Benefits Street

[herulach]

No they won't. This is the most insulting bit of it all.
The problem comes with fairness.

Someone born 35 years ago will have spent a fraction of their income on housing compared to someone now.

They will have a better quality of life funded by the debt binging they've indulged on.

They will retire earlier yet have similar life expectancy.

You object about that, and you are told to cut down on champers. Don't think I've had any for about 2 years. Right now I have fixed costs that are too high to make a pension contribution that will give me a reasonable quality of life, whilst living one.

This, I'm in the rather fortunate position of working for an employer who makes very generous pension contributions for me (15%) as well as having a wife who's a teacher on the final salary scheme - although that is being heavily eroded (its presently self funding, they're raiding it to cover the other liabilities). My retirement planning assumes I'll have 0 state contribution, and I'm ever so slightly uncomfortable with it. How people on average wages are supposed to have any sort of quality of life in retirement I don't know.

[csgohan4]

It might be worth people taking the time to read through the last big thread on this at hexus:
http://forums.hexus.net/general-disc...s-yay-nay.html

That particular thread brought some interesting suggestions.

However I still stand on my own suggestions for the following and their rationale behind them:

What are benefits for?

For those who are unable to work temporarily/permamently through no fault of their own e.g unable to find job, Company closing, physical/mental disability e.t.c

Although one can argue continuing the cycle of benefits because their parents were on them could be construed as their own fault.

To enable a basic standard or living to include but not limited to food, clothing and a roof over their head, Child care/ raising a child

Therefore should benefits be used for non essential items such as Land Rovers', expensive holidays to the Caribbean e.t.c???????

I have always advocated for benefit stamps/ vouchers to be used for essential items such as food, children' clothes, stationary, education

To those that disagree with above I would like to know your reasoning to why benefits should be for anything more than for essentials.

Also What is your definition of those needing Benefits?


There was also news/ uproar of when a politician suggested when your on benefits and you have more than 3 children your shouldn't receive more child benefit.

There was a time when people used to have 6 + children, I know of someone who had 10 children, not because they wanted more children, but wanted more child benefit.

Now I don't understand the uproar, as if your on benefits it means you don't have a job and don't have money, therefore money is provided by the state. If you have go and have more children, which is irresponsible, why shouldn't the state make a decision as clearly that person doesn't understand simple economics.

You can't afford another child but want to have one anyways and expect the state to pay for it how can this be right? Political correctness can go out of the window for common sense to be honest and importantly it is state funded so it needs to be rationed to those who need it, not to people who expect it.

[Flash477]

Couldn't agree more with the post above

[herulach]

Don't even get me started on motability, biggest scam going. It should cover the cost of a dacia sandero or similar, not the vast majority of a 3 series.

[peterb]

Don't even get me started on motability, biggest scam going. It should cover the cost of a dacia sandero or similar, not the vast majority of a 3 series.

A little harsh...

Taken from the motability website...

The Motability Scheme is directed and overseen by Motability, a national charity that also raises funds and provides financial assistance to customers who would otherwise be unable to afford the mobility solution they need.

Motability Operations is a not-for-profit company responsible for the finance, administration and maintenance of Motability cars, scooters and powered wheelchairs.

http://www.motability.co.uk/about-us/who-we-are/

[opel80uk]

There was also news/ uproar of when a politician suggested when your on benefits and you have more than 3 children your shouldn't receive more child benefit.

There was a time when people used to have 6 + children, I know of someone who had 10 children, not because they wanted more children, but wanted more child benefit.

Now I don't understand the uproar, as if your on benefits it means you don't have a job and don't have money, therefore money is provided by the state. If you have go and have more children, which is irresponsible, why shouldn't the state make a decision as clearly that person doesn't understand simple economics.

You can't afford another child but want to have one anyways and expect the state to pay for it how can this be right? Political correctness can go out of the window for common sense to be honest and importantly it is state funded so it needs to be rationed to those who need it, not to people who expect it.

Ok, so assuming we use the politicians (Tory, by any chance?) idea of rationing the child benefit, we are going to punish the child for the irresponsibility of the parent who doesn’t understand simple economics? Let’s use the people on the programme this thread was started about as our guniea pigs, and I think guniea pigs is quite fitting considering how some of those on benefit, specifically on that programme, have been talked about on this thread:

Do we think that, if we were to cut child benefit for those featured that it will a) lead to them, and their offspring, heading down to the local library to bone up on simple economics, see the folly of their ways, and will mean future generations will break the benefit dependent cycle they are in or b) lead to children going without?

If you think a) then forget about simple economics, you need to bone up on simple sociology. And that’s of course not taking into account those who may have been working and able to afford more children when they had them, but then find themselves (or worse still them and their partner) out of work and no longer able. How would this moronic policy, from a politician who knows nothing of the realities faced by the average working class person today, deal with them?

Furthermore, seeing as most of the people on this thread complaining about those on benefits look at it from their own, selfish, perspective (I,ME, I, ME…..), I thought I’d join in the fun. I have never been unemployed, I have always paid tax, I have luckily never been on benefits, and I did not qualify for child benefit when the changes came in 2010 despite earning what I would imagine would be considered a modest salary by most. And I am delighted that part of my tax contribution went towards benefits for those that are less fortunate than myself, even if that safety net is being abused by a small minority. By focusing on that small minority, and those featured on shows such as Benefits Street - Poverty Porn at its worst, is to fall for one of the oldest con tricks going.

