Cameron to slash welfare

[Lord Duckhunter]

You have a very limited view of what constitutes a scrounger. It isn't "takes money from the state", as it should be. It's "has no money and takes money from the state".

 

Welfare should be "has no money and takes money from the state on a temp basis whilst looking for a job (any job)".

Edited 25 June, 2012 by Lord Duckhunter

[dune]

I have had English people turn down promotions because it effects their WFTC.

 

I have had Englsih people turn down overtime for the same reason, or they claim it's not worth it because the tax man takes a lot of it. I have yet to have a Pole turn down overtime, in fact I had to tell them to take time off because they were overdoing it. I cant speak for all Poles, but the ones that worked for me, were hard working, respectful and would do any job asked of them without complaining. I wish the same could be said of all my English workers.

 

In respect of the first point that's the fault of system - not the British worker.

 

In respect of the second point I refer you back to my previous point. Your employees are a reflection of you. If you can't manage them properly it's you that isn't up to it, not them.

[pap]

It should be "has no money and takes money from the state on a temp basis whilst , looking for a job (any job)".

 

So are you okay with the slum landlords I referred to in my previous posts?

[hypochondriac]

A friend of mine went on benefits for two weeks whilst looking for a job. He found one and stopped immediately. He hates the job but has continued with it for a year whilst he looks for better option. That is what they are for.

[Lord Duckhunter]

A friend of mine went on benefits for two weeks whilst looking for a job. He found one and stopped immediately. He hates the job but has continued with it for a year whilst he looks for better option. That is what they are for.

 

Spot on, they should be a stop gap. If there were more people like your mate, then welfare would not be such a toxic issue.

[dune]

One problem is that British workers are at an immediate disadvantage to foreigners because many foreigners shack up in student digs type houses with minimal expense and as such can afford to work for a pittance.

 

The biggest casualty of Labours open door policy has been the working classes, and please tell me how that benefits society?

Edited 25 June, 2012 by dune

[buctootim]

Over the past 40 years the number of people in work, the number of people registered unemployed and the number of people on incapacity benefits have all grown - way beyond the growth in population. So you now simultaneously have more people working, saying they cant find work, or that they want to work but are unable - largely due to women entering the workforce and no longer staying at home looking after kids and being absent from official stats (no bad thing btw).

[bridge too far]

I think one of the bones of contention is the proposal to withdraw Housing Benefit from people under 25. These people, if they are in work, are likely to earn comparitively low wages and certainly won't be buying somewhere to live. So they rely on rented property. Given the high rents being charged these days, they need Housing Benefit to enable them to have somewhere to live. And, of course, given the high rate of youth unemployment, many of them will not be earning a wage at all, probably for the forseeable future.

 

Dave's solution is to send them back home. Many young people who leave home do so because they want to get away from abusive parents or from parents with drug or alcohol problems. Others can't go back home because their parents might have downsized (for all sorts of reasons) and there simply isn't room for them.

 

All these proposals would have some merit if there was a very, very low unemployment rate. But there isn't and a lot of young people are going to be left high and dry by these plans.

[buctootim]

One problem is that British workers are at an immediate disadvantage to foreigners because many foreigners shack up in student digs type houses with minimal expense and as such can afford to work for a pittance.

 

The biggest casualty of Labours open door policy has been the working classes, and please tell me how that benefits society?

 

Totally agree with you Dune. By increasing the supply of cheap labour you take money away from the bottom of society and give it to the top, increasing disparity. Government incentives should go to companies that invest in high quality training and creation of a skilled workforce producing high value product - not trying to compete with China and India at the scrabble to the bottom.

[dune]

I think one of the bones of contention is the proposal to withdraw Housing Benefit from people under 25. These people, if they are in work, are likely to earn comparitively low wages and certainly won't be buying somewhere to live. So they rely on rented property. Given the high rents being charged these days, they need Housing Benefit to enable them to have somewhere to live. And, of course, given the high rate of youth unemployment, many of them will not be earning a wage at all, probably for the forseeable future.

