Are these two right or wrong....?

[Thedelldays]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2270247/ITV-This-Morning-Couple-living-17k-handouts-say-working-minimum-wage-unfair.html

 

on another note...Tony Blair has been given a National award by Poland for ensuring thousands on their countrymen were able to come here no questions asked..

Edited 30 January, 2013 by Thedelldays

[Essruu]

Pair of ****ing ******s.

[Viking Warrior]

and from skatesville.

[Barry Sanchez]

There is a case that the system is to blame as opposed to the recipients, what do other Countries do, thats what I say, having lived abroad myself they are not so generous, Frances welfare system is better but people are either ignorant or simply dont want to know they all pay far far higher taxes.

Work has to pay.

[Sharktopus]

At least they're honest about it. And realistically I reckon a fair number of people would do the same, why put yourself at risk of losing out financially, spending 12 hours a day at work when the government will pay the same, or at least an amount you can have what you consider to be a decent lifestyle on.

 

The system is what is wrong.

[CB Saint]

Problem is as soon as you try to fix the system - ie making living on benefits unpalatable to the likes of this couple, you get a ton of squawking from everyone.

[Barry Sanchez]

I dont think benefits should be unpalatable, they should be handled with care and dignity, the panorama program on Monday was a disgrace for the long term disabled on benefits, the Beveridge report was not designed for what we have and what we have is the equivlilent of a house with extensions on extensions (top ups).

Long term sickness is the one the Government needs to look at, my friend works at a large centre for this and its growing at a huge rate as that is not classed as unemployed, the long term work shy will go over to sickness benefit, this should stop.

[Saintandy666]

Wel, 17k for two people isn't much at all. I have no idea why they couldn't move down a grade or two for a while, whilst still applying for other jobs.

 

The answer is probably similar to one the current government has come up with, where benefits are tapered off on a scale as you get back into work instead of just dropping off completely.

[trousers]

Problem is as soon as you try to fix the system - ie making living on benefits unpalatable to the likes of this couple, you get a ton of squawking from everyone.

 

This

[pap]

They are right and wrong.

 

Working wage is far too low for most people. Half the country is struggling with personal debt, and your average house costs six times your average salary.

 

The government reckon they'll fix all this with universal credit, where it always pays to work. That'll probably involve mucking about with benefits enough to make that true.

 

I remember my aunts and uncles moving out of my nan's place when they were around age 20. They moved straight into council accommodation, saved up and bought their own places a few years afterward. They were incentivised to take that route because there was something achievable at the end of it. People aren't buying houses now until they are in their 30s.

 

People need goals. I'd argue that the high cost of everything is putting perfectly reasonable life goals, such as having a steady job or being able to house your family off your own back, well out of reach of your average person.

[Thedelldays]

And pap, you don't have a problem with open border policies driving wages down and crowding Britain...

[CB Saint]

They are right and wrong.

 

Working wage is far too low for most people to acheive the standard of living to which they believe they are entitled. Half the country is struggling with personal debt, and your average house costs six times your average salary.

 

The government reckon they'll fix all this with universal credit, where it always pays to work. That'll probably involve mucking about with benefits enough to make that true.

 

I remember my aunts and uncles moving out of my nan's place when they were around age 20. They moved straight into council accommodation, saved up and bought their own places a few years afterward. They were incentivised to take that route because there was something achievable at the end of it. People aren't buying houses now until they are in their 30s.

 

People need goals. I'd argue that the high cost of everything is putting perfectly reasonable life goals, such as having a steady job or being able to house your family off your own back, well out of reach of your average person.

 

Fixed

[tony13579]

They have a point though. I know I am comparing my single income with thier joint income but....

 

If I earn £30,000 I pay £7067 in deductions (4379 tax and 2688 NI) I take home £21,895. I am only £4215 better off than them at work before I have paid for travel to work, parking and work clothes. Parking is £8 a day in southampton £1472 (4day week 46 weeks) leaves me £2743 £690 on petrol, a pair of trousers, five good ****s a year £170.... Leaves me £1883 or £36 a week

[pap]

And pap, you don't have a problem with open border policies driving wages down and crowding Britain...

 

I actually do, but as I said before, they're not responsible for the lack of opportunity in this country. They didn't move our jobs to the Far East or over-emphasis Britain's economy on nebulous financial services, did they? They didn't decide that you and I had to bail the bankers out, they're not overspending on the UK budget every year and they didn't kick off and perpetuate globalisation, which'll ultimately lead to some wide-scale conflict.

