Am I being too generous ? Or am I too tight ?

Nick Windsor 4 wrote (see)

Screamapillar wrote (see)

 I know there are a few scroungers that milk the state for all it's worth but the majority of people on benefits and, let's be honest even some people in work, find it a struggle. All they need is one unexpected bill and the money can run out.

There are many more than a few who milk this country, and if anyone wants to call those people "nice to have" I'd like to see it. The pity is people out of work are getting what we class as subsistence money but it is way too attractive, take it away and make them self-reliant it's the biggest favour you'll ever do for them. I would like to see zero child benefit for anyone out of work, that will at least stop them breeding like rabbits to earn more money for their lousy tattoo, animal and child collections. Grow up and see it for yourselves

How lovely it must be up there in your ivory tower. Do you have the Daily Mail delivered by the way or do you descend once in a while to visit the newsagents?

BTW who do you think has done this country's economy more damage - benefit scroungers or greedy bankers? Just curious.

Nick Windsor 4 wrote (see)

I would like to see zero child benefit for anyone out of work, that will at least stop them breeding like rabbits to earn more money for their lousy tattoo, animal and child collections. Grow up and see it for yourselves

Would it, though?

Or would there still be families with many more children than they can afford to have, but now those children have to suffer more than they would if the family was at least getting paid benefits?

I'm not dismissing the existence of benefit scroungers and people who see benefits as easy money with no intention of finding work (though I tend to think there are fewer than the Daily Mail would have us believe), but I think people who tend to have large unaffordable families will STILL have large unafordable families.

And an underclass of destitute and poverty-stricken children can only be detrimental on society as a whole.

Both as bad as each other, benefit scroungers are a curse we're encouraging though.

I suppose we could go back a hundred years or so and pay nothing and let the kids go into institutions to be abused or go into service to be abused.....

and those rich people doing it can get even cheap labour to make their wealth as the people will be happy to work for food.........

so thery can do fuck all and get very rich and fat for themselves and their fmilies for ever

These people are not educated and don't understand what they are doing, they just do the best they can to get money by any means, and if we as a society give them £200 for sitting at home, why would they work for £250, if they have two children and can increase their money with a third they will do. We are sending out the wrong message, stop this crap and there will be ample money in the kitty. 

By the way I don't read papers at all.

Wow scroungers vs bankers, tough call, but at least the bankers pay more tax in than they take out so I'm afraid they edge it for me.

So hypothetically Nick, you loose your job for whatever reason. No fault of your own, let's say, but maybe the company you work for goes bust, requires redundancies or whatever.

You're educated (obviously), but it's not easy to find work in your field.

So you go for something temporary and lower paid while you're looking.

You redundancy and savings start getting abit low and you've still not found a 'better' position in your field.

The company you took the temporary job in then makes some cut backs. You were last in, so the first to be layed off. And it was a short term temporary contract this time, so no redundancy.

Again, you're eager and looking for work, but you've been out of your original field of work for some time now and it's getting harder to compete. So you're now competing with other people looking for lower paid temporary jobs... but emplyers are claiming you're 'over qualified'.... it's becoming a vicious circle and harder to find work, even though you're clearly keen and eager.

You are now one of "These People" you mention.

I'm not denying the benefits system is flawed, and there are certainly people claiming far more than their fair share, but it's not all malingerers and scroungers.

I don't have a problem with bankers (generally) or other highly paid people, including politicians for that matter, either.

But get annoyed whith the blanket definition of anyone on benefits as 'scroungers'.... it could happen to any of us given unfortunate circumstances.

I don't see many hands in the air!

I missed your question Wilkie, but Yes *sticks hand in air*

I'll qualify that by saying, not 'regular' in a direct debit kind of way, but in the sense of 'regular ad-hoc donations'... to tin-shakers, sponsor requests, charity shop donations (direct to local shops, rather than the bags that come round), ad-hoc donations direct to particular charities and so on.

Some humanitarian in nature and some not, so it includes animal charities, voluntary work with the National Trust and so on.

I'm not reading all of this and have come to the party *in the kitchen* late, but it's pretty obvious to me, irrespective of which paper I do or do not read...

That some people take the complete piss on benefits and some people really need them and deserve them.

As has always been the case.

Nick Windsor 4 wrote (see)

These people are not educated and don't understand what they are doing, they just do the best they can to get money by any means, and if we as a society give them £200 for sitting at home, why would they work for £250, if they have two children and can increase their money with a third they will do. We are sending out the wrong message, stop this crap and there will be ample money in the kitty. 

By the way I don't read papers at all.

This has to be the biggest pile of tosh I've read on the internet and that's going some. Plus taxation is not charity. The fact you view it as such says an awful lot about your character.

Wilkie - Raises hand. Although I personally think taxation should be increased and the State pay for these things and not have a requirement for charities to provide these services.

Eggyh73 wrote (see)

 

Nick Windsor 4 wrote (see)

These people are not educated and don't understand what they are doing, they just do the best they can to get money by any means, and if we as a society give them £200 for sitting at home, why would they work for £250, if they have two children and can increase their money with a third they will do. We are sending out the wrong message, stop this crap and there will be ample money in the kitty. 

By the way I don't read papers at all.

This has to be the biggest pile of tosh I've read on the internet and that's going some. Plus taxation is not charity. The fact you view it as such says an awful lot about your character.

Wilkie - Raises hand. Although I personally think taxation should be increased and the State pay for these things and not have a requirement for charities to provide these services.

He's right though with a certain percentage of society, that is EXACTLY what they're doing.

I do as well.........and agree with eggys post above

Living on benefits with children is not equal to planning births to gain benefit. Plus you might discover kids ain't cheap, even if you are on benefit.

New year same issues. The rich and powerful who hoard the wealth turn the people against the poor and those that can't defend themselves as the problems of the common man.

Julie, I am reasonably educated because I trained whilst working for most of my working life up to the age of 35 at my own expense, I have been in redundancy situations on 5 occasions and yes I've come out well, why? because I am ready, and I am a worker. No one gave it to me, I did it, I am proud of it, I am not lucky, privileged or anything other than hard working and frankly I don't support the idea that it is impossible to work. Sorry if you don't like that but the picture you paint will never be me.

Eggyh73 wrote (see)

Living on benefits with children is not equal to planning births to gain benefit. 

 

Yes, I agree fully, but how can we change the system to stop some young people seeing it as their only way to get a roof over their head? These kids may be in violent environments or households with drug/alcohol problems... I don't blame them to try to find a way out of that. Each case on an individual basis, but obviously the system can't cope with that. I don't mind my taxes going to those with real need, I do mind them going to lazy twats. How do we filter that system effectively though? People lie to feather their own nests.

Wilkie wrote (see)

I don't see many hands in the air!

Sorry, been busy working to pay for all the scroungers....

Yes we have DDs for 5 charities/good causes a month (not vast amounts) plus occasional additional lump sums and I can't pass an RNLI collection tin without popping some money in.

My biggest issue is people on benefits being able to afford luxuries way above what other (2 adult working full time with 2 kids) households, can't.

Holidays, expensive race entry etc... How the fuck can they do that?