 

Dave's solution is to send them back home. Many young people who leave home do so because they want to get away from abusive parents or from parents with drug or alcohol problems. Others can't go back home because their parents might have downsized (for all sorts of reasons) and there simply isn't room for them.

 

All these proposals would have some merit if there was a very, very low unemployment rate. But there isn't and a lot of young people are going to be left high and dry by these plans.

 

As much as I support measures to make the workshy slobs work, I just can't see how this can possibly work. Let's say the DSS tell these single mums to move back home, and then their parents say they don't want them. What happens then?

 

Benefits slobs may well be lazy scum, but these slob families know all the fiddles - it's what they do, and they'll soon cotton on that all they've got to do is make their slob children homeless and the government will provide.

 

my answer would be a re-introduction of work houses. Now that would be a game changer and you'd suddenly see slob families change their ways.

Edited 25 June, 2012 by dune

[Thedelldays]

[pap]

In respect of the first point that's the fault of system - not the British worker.

 

In respect of the second point I refer you back to my previous point. Your employees are a reflection of you. If you can't manage them properly it's you that isn't up to it, not them.

 

Feck me, dune and I are in some agreement today!

 

dune's right about the problem being in the system. Let's examine WFTC in isolation. Why does it exist? Well, basically because the amount of money families have to live on isn't enough. Still isn't, which is why you have reports about working people being in poverty.

 

Lord D's attempt to make a qualitative comparison between the English and the Poles is interesting, but ultimately a little superficial. Polish workers aren't innately any better than English workers. They just have a more powerful incentive to work ( particularly true in the first years of entry ). They can actually do something with the meagre "just above minimum wage" salary Lord D is offering, especially if they are prepared to make some fairly drastic short-term sacrifices to do so (such as living in overcrowded accommodation). They can send the money home and use the disparities of income to actually achieve something back home.

 

How far does "just above minimum wage" get someone who sticks around in England? How much overtime do you have to do at £6.08 an hour before you can buy an average-priced £160K home?

[Thedelldays]

Feck me, dune and I are in some agreement today!

 

dune's right about the problem being in the system. Let's examine WFTC in isolation. Why does it exist? Well, basically because the amount of money families have to live on isn't enough. Still isn't, which is why you have reports about working people being in poverty.

 

Lord D's attempt to make a qualitative comparison between the English and the Poles is interesting, but ultimately a little superficial. Polish workers aren't innately any better than English workers. They just have a more powerful incentive to work ( particularly true in the first years of entry ). They can actually do something with the meagre "just above minimum wage" salary Lord D is offering, especially if they are prepared to make some fairly drastic short-term sacrifices to do so (such as living in overcrowded accommodation). They can send the money home and use the disparities of income to actually achieve something back home.

 

How far does "just above minimum wage" get someone who sticks around in England? How much overtime do you have to do at £6.08 an hour before you can buy an average-priced £160K home?

why do you have to buy a property?

[buctootim]

my answer would be a re-introduction of work houses.

 

That doesnt work either. Providing artifical jobs costs more than it saves, as the Remploy factory closures demonstrates.

[bridge too far]

As much as I support measures to make the workshy slobs work, I just can't see how this can possibly work. Let's say the DSS tell these single mums to move back home, and then their parents say they don't want them. What happens then?

 

Benefits slobs may well be lazy scum, but these slob families know all the fiddles - it's what they do, and they'll soon cotton on that all they've got to do is make their slob children homeless and the government will provide.

 

my answer would be a re-introduction of work houses.

 

Benefit claimants are not all 'slobs'. Many of them are there through no fault of their own - being made redundant for example. And it's not right to just talk of 'single mums'. As I pointed out earlier, unless things have changed, it takes two to make a baby but I don't see so much criticism levelled at 'single dads'.

 

But it's the welfare of the children in families that lose benefits that concerns me most. It can't ever be right that a child goes hungry or homeless through no fault of its own. Taking it to its logical conclusion, we'd begin to see scenes similar to those in Greece where children are just being abandoned because their parents can't afford to raise them - parent who probably had jobs that covered their needs and then lost them because of the dire economic situation there. So many people just about manage on their incomes these days that to lose that income is to lose everything.

[dune]

Feck me, dune and I are in some agreement today!