 

Think it's bad now? In 20 years time, I'd be surprised if we have any manufacturing jobs here, as opposed to the 10% or so we have now.

[Barry Sanchez]

Now now, Dell dont be using pefectly reasonable reasons for debate into a conversation, you will get the r word thrown at you and people smearing with you being in a far right organisation.

[Thedelldays]

And yet. You would still welcome millions here with open arms.

 

Regardless that there are no jobs and no where to live.

[pap]

Fixed

 

You're wrong, sir.

 

If you work 40 hours a week, you should be able to support yourself. We are paying housing benefit to people in work that don't earn enough money to live.

 

A privately rented house in the Flower Roads estate will set you back around £1100 a month. Try doing that on minimum wage.

[pap]

And yet. You would still welcome millions here with open arms.

 

Regardless that there are no jobs and no where to live.

 

Where have I said that?

 

FFS Jamie, try and pull people up on things they say, not things you imagine.

 

A lot easier for the rest of us.

[Thedelldays]

You're wrong, sir.

 

If you work 40 hours a week, you should be able to support yourself. We are paying housing benefit to people in work that don't earn enough money to live.

 

A privately rented house in the Flower Roads estate will set you back around £1100 a month. Try doing that on minimum wage.

 

That is because we have too many people living here pap...

[pap]

That is because we have too many people living here pap...

 

Nope, it's because houses are overvalued and stock of social housing is in short supply, largely because the Tory government of the 1980s gave people like your mum free money. Worse, councils receiving that money were not allowed to use it to replace the lost housing stock.

 

Short-termism all the way.

[Barry Sanchez]

Nope, it's because houses are overvalued and stock of social housing is in short supply, largely because the Tory government of the 1980s gave people like your mum free money. Worse, councils receiving that money were not allowed to use it to replace the lost housing stock.

 

Short-termism all the way.

 

I agree with you on that, turned a socialist and enemy of the state into a follower of it overnight, the working man has to take some blame as well though, I know many who still refuse to buy their council house on principle.

Simply saying that the houses problem would solve overcrowding of a Nation is simplistic though as there are is far more infrastructure involved, roads, transport, hospitals and schools.

[Barry Sanchez]

Nope, it's because houses are overvalued and stock of social housing is in short supply, largely because the Tory government of the 1980s gave people like your mum free money. Worse, councils receiving that money were not allowed to use it to replace the lost housing stock.

 

Short-termism all the way.

 

I thought all people who came to these shores under you description were highly skilled and gave a lot to the Nation? Whilst this is true to an extent I dont understand how such highly skilled people require social housing when they surely have sold their houses from their respective homeland and bought houses here, so your point surely is moot pap?

[Thedelldays]

Nope, it's because houses are overvalued and stock of social housing is in short supply, largely because the Tory government of the 1980s gave people like your mum free money. Worse, councils receiving that money were not allowed to use it to replace the lost housing stock.

 

Short-termism all the way.

 

So, there is not enough places for people to live in 2013?

 

No matter what happened 25 years ago....just opening up despite not enough social housing is mental

 

There is not enough houses to live in... No matter how you slice it

[Barry Sanchez]

I predict pap will post on this about an hour when no one else is on here, he does that to me.

[pap]

So, there is not enough places for people to live in 2013?

 

No matter what happened 25 years ago....just opening up despite not enough social housing is mental

 

There is not enough houses to live in... No matter how you slice it

 

The housing shortage is acute, and I have no doubt that foreign demand plays its part in driving prices up. Land shortage? Not a bit of it. Kevin McGrath's Who Owns Britain cites that 77% of the population lives on just 6% of the land. Now those figures are from 2001, so add a decade of development onto that. Even so, Britain is not concreted over, not even close.

[CB Saint]

You're wrong, sir.

 

If you work 40 hours a week, you should be able to support yourself. We are paying housing benefit to people in work that don't earn enough money to live.

 

A privately rented house in the Flower Roads estate will set you back around £1100 a month. Try doing that on minimum wage.

 

So spending £22.50 /wk (£1200 pa) on TV plus gods know how much on fags is OK? They have a 47" tele FFS. Why the f*** should I fund them for something that the vast majority of soceity cannot afford to buy.

 

This is what I mean about a sense of entitlement that these people have. You only have to read what this girl said to support this. 'I don’t see that we’re living off the taxpayers, we’re entitled to the money our parents paid all their lives"

 

There genuine people who need benefits, this I have no problem. People like this couple - I have nothing but contempt for.

