :wink: 

Your pound would be around 50p to the Euro.

Perhaps we ought to fiddle the figures like Euroland.


----------



## Jacob (29 Jan 2012)

Bin good to hear the odd bishop speaking up against the "reforms". 
Easy to forget but it's their job; looking after the poor (and feeble minded, feckless, stupid etc) was top of the christian agenda.


----------



## Digit (29 Jan 2012)

> feckless,



Not in my Bible it isn't, show me where Christianity supports idleness. 

Roy.


----------



## devonwoody (30 Jan 2012)

Jacob, bishops would not want to support those welfare reforms, their congregations would not have so much spare dosh to donate to their priests would they? :wink:


----------



## Lons (30 Jan 2012)

What's christianity got do do with it when a sizeable % of the population are not of the christian faith. Human decency might perhaps have been a better choice.

I'm not religious so maybe that explains why I'm one of the many who agree that benefits should be capped and family allowance included in the calculations. (I believe that family allowance should be scrapped anyway as it's awarded whether needed or not).


----------



## flanajb (31 Jan 2012)

Yep. Using the argument that the Children will suffer is flawed. Of course the Children will suffer if welfare including child benefit is capped. But that is life. I only had one Child as I know how expensive they are to bring up, and I would never dream of expecting the state to support my Children.

But as others don't think in the same way and will always use the excuse 'my Children will suffer' then unfortunately you have to adopt a hard line approach


----------



## Jacob (31 Jan 2012)

What a dismal post to read first thing in the morning. What's wrong with you lot - so desperate to make those at the bottom suffer even more? 
Get a life! Pull yourselves together! Go and have a lie down or something. Try to enjoy yourself a bit more.


----------



## chipmunk (31 Jan 2012)

Unfortunately as a society I fear with these views prevailing we're destined to regress to one where the gap between rich and poor grows and malnutrition returns to the majority of our children.

...and before anyone brings religion into it, I'm a confirmed atheist.

Jon


----------



## flanajb (31 Jan 2012)

chipmunk":2npykjon said:


> Unfortunately as a society I fear with these views prevailing we're destined to regress to one where the gap between rich and poor grows and malnutrition returns to the majority of our children.
> 
> ...and before anyone brings religion into it, I'm a confirmed atheist.
> 
> Jon


If people took responsibilty for their actions and didn't expect the state to support them it would all be fine. Years ago, being on Welfare was something that you would be ashamed of and was a last resort. Now days people take the view "No need to worry about providing for myself or the kids as the state will pick up the tab"


----------



## Jacob (31 Jan 2012)

chipmunk":25ekl01d said:


> Unfortunately as a society I fear with these views prevailing we're destined to regress to one where the gap between rich and poor grows and malnutrition returns to the majority of our children.


And they are slowly running down state education, partly through sheer propaganda - running it down as "failing" etc and also through financial cuts which will cause it to fail.


> ...and before anyone brings religion into it, I'm a confirmed atheist.
> 
> Jon


Me too, but I'm happy to commend the bishops for doing their job i.e. looking after the poor.


----------



## chipmunk (31 Jan 2012)

flanajb":3gs3yeui said:


> If people took responsibilty for their actions and didn't expect the state to support them it would all be fine. Years ago, being on Welfare was something that you would be ashamed of and was a last resort. Now days people take the view "No need to worry about providing for myself or the kids as the state will pick up the tab"



I think you may have a point but you can't set up a welfare system that rewards the unemployed having kids and then change direction on a sixpence without having an impact on those children.

The way to do it is to change the rules for future parents and desuade them from having children they can't afford in the first place. That would be a more thoughtful and moral way to deal with it but it wouldn't appease the "make 'em suffer" brigade.

Jon


----------



## Digit (31 Jan 2012)

> looking after the poor.