 

dune's right about the problem being in the system. Let's examine WFTC in isolation. Why does it exist? Well, basically because the amount of money families have to live on isn't enough. Still isn't, which is why you have reports about working people being in poverty.

 

Lord D's attempt to make a qualitative comparison between the English and the Poles is interesting, but ultimately a little superficial. Polish workers aren't innately any better than English workers. They just have a more powerful incentive to work ( particularly true in the first years of entry ). They can actually do something with the meagre "just above minimum wage" salary Lord D is offering, especially if they are prepared to make some fairly drastic short-term sacrifices to do so (such as living in overcrowded accommodation). They can send the money home and use the disparities of income to actually achieve something back home.

 

How far does "just above minimum wage" get someone who sticks around in England? How much overtime do you have to do at £6.08 an hour before you can buy an average-priced £160K home?

 

Are we in agreement when it comes to work houses?

 

Forget the victorian image, these would be bright and cheerful set-ups whereby slobs are housed and fed (with a tiny allowance) and they forced to work otherwise privilidges are removed.

[badgerx16]

 

Forget the victorian image, these would be bright and cheerful set-ups whereby slobs are housed and fed (with a tiny allowance) and they forced to work otherwise privilidges are removed.

 

Doing what ? Not trying to be snide, but where does this "work" actually come from ? Who are they working for ?

Edited 25 June, 2012 by badgerx16

[pap]

why do you have to buy a property?

 

You don't have to buy a property. It is, however, one of the most tangible stakes in society an individual can have.

 

The point is not about property ownership per se, more about the opportunities on offer to a Polish employee and English employee earning the same wage.

 

The Polish lad can buy his own house in his own country. His English counterpart cannot. Lord D seemingly cannot understand why Polish people might be better motivated. There's a big reason.

[dune]

Doing what ?

 

Wouldn't it be wonderful to do something green and environmentally beneficial. My vision is for modern day treadmills (maybe exercise bikes...) that produce electricity. Every inmate should be medically assessed and given a target - if they don't pedal fast enough and long enough they lose privilidges. This would be doubly beneficial as many benefits slobs are fat and they would lose weight thus making them better prepared to re-enter society.

[dune]

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/6182

[pap]

Are we in agreement when it comes to work houses?

 

Forget the victorian image, these would be bright and cheerful set-ups whereby slobs are housed and fed (with a tiny allowance) and they forced to work otherwise privilidges are removed.

 

Not really, dune.

 

While I admire your intention to spruce up workhouses so that aesthetically, they're not as Dickensian - I'm not keen on the concept of workhouses.

 

Conceptually, workhouses and welfare are pretty similar. They both represent(ed) the drip tray of capitalism, the place where anything that falls out of the system ends up.

 

The big lie here is that it is even possible to achieve 100% employment. The truth ( and it has been true for centuries ) is that (drum roll) not everyone needs to work.

 

Punishing people for endemic failures in our system seems a little counterproductive. I'd sooner we addressed the systemic issues rather than create more sticking plasters.

Edited 25 June, 2012 by pap

[pap]

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/6182

 

16 signatures? Well you're not on your own, kid - but you need around 99,884 more people to agree for it to be debated in Parliament!

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

The Polish lad can buy his own house in his own country. His English counterpart cannot. Lord D seemingly cannot understand why Polish people might be better motivated. There's a big reason.

 

Its just not about motivation. They were respcetful, polite and a credit to their country.

 

We have a whole generation of people who feel that they should have a right to work in their given field. There are certain jobs that they feel are below them. When I left school there was a recession on, jobs were scarce. Most of my mates struggled to get jobs, but my old man kept on and on at me.Used to make me get up when he went to work, asked me each night "what have you done to find work today". His take on it was I could stay at the house rent free, but I had to be looking for a job. He also wouldn't let me go on the **** until I found one. Occasionally, taking me up his local (which was the most boring pub I've ever been in). In the end I ended up getting a job just to shut him up. I was scared of heights at the time, but ended up labouring for a roofer, and this was the pre H&S days, so I used to shiete myself daily. I just worked out that I was more scared of my dad than I was of heights, so went to work and overcame the fear of heights quickly.