[Whitey Grandad]

Nope, it's because houses are overvalued and stock of social housing is in short supply, largely because the Tory government of the 1980s gave people like your mum free money. Worse, councils receiving that money were not allowed to use it to replace the lost housing stock.

 

Short-termism all the way.

 

The houses are overvalued because the demand is too high.

[pap]

I predict pap will post on this about an hour when no one else is on here, he does that to me.

 

Great prediction.

[Thedelldays]

The housing shortage is acute, and I have no doubt that foreign demand plays its part in driving prices up. Land shortage? Not a bit of it. Kevin McGrath's Who Owns Britain cites that 77% of the population lives on just 6% of the land. Now those figures are from 2001, so add a decade of development onto that. Even so, Britain is not concreted over, not even close.

 

So, in the absence of 5 million new homes and the current 2.5m out of work.

 

Would it not be wise to pretty much shut up shop... Bar the essential skilled people.... And sort the country our for all of us already here... No matter what language you speak or the colour of your skin.

 

Is that an utterly sensible idea... For say, 5 years minimum? Then after, allow a proper controlled immigration policy that caters for the needs of the country... And the capacity of the social/public services???

[pap]

So spending £22.50 /wk (£1200 pa) on TV plus gods know how much on fags is OK? They have a 47" tele FFS. Why the f*** should I fund them for something that the vast majority of soceity cannot afford to buy.

 

This is what I mean about a sense of entitlement that these people have. You only have to read what this girl said to support this. 'I don’t see that we’re living off the taxpayers, we’re entitled to the money our parents paid all their lives"

 

There genuine people who need benefits, this I have no problem. People like this couple - I have nothing but contempt for.

 

47 inch TVs are not expensive. If they were rolling around in a yacht, then I could potentially see your point. Don!t know why you're moaning about the ciggie habit. Most of that money goes straight back to the government.

[pap]

The houses are overvalued because the demand is too high.

 

And the other side of that demand equation?

 

Supply. Of which there is little.

[Barry Sanchez]

The housing shortage is acute, and I have no doubt that foreign demand plays its part in driving prices up. Land shortage? Not a bit of it. Kevin McGrath's Who Owns Britain cites that 77% of the population lives on just 6% of the land. Now those figures are from 2001, so add a decade of development onto that. Even so, Britain is not concreted over, not even close.

 

Where would you build?

Where would the author build?

Brownfields are very expensive to reclaim and who would pay?

Building in the Countryside is expensive and who would subsidize that?

Social housing should be built BUT it should never be sold.

Those % are only for the ingnorant, would you build a huge estate in the Grampians? Dartmoor? New towns fail(bar Milton Keynes), Skelmersdale outside Liverpool is a classic example of this.

[Thedelldays]

47 inch TVs are not expensive. If they were rolling around in a yacht, then I could potentially see your point. Don!t know why you're moaning about the ciggie habit. Most of that money goes straight back to the government.

 

An ex used to work in social services. She used to deliver free laptops/clothes vouchers/bus passes to families that had very big houses... All kitted out. Sky dish on the wall and a car... She used to dish out gifts from the labour government that she could not afford herself.

 

When she could not make visits and informed people that they would have to stop by the community centre to pick things up themselves. They used to go utterly mental.

 

This was not a one off but the norm a few years ago.

[pap]

So, in the absence of 5 million new homes and the current 2.5m out of work.

 

Would it not be wise to pretty much shut up shop... Bar the essential skilled people.... And sort the country our for all of us already here... No matter what language you speak or the colour of your skin.

 

Is that an utterly sensible idea... For say, 5 years minimum? Then after, allow a proper controlled immigration policy that caters for the needs of the country... And the capacity of the social/public services???

 

I have long thought that a period of consolidation is the way to go. Time to catch our breath, to get a sense of who we are as a nation.

 

Won't happen.

[Thedelldays]

I have long thought that a period of consolidation is the way to go. Time to catch our breath, to get a sense of who we are as a nation.

 

Won't happen.

 

Fair enough.

[Barry Sanchez]

Great prediction.

 

Hows Shirley or is it Chester?

[Barry Sanchez]

I have long thought that a period of consolidation is the way to go. Time to catch our breath, to get a sense of who we are as a nation.

 

Won't happen.

 

You thought that did you? I bet if I said that yesterday you and the other dude would of had a field day, because you are getting pumped you are softening thats all pap.

Edited 30 January, 2013 by Barry Sanchez

[pap]

Where would you build?

Where would the author build?

Brownfields are very expensive to reclaim and who would pay?

Building in the Countryside is expensive and who would subsidize that?

Social housing should be built BUT it should never be sold.