Strange how Jacob has suddenly become a supporter of the wealthiest, largest land owning group in the country. And BTW, not all the Bishops are agin the cap.
I would also point out that the starting pay for a cleric is reported as being £22000/annum, with many on benefits to help, well done C of E!
Wonder what happened to charity begins at home Bish?
Anyway Jacob, just so I know we are all singing from the hymn sheet, how would you define 'poor?'
I also like this idea of the Church looking after the poor, by using someone elses money? Yeah! That's what I call charity! :lol: 

Roy.


----------



## Jacob (31 Jan 2012)

Digit":lioolt7r said:


> ......
> I also like this idea of the Church looking after the poor, .......
> Roy.


Well yes it's fundamental to most religions, but easily forgotten. 
I'm not religious in any way BTW - just in case anybody thinks I've seen the light!


----------



## Digit (31 Jan 2012)

Fundamental to most religions? Yep! By such methods as donations, the Imams and Rabbis are noticably not asking for people to be taxed to do it, so why are the Bishops of the largest and weathiest religious group in the country expecting the tax payer to do it when they don't even pay their clergy a decent salary?
Back in 2004 the AB of York had a salary in excess of £60000/annum and lived in the Bishes palace, there seems to be some hypocrisy there to me.
But again Jacob, no answer to some of my questions, such as how do you define 'poor?'

Roy.


----------



## Jacob (31 Jan 2012)

I suggest you have a look yourself for the meaning of "poor". It's not a new concept and has been written about extensively.
Don't be lazy - start with the dictionary.


----------



## Digit (31 Jan 2012)

I wasn't asking for the dictionary version, I was asking for yours.
A further question for you.
Before moving here I lived in a massive 5 bedroom 18C ex-coaching inn, with the mortgage, plus repairs, which were considerable, plus the heating costs, I could not afford a car and used a motor bike in all weathers and shopped using buses. My salary was paid direct into our joint account, my wife worked from home and gave me pocket money.
Were we 'poor?'

Roy.


----------



## DIY Stew (31 Jan 2012)

flanajb":1rlryust said:


> Yep. Using the argument that the Children will suffer is flawed. Of course the Children will suffer if welfare including child benefit is capped. But that is life. I only had one Child as I know how expensive they are to bring up, and I would never dream of expecting the state to support my Children.
> 
> But as others don't think in the same way and will always use the excuse 'my Children will suffer' then unfortunately you have to adopt a hard line approach


I had two children, have had only three jobs in my working life and it has been a struggle at times. We had children because we wanted to share our love and pass on what we believe are honest, fair values. We never thought of the expense, to state that you only had one child because they are expensive is unbelievable, I cannot and would not put a price on my family. 
You never sign your name after your posts, I think I know why, your George Banks the banker.

Stew


----------



## Digit (31 Jan 2012)

> to state that you only had one child because they are expensive is unbelievable,



I'm sorry to disagree with you Stew, but it seems OK to me. My wife wanted four children, we had two, we had two 'cos two was the number that we could afford to give a reasonable standard of living to. When my eldest was born I was working such hours that I only saw her awake at week ends, thus we decided that she would not be an only child but it was not really OK that I saw little of them and they little of me.

Roy.


----------



## DIY Stew (31 Jan 2012)

Digit":1gp1vyok said:


> > to state that you only had one child because they are expensive is unbelievable,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Roy as you can see selective quoting can be misleading!
I look forward to a reply from Flanajb to my comment.

Stew


----------



## Digit (31 Jan 2012)

I'm glad we only had two, I've just been bouncing one grandson on my knee, I knackered!

Roy.


----------



## DIY Stew (31 Jan 2012)

Roy

Snap, his mother has just taken him home which is amazing because she usually stays for tea!!
Wouldn't swap either of them though.

Stew


----------



## Digit (31 Jan 2012)

> Wouldn't swap either of them though.



Me neither! But I do some odd looks chasing him down the road at my age! :lol: 

Roy.


----------



## RogerS (31 Jan 2012)

DIY Stew":3hk8y16a said:


> flanajb":3hk8y16a said:
> 
> 
> > Yep. Using the argument that the Children will suffer is flawed. Of course the Children will suffer if welfare including child benefit is capped. But that is life. I only had one Child as I know how expensive they are to bring up, and I would never dream of expecting the state to support my Children.
> ...