 

The point is, I had a middle class upbringing and my parents could easily have kept me until I found a job that fitted with what I wanted. That wasn't an option for them, their policy was get any job and then start looking for what you want. Undoubtably there are youngsters with that attitude, but are there as many as there should be?

 

What doesn't help is the last Govt con job on the young, leading them to believe you had to go to uni. That has driven the "I've spent 3 years on a degree, I'm not going to dig holes" attitude in some of them.

[St Marco]

At one of the local schools here they advertised a job for a caretaker. According to my friend who is a teacher there they had over 100 people apply.

Now I'm all for change and let's be honest it is needed. But what I'm not for is this somehow fantasy belief that there are actual jobs out there for all those people. If we take those people off benefits and say right go get a job or starve that's going to create huge problems.

My opinion Is the government needs to be creating jobs and get businesses moving in the right direction. They estimate they will save £2bn from this change while only recently they threw another £6bn into the banks. Next week they will throw more at it!

 

So obviously benefits needs to change but it masks the real problem which is there are few jobs and less jobs being created. Companies are going under daily and others are having to slash the work forces. Didn't the army say they have to cut back by 10,000 recently? Saving £2bn in the grand scheme of things is nothing when they are just ****ing away money like they are. The great myth about these guys is they are saving money when they aren't. They have burrowed more money then ever.

As I said I'm all for change but when there are no jobs and people go onto benefits and can't find re-employment when trying then how can you just say no more money for you? That will increase crime by loads.

I thought he wanted to help rejoin society? Sounds like he just wants rid of the poor and sick people to me.

[buctootim]

Its just not about motivation. They were respcetful, polite and a credit to their country.

 

We have a whole generation of people who feel that they should have a right to work in their given field.

 

Its apples and pears though. You are comparing the Polish workers (usually young and single) who are motivated and entrpreneurial enough to get on a bus and come to the UK to find work with our underclass. Poland has its drunks, personality disordered, chaotic lifestyles and plain too dim to work as well - but they arent the ones who come to the UK.

[dune]

The point is, I had a middle class upbringing and my parents could easily have kept me until I found a job that fitted with what I wanted. That wasn't an option for them, their policy was get any job and then start looking for what you want. Undoubtably there are youngsters with that attitude, but are there as many as there should be?

 

I believe that the "liberalisation" of schooling (and society in general) is a big factor here. Kids go through school and are encouraged to think of themselves being equal to their elders. They have no fear and thus no respect. And then bang - they go from this fluffy wrapped in cotton wool world and end up in the real world. This is where good management comes into play. They need to be completely reconditioned.

 

I wouldn't dream of complaining about British workers to my MD, because a) it would be a failure on my part to do so; and b) my MD would rightly see this as excuse making for my failure. You have completely the wrong attitude towards British workers. Instead of complaining about them, do something about those you can influence. I see it as a challenge and a thoroughly rewarding one at that. By getting a British worker to work "like a Pole"you end up with a better worker. FACT. For the simple reason you have a good worker that speaks fluent English and in the long run that makes YOUR life a lot easier.

Edited 25 June, 2012 by dune

[Toomer]

I have got a mate who has been made redundant a number of times over the past few years, he has been on a re-training course to open up any new avenues to get back into work and even had to sell his car to make ends meet and has lost count of the number of jobs he has gone after, I have nothing but admiration for him in the manor in which he conducts himself and I hope he gets back into employment soon. Now I know of other people that work the system and grab every penny they can, they always say I can't do this or I can't do that because I have not got the money but they always seem to have money for fags and booze and it gets my back up because it me and others like me who pay for that out of our taxes and they can't be arsed to try a get a job whilst the state keeps them.

[pap]

Its just not about motivation. They were respcetful, polite and a credit to their country.

