At least some people can be bothered...

[pink_triangle]

When I first read this thread I was shaking my head at the bollocks that was been said. So a family on the dole can't have Sky, even though it is up to them how they choose to spend their money.

[RABun]

I still think you are basing your view on the fact that you might drive round an estate and see sky dishes on the sides of houses. Most people that live there probably work, although some might have tax credits or whatever. If you find the people that live entirely on benefits, there won't be very many who have luxury goods, such as sky tv, its just not possible to have these things on the amount of benefit you get. Your views are so predjudiced and short sighted.

My view is based on people i know/knew. The only ones that actually buy luxury goods with their benefit money are the ones that are fiddling the system, and those are a small minority too, and some of them do this because they might be on a cash in hand day to day job, such as hod carrying where they don't know week on week how much work they are going to get. this makes it really difficult to come off benefit, though i'm not condoning cheating the system.

Believe me most people are not living the high life you assume they are. Also the ones you assume to be on benefits are probably not, though they might live in a Housing Association or Council House. they are still paying rent and taxes.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Completely disagree, the purpose of benefits is not to enhance a persons television viewing experience it is to ensure people have access to food, shelter, clothes, electricity etc. If people on benefits have enough money to pay for a sky tv subscription then they are getting too much benefits. In this case they need to look at the way they are calculated and ensure these people get less and people who are on benefits but struggling to get by month by month get more.

There is only a limitted pot of money and it has to be targeted where it is most needed. Ensuring it is financially viable for a single mother to work is far more important than ensuring someone has access to live premiership matches and premium movies. I work and cant afford sky tv so i go without. As a tax payer I would not have a problem if I was told I would have to pay £10 extra a month to help meet the childcare costs of single parents wanting to work. I however dont think I should have to subsidize expensive luxury tv packages.

I have never read the daily mail and never voted conservative. However that doesnt automatically mean I support wastage of taxpayers money.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Believe me most people are not living the high life you assume they are. Also the ones you assume to be on benefits are probably not, though they might live in a Housing Association or Council House. they are still paying rent and taxes.

[pink_triangle]

Im not basing my opinions on driving around council houses or reading newspapers. I am basing them on visiting patients in home as part of my job and knowing they are not working. I see a lot of people on both sides of the fence. I come across people who gloat about all the benefits they get while others are in despair because of the lack of support they get. I am not anti benefits and as I have said would happily pay more to help those who need it.

Im not an expert on all the factors in calculatinf benefits but its clear there is not always a fair distribution and this needs to be looked at. While the daily mail readers who say everyone on benefits are living a great life are talking rubbish. The people on the other side who think it is extremely rare for people to be getting more than they need are also naive.

[oafc0000]

The facts are that most people on benefits would like to be off them...

There are a reasonable amount though that have no interest in getting off them and it is them that piss me off... Regardless of how small or big in number they are...

It seems when anyone dare attack them the white horse riders come steaming in saying the same old boring lines. Some people need benefits... Not everyone wants to be on them... Yeah we f**king know!! and we don't read the Daily Mail just because we don't want to fund some lazy twat who has not interest in contributing to society... ffs...

Its the ones with no interest that are being slagged off and rightly so...

Edited July 30, 2010 by oafc0000

[sifi]

The facts are that most people on benefits would like to be off them...

There are a reasonable amount though that have no interest in getting off them and it is them that piss me off... Regardless of how small or big in number they are...

It seems when anyone dare attack them the white horse riders come steaming in saying the same old boring lines. Some people need benefits... Not everyone wants to be on them... Yeah we f**king know!! and we don't read the Daily Mail just because we don't want to fund some lazy twat who has not interest in contributing to society... ffs...

Its the ones with no interest that are being slagged off and rightly so...

[oafc0000]

You might well be slagging off benefits cheats and scroungers, but other people on here are not. Apparently every young mother in Stoke is on benefits and a single mother, for example.

[sifi]

That isn't the way I read the comments... I know what he was getting at...

[oafc0000]

He wrote " see no reason why I should care about all these single mums I see wandering round Hanley/Stoke pushing prams with 2 kids, aged 20?"

How does he know they are single mothers? That's pure and simple prejudice.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

The facts are that most people on benefits would like to be off them...

There are a reasonable amount though that have no interest in getting off them and it is them that piss me off... Regardless of how small or big in number they are...

It seems when anyone dare attack them the white horse riders come steaming in saying the same old boring lines. Some people need benefits... Not everyone wants to be on them... Yeah we f**king know!! and we don't read the Daily Mail just because we don't want to fund some lazy twat who has not interest in contributing to society... ffs...

Its the ones with no interest that are being slagged off and rightly so...

[oafc0000]

Contributing to society? That is the phrase that gets my back up. But the moment you saw "they are not contributing" you have to include everyone on benefits. You do not differentiate. Why don't you just come out with what you mean and say "They don't pay taxes"

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Include everyone on benefits ? I clearly pointed out I was only pissed off at the ones who have no interest in getting off benefits...

Silly billy

[oafc0000]

No I am not. How are you able to differentiate between those that do and do not. Is it a time thing? Is it the thing that they have decided to get sky so ergo they do not want to get off the dole? Is it anecdotal evidence from the man in the pub.