I think that's a bit unfair and is a value judgement based on your own beliefs. You know nothing about the personal circumstances of flanajb nor where he puts his value judgements.


----------



## Lons (31 Jan 2012)

We also had 2 children for similar reasons to Digit and struggled sometimes in the early years. We decided that it was the responsible thing to do, influenced somewhat by the fact that I am one of nine  
We have both worked all our lives (apart from a short term when my employers went bust), a time incidently when because my wife worked part time, and I had managed to build up a small savings account, I received no benefits and have no issue with that.

I very firmly believe that every adult must be responsible for his or her actions and that definately includes having children. As a nation, we have allowed standards to slip and changes have to happen to put it right as it is not acceptable for anyone to expect the state/taxpayer to provide them with a "living". As I said previously - short term help for those who need it is what the system was designed to do and quite rightly as well.

It's no good just stating that the "poor" will suffer or the children either;

Children of the dregs of our society (and by that I mean a hard core of wasters - not all benefit claiments or unemployed people) will suffer whatever happens as from the considerable experience I have of some of these people, their children are often neglected whilst they spend whatever cash they can get on drink,drugs,cigarettes and gambling letting their kids go without basics.

Poor - exactly what the hell does that mean these days? If kids share a bedroom, don't have a mobile phone, computer or games console their peers view them as deprived. Bulls**t. Poor is having nothing to eat (not just the latest advertised products), dirty shabby clothes, shoes with holes and possibly abused and mistreated. Throwing money at their parents without direction and control does not work and never has.
Let those who advocate otherwise, give their own salaries to the "poor" I say (hammer).

We were I suppose poor when I was a kid, never enough money, could never find dinner money either so I had to cycle a 6 mile round trip every lunchtime and we ate a lot of rubbish food - especially chips :lol: but not once did my parents ask for or expect handouts. They would have been far too ashamed. As my dad said, "we decided to bring you lot into the world and that's our responsibility". We all had our chores to do though :roll: 

The really poor people in the world do not live in the UK and significantly get much of their support via their extended families.

Bob


----------



## Digit (31 Jan 2012)

Bob, your life pretty much mirrors mine, plus my father did time, and I have to say that I disagree with not a single word you have posted!
It was based on events such as you describe that I asked Jacob to define 'poor,' which I'm still awaiting an answer to as I think it is a 'relative' description rather than a precise one, after all, I suspect that Tamara Ecclestone considers us all as being poor!

Roy.


----------



## Lons (31 Jan 2012)

Digit":1gootvda said:


> Bob, your life pretty much mirrors mine, plus my father did time, and I have to say that I disagree with not a single word you have posted!
> It was based on events such as you describe that I asked Jacob to define 'poor,' which I'm still awaiting an answer to as I think it is a 'relative' description rather than a precise one, after all, I suspect that Tamara Ecclestone considers us all as being poor! Roy.



To be fair to Jacob, I don't think it's possible to defend poor as people overuse the term these days. Unless they've have been to Cambodia for instance and seen the real difference between the rich resorts and the orphanages or even the "black townships" on the outskirts of Cape Town in South Africa they will never really know what it's like. Whilst there I got to know a guy from Zimbabwe and found the photos he showed me distressing. I was shocked also many years ago to see the ghetto in Funchal, Madiera and the state of some of the old folk in particular.

My upbringing did me no harm Roy despite the odd clip around the ear by the local bobby before being marched home where my dad would give me a clout around the backside and that just for scrumping apples  
What it did give me was an understanding of independance, loyalty and moral values as well as motivation to make something of my life and provide for my family and from your many posts, I suspect you did likewise.

Bob


----------



## flanajb (31 Jan 2012)

DIY Stew":2yr2vqp0 said:


> flanajb":2yr2vqp0 said:
> 
> 
> > Yep. Using the argument that the Children will suffer is flawed. Of course the Children will suffer if welfare including child benefit is capped. But that is life. I only had one Child as I know how expensive they are to bring up, and I would never dream of expecting the state to support my Children.
> ...