 

We have a whole generation of people who feel that they should have a right to work in their given field. There are certain jobs that they feel are below them. When I left school there was a recession on, jobs were scarce. Most of my mates struggled to get jobs, but my old man kept on and on at me.Used to make me get up when he went to work, asked me each night "what have you done to find work today". His take on it was I could stay at the house rent free, but I had to be looking for a job. He also wouldn't let me go on the **** until I found one. Occasionally, taking me up his local (which was the most boring pub I've ever been in). In the end I ended up getting a job just to shut him up. I was scared of heights at the time, but ended up labouring for a roofer, and this was the pre H&S days, so I used to shiete myself daily. I just worked out that I was more scared of my dad than I was of heights, so went to work and overcame the fear of heights quickly.

 

The point is, I had a middle class upbringing and my parents could easily have kept me until I found a job that fitted with what I wanted. That wasn't an option for them, their policy was get any job and then start looking for what you want. Undoubtably there are youngsters with that attitude, but are there as many as there should be?

 

What doesn't help is the last Govt con job on the young, leading them to believe you had to go to uni. That has driven the "I've spent 3 years on a degree, I'm not going to dig holes" attitude in some of them.

 

Again, Lord D - can't help that you are missing out on some of the social context. I've lived and worked with a load of Eastern Europeans. One of the things that unites them (apart from some massive inter-nation rivalry) is that they all come from countries that until very recently, were under the yoke of authoritative governments. Fair enough, I accept that 20 year old Agnieska is not necessarily going to have any meaningful direct experience of living like that, but her parents certainly did. Is it really a surprise that the children of the Warsaw Pact countries do everything they are asked without complaining?

 

Let's move onto some of your other points, where I think we have more common ground.

 

I'd like to tackle the "I won't do that job" phenomenon first. I know it exists, but we differ on why it exists. I have some sympathy with your view about too many people going to University. I know too many people armed with 'soft' degrees doing entry level work or a second 'worthwhile' degrees to disagree. That conceded, I don't think you can lay the blame on Labour's policy to get more kids into higher education. You are onto something, though. Aspiration lies at the centre of this, but it goes far wider than the decisions of a single government.

 

For too long, we've collectively sneered at lowlier professions, and I can't say I'm blameless on that front. Those performing them not only suffer the indignity of a crap job, but they also get crap wages to boot. I also think that many of us are guilty of hypocrisy and have seen it happen with my own eyes. It's very easy to state that you'd clean toilets if you had to whilst enjoying the benefits of a professional wage. I doubt that many would.

 

If the Lord D empire collapsed tomorrow, would you really be fit for pushing trollies in TESCO? How would you feel if one of your contemporaries saw you doing it? Particularly if they were relatively well off? I mean no disrespect to trolly persons, btw - did that job myself - but I'm not sure how my ego would hold up with having to do it now.

Edited 25 June, 2012 by pap

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

When you've got odious creatures like Tom Watson sponging on his expenses the left can hardly take the moral high ground now can they?

 

You missed my point. Your comment suggested that you were critical of tax avoidance. On the Jimmy Carr thread people who criticised tax avoidance were termed lefties.

[dune]

You missed my point. Your comment suggested that you were critical of tax avoidance. On the Jimmy Carr thread people who criticised tax avoidance were termed lefties.

 

Not by me.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

If the Lord D empire collapsed tomorrow, would you really be fit for pushing trollies in TESCO? How would you feel if one of your contemporaries saw you doing it? Particularly if they were relatively well off? I mean no disrespect to trolly persons, btw - did that job myself - but I'm not sure how my ego would hold up with having to do it now.

 

I doubt if I would need to. More than likely I would get better provision by just staying on welfare, which is exactly my point.

 

If the local dole office (if there's still such a thing) said "we have a job for you, pushing trollys at Tesco and if you dont take it your benefits will be cut", what would I do?

 

So what if some rich tw at see's me, he should think I'm doing all I can to support the family, not start taking the pi 55 down the golf club.

 

Every week on Question time they'll be some numpty in the crowd telling us how "they'd do anything, they just want a job". I would love for one of the panelists to turn round and say "I'll give you a job, you can clean my house 5 days a week, minimum wage". I wonder how many of the "desperate to work" people would do it, and do it well.

[dune]

If the Lord D empire collapsed tomorrow, would you really be fit for pushing trollies in TESCO? How would you feel if one of your contemporaries saw you doing it? Particularly if they were relatively well off? I mean no disrespect to trolly persons, btw - did that job myself - but I'm not sure how my ego would hold up with having to do it now.