Edited July 30, 2010 by oafc0000

[oafc0000]

The government is bringing sanctions to target them but will in fact target many others at the same time. I was told at a DWP seminar recently that the amounnt of unclaimed benefits (tax credits, housing benefits etc) far outweighs the amount overpaid (16 billion to 3 billion)

Edited July 30, 2010 by oafc0000

[lost]

saw this on the beeb today

Single benefit payment among 'radical' welfare plans

All out-of-work benefits and tax credits could be scrapped and replaced with a single payment in a "radical" shake-up of the welfare system.

The idea is one of several options being considered by Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith to make work pay.

He says the current system is "on the verge of breakdown".

in a speech in London, Mr Duncan Smith said "ghettos" of worklessness had been created in Britain where generations were growing up without hope or aspiration.

He said the danger of providing benefits that were adequate in amount and indefinite in duration was that "men settle down to them", and the benefit system had created pockets of worklessness where "idleness" had become institutionalised.

Mr Duncan Smith has said it is a scandal that there are five million people on out-of-work benefits, nearly 1.5 million of them for nine out of the last 10 years.

He wants to remove disincentives in the tax system to finding work, making sure that claimants do not find themselves worse off when starting a job than on state support, which some say is often the case under current arrangements.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Total bollocks... I put the tag dole scrounger on the people who have no interest in getting help, moving on, getting a job... They exist... I have no issue with people who fall on hard times and need help to get back on their feet.. Stop making shit up and then saying that is what I think...

I say x & y about a certain group and then you come in with your big size 10's and start telling me what I think about every benefit claimant in the country DESPITE the fact I said above I only felt this way about said certain group...

[amaidment]

I'm not sure what the answer should be here. It's clear that some (a minority) can exploit the system and get too many benefits, whilst others struggle and clearly don't get enough. It's also clear that there are areas/sections of the population where people are happy to live off benefits indefinitely and don't want to go to work. That can't happen, they need to be encouraged to look for work.

I think there are a few simple things that might help though:

1) The 'standard' (I know there probably isn't such a thing) level of benefits should be enough to get by, but leave very little for anything that could be classed as luxuries. I know some will disagree but benefits should be there to support during temporary hard times, nothing more.

2) Those out of work could be offered voluntary work which benefits the whole community, for an increase in benefits. This would give people the option to gain more money, could get them used to a working routine (albeit part-time), possibly gain useful and transferable skills, and encourage work and effort. This could be offered after a certain period of time of time on benefits (maybe 6 months).

3) The minimum wage should be set above that level of benefits, which would encourage people to look for work.

4) The personal allowance for tax should be set at the same level as the 'standard' benefits level. This should mean that all people who go into work are better off than on benefits, rather than being penalised. The higher tax rates should be increased, with the limits set lower to balance this.

[bunique]

What do people suggest happens when more and more people in Steve P's missus situation end up claiming benefits? I ask because I've spoken to a number of public sector workers (my own Local Authority, colleagues in the PCT and police and other bodies like Connexions for example) who don't expect to have a job in 12 months time. On average each LA will be looking to lay off 25% of its workforce by all accounts, while by 2013 PCTs will cease to exist, along with their workforce of hundreds. Some will be picked up elsewhere but not all (by the farcical cluster commissioning system that will replace it but that's for another thread). The police are also undergoing restructures and cuts of up to a quarter (I don't agree with the argument that all these people were doing "non-jobs" and so are surplus to requirements before anyone starts that debate). So when we all join the queue behind the private sector workers who went through all this in the past couple of years - what happens then?

Edited July 30, 2010 by bunique

[oafc0000]

I am only an 8 btw.

I interprete everything from how you post, what you say and more importantly the tone that it comes across as. You say that you try to specify groups yet still make silly comments about single mothers etc. In this instance you are attacking dole scroungers, which may be a vlaid argument, but you never validate your point with evidence and hard checkable facts. You have still not addressed when I mentioned "contributing to society" and "paying taxes".

Edited July 31, 2010 by oafc0000

[oafc0000]

What do people suggest happens when more and more people in Steve P's missus situation end up claiming benefits? I ask because I've spoken to a number of public sector workers (my own Local Authority, colleagues in the PCT and police and other bodies like Connexions for example) who don't expect to have a job in 12 months time. On average each LA will be looking to lay off 25% of its workforce by all accounts, while by 2013 PCTs will cease to exist, along with their workforce of hundreds. Some will be picked up elsewhere but not all (by the farcical cluster commissioning system that will replace it but that's for another thread). The police are also undergoing restructures and cuts of up to a quarter (I don't agree with the argument that all these people were doing "non-jobs" and so are surplus to requirements before anyone starts that debate). So when we all join the queue behind the private sector workers who went through all this in the past couple of years - what happens then?

[oafc0000]

http://www.peopleman...-six-months.htm

In May more than 7,000 jobs had been advertised in job centres for at least six months, the Sunday Times reported. Nearly one thousand of these roles (942) had remained unfilled for a year or more, and 48 for two years.

Edited July 31, 2010 by oafc0000

[oafc0000]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-10823283

At the moment the tax credit a household gets is based on its own estimate of annual income.

The government has allowed people to earn an extra £25,000 over that estimate before it asks for a refund.

But from next April, that leeway, or buffer, will be reduced to £10,000. The following year it will be cut to £5,000, meaning many more families face being asked to pay money back.

Edited July 31, 2010 by oafc0000

[pink_triangle]

Granted if you are highly educated and skilled you are not going to be seeking a low skilled job... But there surely must come a point (6 months ?) where if you want to claim benefits then the type of work you are looking for comes into question...

[bunique]

You claim the benefits and keep looking for work ?