Obviously not if your having 3 or more children when you have been on benefits for so long.
You can't take what you know for granted that others will also be privy to that knowledge or experience. I am different from you and you cannot assume your next door neighbour knows what you know. Sometimes you have to remind them, looking for work is one thing but to be off benefits for life is another.
You also have to remember not everyone has had a good level of education, not everyone went to University, not everyone had GCSE's even. At least giving them a basic understanding of what benefits are for as well as family planning and parenting will at least do something and helping them, than just leave them in the cold and say 'All right lad go find some work, you can do it'
Do you know what they do at the job centres?? They do not help you at all, it's all the same transcript, even the employees aren't bothered if your in work or not, they even suggest dumbing down your CV to find work, I mean what kind of service is that??
Trust Profile HEXUS Forum FAQ and Colour coding/Post Count awards
'The Fox is cunning and relentless, and has got his Fibre Optic Broadband'
There is next to no point in relating the two until you decide what the repercussions are of falling pregnant are in your Richard Littlejohn esq hypothetical idea. I presume that had your friend failed to show he had 35k liquid assets, then they wouldn’t allow the wife in, right? So there we have the full picture and can make a judgment based on that. I would hazard that your failure to provide any repercussion for the bond/pregnant theory is because you know as well as I do that it would be impossible to implement, would be impossible to not penalise the child for the parents mistake, and is typical of the crap, populist, blue sky thinking ideas that has meant successive governments have never tackled the core problems that underlay this section of society.
The truth is, and this will kill the likes of you as it really does mean investing your (and it is about I, the individual, after all) extremely hard earned tax pounds on those you look to demonise, is to educate those children, improve their quality of life and show them that there is an alternative to the only (and feckless) lifestyle that they’ve ever known. Punitive action against the parent, but which actually harms the child, is so counterproductive that only someone with zero knowledge of sociology or, more likely, someone with an alternate agenda would suggest it’s the way forward to help break benefit dependency.
...but some level of stigma will work wonders eh?
I got to know, personally, the cleaner in my old work and his wife is also a cleaner there. They work for the private company that has the contract to clean the hospital I used to work for and are paid just above the minimum wage. They were there before I got in in the mornings, and were there when I left to go home. I would imagine that they needed the benefits they received to help supplement their modest lifestyle (no car, not much of a social life outside the home) and they had 2 children who, going by your standards, they couldn’t afford. They qualified for housing benefit because of the amount they earned, and used their child benefit to further supplement their income, I know this because the wife used to take half day on the day the child benefit came out to do the shopping. The children were polite, well presented, well-mannered, smart and clearly the centre of the 2 parents life. You are entitled to claim that the parents decision to have them was evil (why use a more sensible and less emotive word like irresponsible or ignorant when Evil will do?), but I wouldn’t begrudge them a single penny of my tax bill and, if it means that to support people like that then some of it will go to the small minority of people like those that appear on Benefits Street, then so be it.
And by the way, the uproar when the MP first announced the 2 child benefit limit may also have had something to do with the fact that that particular MP claimed over 5k of YOUR taxpayers money heating his horse riding school stables and a yard manager's mobile home.
santa claus (14-01-2014)
I agree with your first point, the most humblest people and greatest people are not found at the top of the 'food chain' but at the lowest. The cleaner at my work is extremely hard working, doesn't complain, doesn't whine and most importantly is humble in nature. Always greets me in the morning, is at work at 5am and finishes at 8pm.
now compare that to those higher up to which anecdotally at least, 'power corrupts' and greed corrupts them too. They have sampled what more money gives you so they want more and perhaps unethically do things to get it rather than good old hard work and self improvement.
However I don't agree with your last point. No one is an angel, everyone has something bad about them in someone's else eye, however just because they allegedly are doing something unethical, doesn't mean their opinion is invalid.
I'm sure if we dig deep into your life and tax records we may find something, it might be minor or big, but regardless doesn't make your opinion any less valid does it?
Are you also aware that if he had his own limited company he can like any other average Joe CLAIM Legally for company expenses be it a company phone or heating/rent/ council tax for his premises of work or income
There is always two sides of the story and simply taking things as is, is a very dangerous road to go by and must be taken with a pinch of salt. The daily Mail is a prime example as are most tabloids. Poisoning the voters and skewing/distorting their opinions that just because I don't have it neither should you attitude or the big fat cats get their large pay rises again.
Why are they so anti middle/upper class? it sells and it drives even more cynicism towards those who are earning more and calling for them to be more taxed.