 

Personally i'd be far more ashamed to live on benefits. My dad worked on the farms in the 50's and then spent 30 years in a factory, and my old dear was a housewife but did ironing and cleaning for people - i've been brought up with the ethic that you work. But then you get these slob families that know all the fiddles and they bring their kids up to be slobs who carry on the family trade of milking the system. This cycle must be broken, and the only way you're going to break it is to get a f/ck off stick to them (proverbially of course...).

 

I'd do any menial work if I had to. It'd be embarrassing, but i'd still do it, and I have done it.

[pap]

Personally i'd be far more ashamed to live on benefits. My dad worked on the farms in the 50's and then spent 30 years in a factory, and my old dear was a housewife but did ironing and cleaning for people - i've been brought up with the ethic that you work. But then you get these slob families that know all the fiddles and they bring their kids up to be slobs who carry on the family trade of milking the system. This cycle must be broken, and the only way you're going to break it is to get a f/ck off stick to them (proverbially of course...).

 

I'd do any menial work if I had to. It'd be embarrassing, but i'd still do it, and I have done it.

 

I'd have no problem living on benefits temporarily. As far as I'm concerned, I've paid enough into the system to justify them looking after me if I ever get in the crap.

 

I recognise the attitude you've mentioned and have seen it myself. There is one bloke in particular I'm thinking of. He's almost fifty, got a load of kids and his "job", if you can call it that, is contriving ways to extract free dosh out of the Government. Never paid tax in his life and seems to be passing his "trade" down onto his kids. Personable enough bloke, but at the back of my mind, the fact that he has never even tried is always there. It's difficult not to feel a little resentment at that, and yep, his attitude stinks.

 

He's exactly the sort of person you should be singling out and throwing the book at. Problem is, these reforms aren't really about singling people out. They'll hit a lot of vulnerable people who actually need state assistance ( btf's points on having to go back to destructive parents / not being able to go back completely taken ).

 

He'll attempt to justify his argument with "ah, it's all bolox. we couldn't afford this place if I was working, so why bother". The shame of that is he's right there too.

 

Can't help feeling that we need to attack the problem on multiple fronts. Yes, go after the blatant scroungers - but we also need to work to make this bloke's arguments moot. He shouldn't be able to claim that it doesn't pay to work, yet right now he can - and with considerable evidence. That's a large part of the problem.

[Thedelldays]

I doubt if I would need to. More than likely I would get better provision by just staying on welfare, which is exactly my point.

 

If the local dole office (if there's still such a thing) said "we have a job for you, pushing trollys at Tesco and if you dont take it your benefits will be cut", what would I do?

 

So what if some rich tw at see's me, he should think I'm doing all I can to support the family, not start taking the pi 55 down the golf club.

 

Every week on Question time they'll be some numpty in the crowd telling us how "they'd do anything, they just want a job". I would love for one of the panelists to turn round and say "I'll give you a job, you can clean my house 5 days a week, minimum wage". I wonder how many of the "desperate to work" people would do it, and do it well.

[dune]

I'd have no problem living on benefits temporarily. As far as I'm concerned, I've paid enough into the system to justify them looking after me if I ever get in the crap.

 

I recognise the attitude you've mentioned and have seen it myself. There is one bloke in particular I'm thinking of. He's almost fifty, got a load of kids and his "job", if you can call it that, is contriving ways to extract free dosh out of the Government. Never paid tax in his life and seems to be passing his "trade" down onto his kids. Personable enough bloke, but at the back of my mind, the fact that he has never even tried is always there. It's difficult not to feel a little resentment at that, and yep, his attitude stinks.

 

He's exactly the sort of person you should be singling out and throwing the book at. Problem is, these reforms aren't really about singling people out. They'll hit a lot of vulnerable people who actually need state assistance ( btf's points on having to go back to destructive parents / not being able to go back completely taken ).

 

He'll attempt to justify his argument with "ah, it's all bolox. we couldn't afford this place if I was working, so why bother". The shame of that is he's right there too.