In my eyes thinking about the expense of having Children before having them is the responsible thing to do. I liken it to buying a dog, if you could not afford the vet bills, food ... then eventually your dog would end up being taken off you. Actually, I may be wrong. Does the welfare system provide dog benefit for those that have too many dogs that they can't afford?


----------



## Digit (31 Jan 2012)

Yeah! I remeber laying flat on a wooden foot bridge tickling a Trout only to be caught by the local bobby!
No I agree on the 'poor' point, which was I asked Jacob for his definition so that I knew if we were all using the same datum.
I remember a few years ago that there was a programme on TV about poverty amongst black Americans.
The lady in question claimed that she was 'dirt poor'.
The Brit interviewer expressed surprise and pointed out the large car in the drive.
The lady looked astonished. 'But it's a last year's model!' she bleated.

Roy.


----------



## Lons (1 Feb 2012)

My brother lives on a council estate and in his "court" of around 20 odd 3 bed terrace houses there are only him and 7 others who are gainfully employed and one of those owns his house :roll: 
There are loads of kids, a number of single mothers ,and a lot of dogs (no benefit Flanajb - just animals allowed to stray). You would be surprised at some of the cars always parked there and clearly belong to the residents.

One of these mothers doesn't send her son to school and has been fined several times, doesn't pay of course and now her son is collected by taxi every morning and returned after school. Guess where the money comes from! The same woman drinks and smokes and runs up bills on catalogues who then sue her and she pays off at a few bob a week. She has 4 children by different fathers and her 2 teenage daughters now both have kids and their own little house all on benefits..... No doubt her grandchildren will be taught to follow the same path. She has a live in lover, also on benefits with his own L A house and who regularly moves back out every time she is reported. the authorities slap her hands and tell her not to do it again :lol: :lol: :lol: 

She is far from being an exception but of course she is "poor" is she not and therefore entitled to be kept in the style to which she has become accustomed.

I've got to stop posting on this thread before I get even grumpier :? 

Bob


----------



## devonwoody (1 Feb 2012)

Perhaps this would be a good idea for some.


Subject: Irish Birth Control ( UR GONNA LUV THIS )]































Mrs. Donovan was walking down O'Connell Street 
in 

Dublin when she met up with Father Flaherty. 
The Father said, 'Top O' the mornin' to ye! 

Aren't ye Mrs. Donovan and didn't I marry ye and yer hoosband two 
years 
ago?'



She replied, 'Aye, that ye did, 
Father.'



The 
Father asked, 'And be there any wee little 
ones 
yet?


She replied, 'No, not yet, 
Father.'


The Father said, 'Well now, I'm going to Rome next 
week and I'll 
light a candle for ye and yer hoosband.

She replied, 'Oh, thank ye, Father.' They then parted 
ways.


Some years later they met again. 



The Father asked, 
'Well now, Mrs. Donovan, how are ye these 
days?'


She replied, 'Oh, very well, 
Father!'


The Father asked, 'And tell me, have ye any wee 
ones 
yet?'


She replied, 'Oh yes, Father! Three sets of 
twins

and four singles, ten in all!'






The Father said, 'That's wonderful! How is yer 
lovin' hoosband 
doin'?'






She replied, 'E's gone to Rome to blow out yer 
' 
candle.'

If more candles were blown out perhaps welfare dependancy would be less.


----------



## Jacob (1 Feb 2012)

Lons":2gg2sz8a said:


> ..........
> I've got to stop posting on this thread before I get even grumpier :?
> 
> Bob


There are a lot of people like your woman who basically can't cope and whose life is a mess. If they could chose to live a normal life like most of us they would do. If it wasn't for the welfare state their lives would be even more of a mess and the cost to the state (us, that is) could be even higher. 
The welfare state also can break the cycle of poverty and make it possible for these people and/or their offspring, to lead a different life. It doesn't always work, but often it does. After basic welfare, state education probably has more influence than anything else in improving and radically changing the quality of peoples lives, and many people can attest to this.