The lack of compassion and self-centered righteous indignation whenever this topic is brought up, usually expressed from those much more fortunate than those who actually avail of benefits, never ceases to amaze me.

[TheAnimus]

What herulach are you saying? People on benefits need them to have their sports Audi you silly.

http://www.motability.co.uk/cars-and...wance_type=dla

:sigh:

The thing is no one really objects to buying a car with a ramp or similar incredibly expensive modification for someone who is wheelchair bound.

But someone who's had a hip replacement hardly needs the sports version of a brand new Audi.

[TheAnimus]

Do we think that, if we were to cut child benefit for those featured that it will a) lead to them, and their offspring, heading down to the local library to bone up on simple economics, see the folly of their ways, and will mean future generations will break the benefit dependent cycle they are in or b) lead to children going without?

If you think a) then forget about simple economics, you need to bone up on simple sociology. And that’s of course not taking into account those who may have been working and able to afford more children when they had them, but then find themselves (or worse still them and their partner) out of work and no longer able. How would this moronic policy, from a politician who knows nothing of the realities faced by the average working class person today, deal with them?

I think the objection is the parents can and do use more children as a way of improving their lifestyle.

The issue is how do you stop that without punishing the child? A crappy parent will still buy booze via a secondary market if you have a voucher system.

A good solution is by providing free at source basic social services for everyone. Local authorities should provide money for free breakfast clubs at schools regardless of childs background (it shouldn't be the poor kids gruel hour), banning any form of packed lunches and providing again universal free at point of service lunches, no lunch money, those who don't qualify parents pay the school directly. Choice maybe limited but it stops school dinners being a perverse business (no competition, in a market for lemons as most children choose badly).

Simple things can be done to really improve the quality of live for all children, without costing *that* much.

Cutting benefits that are paid to parents doesn't preclude providing support for the children.

[peterb]

But someone who's had a hip replacement hardly needs the sports version of a brand new Audi.

But then someone who has had a hip replacement wouldn't necessarily (and certainly not automatically) qualify for any of the mobility allowances, and therefore qualify for motability assistance.

[opel80uk]

I think the objection is the parents can and do use more children as a way of improving their lifestyle.

The issue is how do you stop that without punishing the child? A crappy parent will still buy booze via a secondary market if you have a voucher system.

A good solution is by providing free at source basic social services for everyone. Local authorities should provide money for free breakfast clubs at schools regardless of childs background (it shouldn't be the poor kids gruel hour), banning any form of packed lunches and providing again universal free at point of service lunches, no lunch money, those who don't qualify parents pay the school directly. Choice maybe limited but it stops school dinners being a perverse business (no competition, in a market for lemons as most children choose badly).

Simple things can be done to really improve the quality of live for all children, without costing *that* much.

Cutting benefits that are paid to parents doesn't preclude providing support for the children.

You are quite right, but these duel methods of reform rarely take place. Instead, what is likely to happen, if this particular idea were ever to be implemented, is that the child benefit would capped to 2……. And that’s it, money saved, job done. So the bad parents would still be bad parents, they would have less money after they buy all these excesses, and the child at the end of all of this loses out. And that’s using a bad parent as an example. I imagine that the vast majority of people who receive child benefit for 3 or more children are not like those featured on benefits street, but people who depend on it to provide a basic standard of living.

Simple things can be done, what you advocated being an example of a relatively simple (and good) one, to improve the quality of life for all children. But the fact is, there is going to be a need to have a certain amount of money (or vouchers, the principle is the same) paid directly to the parents of children, it’s unavoidable and, as such, there will be some of those in receipt of that money that will abuse it. There is no way to avoid some children at the poverty end of society going with less than they already do if you choose to cut benefits.

[wasabi]

Compulsory injected contraceptives for long term benefits claimants.

Want kids? Get a job.

[santa claus]

Compulsory injected contraceptives for long term benefits claimants.

Want kids? Get a job.

May as well remove the frontal lobes whilst we're at it eh? I mean, really, come on, you can do better than that.

[wasabi]

May as well remove the frontal lobes whilst we're at it eh? I mean, really, come on, you can do better than that.

Straw man.

[santa claus]

Straw man.

Ah yes, having made a ridiculous statement, a fast exit is always advisable. Everyone shoots from the hip now and then, why not just hold your hands up?

[kalniel]

Compulsory injected contraceptives for long term benefits claimants.

Want kids? Get a job.

So you're effectively saying if you're too disabled to work you (and your partner, who may well be working) aren't allowed to have kids? Nice. Godwin's law in three... two... one...

[peterb]

Ah yes, having made a ridiculous statement, a fast exit is always advisable. Everyone shoots from the hip now and then, why not just hold your hands up?

Ah well, that's OK then, because according to TheAnimus, if its a new hip you are shooting from...

What herulach are you saying? People on benefits need them to have their sports Audi you silly.

http://www.motability.co.uk/cars-and...wance_type=dla

:sigh:

The thing is no one really objects to buying a car with a ramp or similar incredibly expensive modification for someone who is wheelchair bound.

But someone who's had a hip replacement hardly needs the sports version of a brand new Audi.

you'll get a new free ex-gratis brand new Audi sports car.