 

Can't help feeling that we need to attack the problem on multiple fronts. Yes, go after the blatant scroungers - but we also need to work to make this bloke's arguments moot. He shouldn't be able to claim that it doesn't pay to work, yet right now he can - and with considerable evidence. That's a large part of the problem.

 

So long as concerted effort is made to clamp down on top end tax fiddlers then no-body can complain about benefits slobs being tackled. What is needed in respect of former is the loopholes closing (not at all difficult as the loopholes are only there because they have been deliberately put there!) and some people made an example of if they then break the law. Give tax fiddlers a choice - like it or lump it. If they don't want to live here they have a choice and despite the rhetoric very few would actually up sticks.

[Special K]

I'd have no problem living on benefits temporarily. As far as I'm concerned, I've paid enough into the system to justify them looking after me if I ever get in the crap.

 

I recognise the attitude you've mentioned and have seen it myself. There is one bloke in particular I'm thinking of. He's almost fifty, got a load of kids and his "job", if you can call it that, is contriving ways to extract free dosh out of the Government. Never paid tax in his life and seems to be passing his "trade" down onto his kids. Personable enough bloke, but at the back of my mind, the fact that he has never even tried is always there. It's difficult not to feel a little resentment at that, and yep, his attitude stinks.

 

He's exactly the sort of person you should be singling out and throwing the book at. Problem is, these reforms aren't really about singling people out. They'll hit a lot of vulnerable people who actually need state assistance ( btf's points on having to go back to destructive parents / not being able to go back completely taken ).

 

He'll attempt to justify his argument with "ah, it's all bolox. we couldn't afford this place if I was working, so why bother". The shame of that is he's right there too.

 

Can't help feeling that we need to attack the problem on multiple fronts. Yes, go after the blatant scroungers - but we also need to work to make this bloke's arguments moot. He shouldn't be able to claim that it doesn't pay to work, yet right now he can - and with considerable evidence. That's a large part of the problem.

 

How would he, or you, know unless he tried?

[Special K]

Personally i'd be far more ashamed to live on benefits. My dad worked on the farms in the 50's and then spent 30 years in a factory, and my old dear was a housewife but did ironing and cleaning for people - i've been brought up with the ethic that you work. But then you get these slob families that know all the fiddles and they bring their kids up to be slobs who carry on the family trade of milking the system. This cycle must be broken, and the only way you're going to break it is to get a f/ck off stick to them (proverbially of course...).

 

I'd do any menial work if I had to. It'd be embarrassing, but i'd still do it, and I have done it.

 

I think Delldays still misses you from the arrangements youse had during those evenings down at the docks.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

 

He'll attempt to justify his argument with "ah, it's all bolox. we couldn't afford this place if I was working, so why bother". The shame of that is he's right there too.

 

Can't help feeling that we need to attack the problem on multiple fronts. Yes, go after the blatant scroungers - but we also need to work to make this bloke's arguments moot. He shouldn't be able to claim that it doesn't pay to work, yet right now he can - and with considerable evidence. That's a large part of the problem.

 

That's exactly the problem, and it's not just people out of work. As I said earlier I've had good hard workers, who have refused prmotion and a higher wage because it would hit their WFTC. Their line is that they'll get a lot more hassle at work being at a higher level and any increase in pay will be cancelled out by a loss of benefit.

[pap]

How would he, or you, know unless he tried?

 

In a sense, you're right. We just don't know. He could have become a millionaire (or whatever other definition of success you may choose to use).

 

However, he can immediately point to jobs he is likely to be able to get, do a bit of maths and say "we couldn't afford the house if I worked".

 

I appreciate that some people can take the longer term route; secure a professional qualification and enter the job market at a level where it does pay to work. Is that a universal option? What do we say to people who just don't have the capability to do that? "You're f**ked, mate?"

 

Earnings and cost of living are massively out of whack. You want a position? I think anyone should be able to support a family if they're in full time employment. Really don't think that's too much to ask.

[buctootim]

Would be interesting to have some objerctive evidence about whether people feel Britain is less fair and more unequal than it used to be. My subjective view is that they do. The gulf between the haves and have very little is so much wider than it used to be that many people feel demotivated and less inclined to try. Its not right but it is understandable.