If it makes you grumpy maybe you should do something positive about these things instead of just moaning on!


----------



## DIY Stew (1 Feb 2012)

flanajb":24okqk2k said:


> DIY Stew":24okqk2k said:
> 
> 
> > flanajb":24okqk2k said:
> ...


flanajb
Are you saying that parents who have children and live off the 'welfare' should have their children taken off them?

Stew


----------



## devonwoody (1 Feb 2012)

Hi. Stew that might work.  

If they get more money for more children some are going to have more children, we had a super dad down here in the W.C. something like 18 or 19 kids, unfortunately he couldnt keep it up, he had a heart attack and died, true. :wink:


----------



## Lons (1 Feb 2012)

> There are a lot of people like your woman who basically can't cope and whose life is a mess. If they could chose to live a normal life like most of us they would do. If it wasn't for the welfare state their lives would be even more of a mess and the cost to the state (us, that is) could be even higher.


With all due respect Jacob, the first part of your post is complete and utter cr*p. This woman as just one example, is not a drug addict or mentally challenged. She is in fact reasonably intelligent and knows exactly what she is doing which is why she has brought up her 2 daughters to do exactly the same (hammer) (if you read my post you would have noticed my comment about the daughters).



> The welfare state also can break the cycle of poverty and make it possible for these people and/or their offspring, to lead a different life. It doesn't always work, but often it does. After basic welfare, state education probably has more influence than anything else in improving and radically changing the quality of peoples lives, and many people can attest to this


Yes it can make a difference but only if the help is proactive, directed and under control. Throwing more cash at it as I said, does not work. I agree about BASIC welfare but a cap of even £26k tax free is definitely NOT BASIC. 
Education, I agree with and I benefitted from mine as did my kids - but it matters little if parents can't be bothered to get out of bed to send their kids to school in the first place.



> many people can attest to this


Just who are these many people ?....... Statistics and lies Jacob - we can all find stats to "prove" anything if we choose to.



> If it makes you grumpy maybe you should do something positive about these things instead of just moaning on!


You have absolutey no idea what I do or don't do in this area or how I have been involved in these areas, just as I don't know about you. I have read that you produce some good work in wood Jacob and in that area I've seen you post some great advice - maybe you should stick with the day job :lol: :lol: 

Bob


----------



## mind_the_goat (1 Feb 2012)

Perhaps instead of paying people to have children the state should fine them for having kids if they don't have the means to support them.

This is hugely complex issue and it is very easy to cherry pick the examples that support either one side or the other. 
I have to say I do resent paying my taxes for people who don't want to work and expect the state to pay for themselves and their families but then If i was made redundant I would struggle if my income was instantly reduced to 25K without having any time to adjust to the new circumstances, and having paid taxes all my life I would then be resenting the states hard line.
There is no right answer but at least the conservatives are making a stab at redressing the balance.


----------



## Digit (1 Feb 2012)

Well to be fair to Jacob, (I'm feeling in good mood this morning) he may be correct, but perhaps he could give us some examples to put against all the fraud cases that the Daily Express and Daily Mail make up to entertain all us grumpy old sods.
How about it Jacob?

Roy.


----------



## RogerS (1 Feb 2012)

mind_the_goat":219ypuuq said:


> .....but then If i was made redundant I would struggle if my income was instantly reduced to 25K without having any time to adjust to the new circumstances, and having paid taxes all my life I would then be resenting the states hard line.
> There is no right answer but at least the conservatives are making a stab at redressing the balance.




But the thing is, you have been working and so deserve the support of the state. 

What many of us are objecting to are the bone idle bas**rds who have never done a days' work in their life. Their chosen career is to get money from the dole. Dead easy to check their work record (non-existent) and so why they aren't penalised I'm not too sure. Certainly they deserve a damn sight less than the suggested max of £26k.


----------



## Digit (1 Feb 2012)

> But the thing is, you have been working and so deserve the support of the state



Exactly! And as I suggested earlier, to the full extent that is needed by the individual involved. State aid, ie, tax payer aid, should not be a career choice!