Those % are only for the ingnorant, would you build a huge estate in the Grampians? Dartmoor? New towns fail(bar Milton Keynes), Skelmersdale outside Liverpool is a classic example of this.

 

There are plenty of places within a 1 mile radius of me lying unloved and undeveloped. Dead shopping centres, defunct businesses. The amount of buildings that have had their roof taken off ( doesn't attract tax as a building if something has no roof ) is staggering. It is a scandal that in a time of genuine need, so much urban land is lying fallow for commercial reasons.

 

There are also a ton of houses from the 1900s that should probably be pulled down and built over.

 

Don't accept that the countryside is prohibitively expensive to build in. Think NIMBYism and environmental protection has a big part to play in a lot of decisions, not to mention the shocking cost of land.

 

 

I've mentioned this before, but I genuinely think a land tax is the way to go. Would kickstart a great deal of activity in resolving the supply issue.

 

In terms of who should subsidise that, gotta be the taxpayer. Really not a problem if there is something at the end of it.

[pap]

You thought that did you? I bet if I said that yesterday you and the other dude would of had a field day, because you are getting pumped you are softening thats all pap.

 

I've made the same statement on here loads of times, going back years.

 

I am from immigrant stock, too.

[Barry Sanchez]

I've made the same statement on here loads of times, going back years.

 

I am from immigrant stock, too.

 

We all are, I have Irish/Welsh blood but then again most of England does, immigration is what made and makes our Country great, protecting it therefore from "rampant immigration" should be a given from all caring citizens surely?

Frank Field Labours own commented on this, surely you know the right dont monopolize worry and concern over immirgration and even the left, centre and some Liberals show worry?

 

 

Of course you do pap, of course you do.

[Barry Sanchez]

There are plenty of places within a 1 mile radius of me lying unloved and undeveloped. Dead shopping centres, defunct businesses. The amount of buildings that have had their roof taken off ( doesn't attract tax as a building if something has no roof ) is staggering. It is a scandal that in a time of genuine need, so much urban land is lying fallow for commercial reasons.

 

There are also a ton of houses from the 1900s that should probably be pulled down and built over.

 

Don't accept that the countryside is prohibitively expensive to build in. Think NIMBYism and environmental protection has a big part to play in a lot of decisions, not to mention the shocking cost of land.

 

 

I've mentioned this before, but I genuinely think a land tax is the way to go. Would kickstart a great deal of activity in resolving the supply issue.

 

In terms of who should subsidise that, gotta be the taxpayer. Really not a problem if there is something at the end of it.

 

As I said pap brownfield sites are expensive to build, if you refer to the Edge Lane shopping then yes its should be turned into social housing but who will pay? Who will pay for tansport links, extension of roads? The house buyer? Who can afford that? Who will pay for the utilities and services to provide this new estate in the middle of nowhere?

 

 

Anyway off to walk the hound.

[a1ex2001]

They are scum and sadly the system lets these mouth breathing morons take this lifestyle choice.

 

Job Seekers allowance LOL

[Ekelund24]

So spending £22.50 /wk (£1200 pa) on TV plus gods know how much on fags is OK? They have a 47" tele FFS. Why the f*** should I fund them for something that the vast majority of soceity cannot afford to buy.

 

This is what I mean about a sense of entitlement that these people have. You only have to read what this girl said to support this. 'I don’t see that we’re living off the taxpayers, we’re entitled to the money our parents paid all their lives"

 

There genuine people who need benefits, this I have no problem. People like this couple - I have nothing but contempt for.

 

Don't forget the quote, "That no one helps them with the utility bills"

 

If they are entitled to the money their parents paid all their lives then the parents shouldn't be, so no pension (not that it is a lot) and no NHS care.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

It's hard.

 

It's clearly an emotive subject. One that I don't think is helped by the way politicians frame the debate as Workers v Scroungers.

 

Firstly, the system is clearly wrong. One of my biggest gripes with Labour, and the legacy 12 years of New Labour is a system where you are better off not working than working.

 

How you can blame parents for not working when they will be better off on benefits? Put simply, if you are raising a child, you surely (I am guessing, not being a parent) want to be able to provide as much for them as possible. If you are in a better position to do so by living on benefits, why would you not take that option?

 

It's frustrating when you see stories like this in the press (more often than not the Daily Mail), as these are clearly extreme stories, and not representative of every single person claiming benefits.

 

I have personal experience with this, having been unemployed for 2 years, I was in a position where I had to claim housing & job seekers. I'd much rather not have, but it was that or sleep on the streets.