 

Watching the Alf Ramsey documentary on another thread, and his rented room in an ordinary terraced house whilst playing professionally for Saints compared to Balotelli and his ilk now brings that home.

[toofarnorth]

Are you suggesting that the introduction of food stamps would be a good idea? What about other essentials, such as utility bills, etc? Or the fact that food stamp fraud is rife in the US, the seeming origin of any Conservative idea. It's not a solution - just a crap alternative which isn't as handy as money.

 

Government thinking on this whole issue is naive and inept. There seems to be an underlying belief that by removing benefits, you push people into work. Not really the case at all. People will just spend more of their time in the black market economy, whether that's theft, dealing or whatever. One of the truest things I've ever heard is "you'd be amazed at how much you can buy with a teenth of weed".

 

On your last point about removing kids from destructive families. Where would you see them going, and what criteria would you see them going for? I ask because we already have social services, foster carers and state care. We're already trying to remove the kids that are most at-risk from harm. How would you widen your criteria to re-house those children that aren't already in the system?

 

I think he is suggesting some sort of pre-paid VISA card that is pre-programmed to only be accepted on groceries. I'm sure VISA or a major card company would be thrilled for the opportunity and would not be as susceptible to fraud.

 

Other arrangements could be made for direct payment of bills etc.

[jawillwill]

I don't get what all the fuss is about. It seems well fair to me.

[SaintRichmond]

If Cameron really IS going to slash Welfare, what better place to start than Farton Krap ???

[pap]

I don't get what all the fuss is about. It seems well fair to me.

 

Ali G says hello.

[Special K]

In a sense, you're right. We just don't know. He could have become a millionaire (or whatever other definition of success you may choose to use).

 

However, he can immediately point to jobs he is likely to be able to get, do a bit of maths and say "we couldn't afford the house if I worked".

 

I appreciate that some people can take the longer term route; secure a professional qualification and enter the job market at a level where it does pay to work. Is that a universal option? What do we say to people who just don't have the capability to do that? "You're f**ked, mate?"

 

Earnings and cost of living are massively out of whack. You want a position? I think anyone should be able to support a family if they're in full time employment. Really don't think that's too much to ask.

 

Who says it is. On the other foot, i dont think its too much to ask to insist layabout scroungers stop having kids they cant afford to keep and expect me and a whole load of other to pay for.What came first, the shyte work ethic or the 6 kids?

[Thedelldays]

Who says it is. On the other foot, i dont think its too much to ask to insist layabout scroungers stop having kids they cant afford to keep and expect me and a whole load of other to pay for.What came first, the shyte work ethic or the 6 kids?

one of the other proposals is to cap the child benefits to 3 kids..

again, makes total sense

[derry]

I have no objection to people who have put in taking out. I do object to people who have contributed nothing living off benefits. Years ago the child benefit was a tax relief and worked well for the majority who worked and paid tax. One year it was abolished and an allowance paid for each child leading to the existing situation. Change it back.

[pap]

Who says it is. On the other foot, i dont think its too much to ask to insist layabout scroungers stop having kids they cant afford to keep and expect me and a whole load of other to pay for.What came first, the shyte work ethic or the 6 kids?

 

So why not take the next logical step and sterilise anyone who fails their SATs?

[bridge too far]

I have no objection to people who have put in taking out. I do object to people who have contributed nothing living off benefits. Years ago the child benefit was a tax relief and worked well for the majority who worked and paid tax. One year it was abolished and an allowance paid for each child leading to the existing situation. Change it back.

 

How are, for example, school leavers unable to get work supposed to 'contribute'?

 

Actually, that statement's a bit wrong as everyone contributes to some extent unless, of course, they never, ever buy anything.

[Thedelldays]

How are, for example, school leavers unable to get work supposed to 'contribute'?

 

Actually, that statement's a bit wrong as everyone contributes to some extent unless, of course, they never, ever buy anything.

they could always live at home.

of course, you will tell me about all these abusive parents and druggie parents like it is quite common...