Roy.


----------



## devonwoody (1 Feb 2012)

Roger, they are not penalised because it would spoil the GDP figures which the chancellor gives priority to. :wink:


----------



## Digit (1 Feb 2012)

DW, according to investopedia GDP is the value of a country's output fom manufacturing, agriculture, banking etc measured over a particular time period, thus i cannot see how non-productive individuals can be contributing to those figures.

Roy.


----------



## devonwoody (1 Feb 2012)

Because those persons on benefit purchase those services and if they did not have large enough benefits there would be less purchasing and Gdp would be lower?


----------



## Digit (1 Feb 2012)

Sorry DW but no. If you were not taxed to support them you would have more to spend and thus the GDP would not be affected. Same amount of money, less people. Equally if they were working they would be both producing and spending.

Roy.


----------



## devonwoody (1 Feb 2012)

Accepted, but a complete ban of all benefits would also be catastrophic even if taxes were reduced . I don't think taxes have actually paid all benefits some is borrowing (which has not or could not be repaid immediately etc.) The cash flow to industry and economy would be very very seriously endangered and that would cause problems. 
And GDP would be lower, and that would trigger lower figures, which means loans could not be repaid on time. 

In the long run of course no benefits, no taxes for benefits would be a new world and should balance if pollies also stopped unwise spending. 
However pollies buy our votes with their dirty tricks, never met a completely honest one yet.


----------



## Jacob (1 Feb 2012)

Benefits are good for business GDP, society etc. 
Simplistic and crude yes, but e.g. if high taxation takes the price of a ferrari from one rich man ((£170000 or more) this keeps 10 poor families in comfort for a year - they spend it locally and improve local businesses and GDP, it reduces social problems and crime, which benefits us all, it increases health, they are liberated from the stresses of being skint and may get their act together to improve their lot by other means, and so on. It's a no-brainer. Ferrariless man loses nothing much, just another big toy car, has to drive his Jag instead. :roll: 

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is quoted as saying “Taxation is the price we pay for civilization.” 
It also drives whole economies and associated businesses in a way that the free market simply could not do.


----------



## Digit (1 Feb 2012)

> Benefits are good for business GDP,



How? Please explain how consumption without production aids GDP.
Please explain, again, _your_ definition of poor.
Please explain how taking money from a producer and giving it to a non-producer, aids GDP?
If your argument was valid everyone could be on benefits, please explain that?

Roy.


----------



## Jacob (1 Feb 2012)

Digit":2y2sacbs said:


> > Benefits are good for business GDP,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well actually the working population of UK is around 50% so the other half _are already_ on unearned incomes of one sort or another.
It's no mystery. We are well into the industrial revolution and our efficiency at producing goods has never been higher. Without consumers we'd have stockpiles. Taxation and redistribution keeps the productive cycle going.
Year by year the actual numbers needed for a working population to maintain _the same_ standard of living diminishes. We could easily sustain higher unemployment, instead we go for higher consumption and "growth".
We all know and experience this. We all (as a rule) live better than our parents in every way.


----------



## Digit (1 Feb 2012)

Agreed, I actually understand that, but it does not answer what I asked.
Let me put it this way.
I am retired, non-productive, I receive a benefit of £16/wk. I save it then purchase a motorbike made in Japan to the price of £6000. Being petrol powered it will be fuelled on imports from the Gulf predominantly.
Now easy question. How does that benefit Britain's GDP?

Roy.


----------



## Jacob (1 Feb 2012)

Digit":2lrln8m0 said:


> Agreed, I actually understand that, but it does not answer what I asked.
> Let me put it this way.
> I am retired, non-productive, I receive a benefit of £16/wk. I save it then purchase a motorbike made in Japan to the price of £6000. Being petrol powered it will be fuelled on imports from the Gulf predominantly.
> Now easy question. How does that benefit Britain's GDP?
> ...


It wouldn't unless either you bought British, or the Japs (and the Gulf) were buying an equivalent amount of British goods.