 

Living on benefits is far from fun. There is a huge stigma attached, and once in the system of unemployment etc, it's very hard to get out of.

 

Personally, I am thankful to live in a country where we have these safety nets to protect people. Sadly, as is the case with all these things, there will be those who abuse the system, and even more sad are those that still fall through this net.

 

Just because a system has some flaws, and some that abuse it, I don't believe this is reason enough to stop having insurance nets to help those that truly need it.

 

That said, the system clearly needs to be improved, as this simply isn't on.

[pap]

As I said pap brownfield sites are expensive to build, if you refer to the Edge Lane shopping then yes its should be turned into social housing but who will pay? Who will pay for tansport links, extension of roads? The house buyer? Who can afford that? Who will pay for the utilities and services to provide this new estate in the middle of nowhere?

 

 

Anyway off to walk the hound.

 

I do mean Edge Lane as it goes. The situation there has almost nothing to do with cost of building, and almost everything to do with an IoM-based property developer leaving those sites fallow deliberately after a dispute with the council.

 

He wanted to build Liverpool One (or something quite like it) on the Lane. The council approved Liverpool One instead. A decade of inner city Liverpool just not being used.

 

No roads need to be extended. You would know this if you knew the area. It's basically the entry point for anyone approaching Liverpool from the east or south. Roads are not something we lack.

[Big Bad Bob]

Living on benefits is far from fun. There is a huge stigma attached, and once in the system of unemployment etc, it's very hard to get out of.

 

Not ignoring the rest of your post but, unfortunately, there is a generation coming through who have known only the benefit culture as that is what their parents brought them up under.

 

They feel they are entitled to the benefits and will do all they can to make sure that they get as much as possible.

 

Sweeping generalisation I know but this generation is usually centred in the old council estates, Poole's examples being Turlin Moor or Rossmore!!

[Whitey Grandad]

And the other side of that demand equation?

 

Supply. Of which there is little.

 

There used to be a lot of supply but it kept getting used.

[Barry Sanchez]

I do mean Edge Lane as it goes. The situation there has almost nothing to do with cost of building, and almost everything to do with an IoM-based property developer leaving those sites fallow deliberately after a dispute with the council.

 

He wanted to build Liverpool One (or something quite like it) on the Lane. The council approved Liverpool One instead. A decade of inner city Liverpool just not being used.

 

No roads need to be extended. You would know this if you knew the area. It's basically the entry point for anyone approaching Liverpool from the east or south. Roads are not something we lack.

 

Commonsense and obviously driving in the area is something you lack.

 

Do you know how busy that road is in rush hour? As you live in Chester you dont.

The A561/M56 Runcorn/Liverpool is also a heavily used route.

L1 or Edge Lane? Are you for real? There is no contest, the area is very very run down and again who would pay for that?

Why would you advocate heavier car use over building something in the City centre that can be used by train, bus and car?

 

Common sense young pap, common sense. Is it Mr Gubay of Peel Holdings?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Not ignoring the rest of your post but, unfortunately, there is a generation coming through who have known only the benefit culture as that is what their parents brought them up under.

 

They feel they are entitled to the benefits and will do all they can to make sure that they get as much as possible.

 

Sweeping generalisation I know but this generation is usually centred in the old council estates, Poole's examples being Turlin Moor or Rossmore!!

 

I do agree to an extent.

 

I just feel we should be careful about making such sweeping statements, and framing the entire benefits debate around this.

 

For every person that abuses the system, I reckon there are probably 2/3 that truly need it.

 

I dunno, maybe I'm wrong, I'm just going off my own personal experiences of the situation - I don't really know how else to do it.

 

Personally, I was desperate to get into work (my stint unemployed was straight after uni), and found myself applying for (and being rejected for) all sorts of low-paid unskilled roles I never considered going for when deciding to saddle myself with upwards of £30k's worth of debt when working my arse off to get into a good uni and get a degree.

[pap]

Not ignoring the rest of your post but, unfortunately, there is a generation coming through who have known only the benefit culture as that is what their parents brought them up under.

 

They feel they are entitled to the benefits and will do all they can to make sure that they get as much as possible.

 

Sweeping generalisation I know but this generation is usually centred in the old council estates, Poole's examples being Turlin Moor or Rossmore!!

 

I'd be one of those kids. Mum was a single parent when it wasn't fashionable to be so. Income support the whole way through, always short on money, had to go without herself to feed us at times.

 

I knew then and there that I was never going to follow that route, and I have quite a few mates from school in similar circumstances who thought exactly the same way.