----------



## Digit (1 Feb 2012)

Even that is incorrect Jacob 'cos if the Japs or Saudis bought as you describe it would serve only 'balance' the books, not add to GDP. Agreed?
Same scenario as earlier. I obtain my £16/wk picking hot house tomatoes, which are then sold through Tesco's supermarket. Having earned my money I have contributed to the GDP. Correct?

Roy.


----------



## Jacob (1 Feb 2012)

Digit":1cjiszq6 said:


> Even that is incorrect Jacob 'cos if the Japs or Saudis bought as you describe it would serve only 'balance' the books, not add to GDP. Agreed?...


No. the GDP would have increased by the amount of extra production to meet the Japs or Saudis orders.


----------



## Digit (1 Feb 2012)

> GDP would have increased by the amount of extra production to meet the Japs or Saudis orders.



Yes! Then you must now deduct from that the loss accrued in the purchases from Japan and Saudi! Agreed? You have stated, _or the Japs (and the Gulf) were buying an *equivalent* amount_ an equivalent amount balances the book. No gain and no loss in equivalent amounts Jacob.



> GDP would have increased by the amount of extra production to meet the Japs or Saudis orders.


And the non-productive people will not have contributed to that will they? Thus paying benefits to them must come from that production. Agreed?

Roy.

Further checking reveals that I am incorrect on the import part, they are not included in GDP but are in the Balance of Payments. But I remain correct that the non-prod do not meet any of the criteria used in GDP calculation.


----------



## devonwoody (2 Feb 2012)

Sorry fella's there are no vacancies at the Treasury dept. at the moment, they are not recruiting at the present time.  

I did hear yesterday however that the TD have the highest resigning figures of all the Civil Service, it challenges even Macdonalds. :wink:

P.S.

Roy didnt you go an buy that Japanese M/C from a dealer near you and increase his sales figures and profits for the year etc.etc.


----------



## Jacob (2 Feb 2012)

Digit":zz2kkgkz said:


> ......
> And the non-productive people will not have contributed to that will they? Thus paying benefits to them must come from that production. Agreed?.....


As far as GDP is concerned (depending on which measure is taken) it make absolutely no difference who actually spends the cash or how they got it.
Better that the "poor" spend it IMHO as it does them proportionately more good than the "rich". £50 per week is a huge benefit if you have nothing, but is worth nothing much to a banker (you can only eat one dinner at a time). And the poor spend it quickly (no surplus to save) and locally (not necessarily the offy and the betting shop) and it can radically improve their lives and their ability to change it.


----------



## Digit (2 Feb 2012)

Fair enough Jacob, you calculate GDP your way the rest of us will probably use the government's system.
But as you still steadfastly refuse to enlighten us with your views on poverty try this.

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

Is he 'poor?'

DW, profit, yes, but not GDP apparently as it is not a 'domestic' product, it's an import, which will show on the balance of payments for the period.

Roy.


----------



## devonwoody (2 Feb 2012)

Ah yes, but the local retailer had a higher income from which he had greater spending power on his own purchases. Which then generates higher GDP?


----------



## studders (2 Feb 2012)

Digit":23q289tx said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185
> 
> Is he 'poor?'
> 
> ...


Definitely NOT.
And instead of moaning (assuming it's not a 'made up' case) he should be grateful for what he gets; else get off his arrrs, stop making excuses, and get a job. Then he might even be able to upgrade his, oh so essential, Sky TV package. :roll:


----------



## Digit (2 Feb 2012)

DW, that may be so, but it's not used in calculating GDP. But there is a differnce between his purchases from his profit to purchases made by non-producers who live on part of such people's profits.

Roy.


----------



## Jacob (7 Feb 2012)

The Daily Mail "Hate thy Neighbour (especially if disadvantaged)" campaign is achieving results apparently. Disabled people are reporting higher levels of hostility and suspicion when they are out and about in the community. Some of them have full time jobs and have never claimed benefits, but this makes no difference.


----------



## Digit (7 Feb 2012)

I must have missed that edition of the DM.

Roy.


----------