Now I ask how did those middle class and upper class get such highly paid jobs? This isn't Italy where Nepotism is so strife is it? A lot of the middle class/upper class actually actually worked for their degrees, masters, PHD e.t.c got to their positions by being good at it and self improvement.
Not everyone was born into a multimillionaire family or had a silver spoon in utero.
Trust Profile HEXUS Forum FAQ and Colour coding/Post Count awards
'The Fox is cunning and relentless, and has got his Fibre Optic Broadband'
So there are two issues there.
My point is what is DLA mobility meant to be for? Myself I don't think that having a status brand available is that system working, I consider that waste. I also think that looking at providing better public transport is the preferred solution, but I'm anti-car to begin with so this isn't a surprise.
You are putting extreme actions into my comments, eugenics, I've not mentioned.
What I have said is how do you ensure that child benefits and the like are beneficial for the child, rather than the parents. I've already mentioned I think diet can be helped by having schools budged with some money from welfare to provide universal food, abolishing school dinners as they currently are. I would also keep these programs running as much as possible during holiday times.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
stuff that, my child will eat what I provide them with, which will be a balanced healthy packed lunch just as my parents provided me with. All the fatties in the year were on school meals, eating processed meats, fat-tastic crap you wouldn't feed a pig and with a salt content to rival the dead sea. ok, slight exaggeration, but the meals were awful. Again, it's the problem with not persecuting the responsible because of the irresponsible dimwit who sends their kid to school with 3 bags of monster munch and a king-size mars bar instead of a banana, satsuma and egg & Cress sandwiches
Not wishing to comment on that directly, but where someone on benefits has had too many sproggs already there is quite a reasonable expectation to do what a responsible person would do and go on injected implant pill / have the snip. It is not cruel, it is sensible.
Let's do the maths. Too many people, not enough housing, insufficient financial resources in the public coffers. Yup, sounds like there is a need to control population in some way. And you know what, it is even kinder to the existing sproggs of that family. Less crowded house, more attention from parents (hopefully) and less stretch on the family budget if plans to cap benefits do come in.
Again, it is not some cruel torture or punishment, it is asking them to do what any other parent would do. The fall back is far more cruel. Forcible adoption? Though to be frank, if I were the child I might welcome the opportunity to get to be raised by parents who were better able to provide and care for me. And yes, I do know people who've been adopted at various ages and stages of life. All of them are grateful, even if it does leave a few what-ifs and why questions which they each deal with in their own way. That however, seems a far nastier edict to be passed than requiring Mr Reckless Impregnator to go and have the snip.
Well, whenever I worked in the UK, I was under the PAYE category, and never had to claim expenses, so I doubt you'd find much interest there. I do accept that nobody is perfect, but surely to God you can see the irony of a rich, privileged MP, that claimed over 5k in expenses in heating his bloody stables telling people at the bottom of society's ladder, and those least able to defend themselves against his articulate hyperbole, that they are a drain on the public purse? It DOES invalidate his opinion in my eyes, because he's a hypocrite.
It is more the whole if we don't allow people to immigrate due to population concerns, why do we not advocate population control via birth? Only a few people oppose contraception after all.
Have you not seen my first response post to the program? That I see it as a big argument that we must urgently increase funding for drug rehabilitation.
You also don't want me to start on a critique of the school system (something I've familiar with from both sides) I honestly consider it at times to be just bullying, smart kids get board and turned off, slower children get punished for not being the round peg the system wants. We waste so much money on schooling too.
The point is that people are choosing to raise children without the means to support them. Those parents should be reminded that isn't right or acceptable.
Have you watched the program? There is only one family shown (so far) that has been fraudulently claiming benefit, that have two children. The issue is you and I are coming at this from different sides.
Should anyone be entitled to have children without any ability to care for them themselves?
Why are people suggesting that because I obviously think 'no' it means I'm either a child snatcher or eugenics enthusiast. We can just be grown up and ask people not to, there is a good convincing argument.This is just a distraction from the issue, it's not a case of his fraud depriving the welfare budget.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Are you in favour of school uniforms?
The thing is, rather than making a system which allows your child to be provided with a good meal (thanks to your efforts at home) but providing one where every child gets given something as good or maybe even better (plenty of meals are not pack box friendly!)
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Always in favour of uniforms, and they are surely kinder to the lower incomes. Less pressure to have to constantly provide child with the latest trend. Remember my school doing 2nd hand collections and sales to low income families before anyone else got a look in at the stash. It worked. Even the really poor kid who clearly had it rough always had a full uniform and PE kit.
I can only respond to that once you tell me this: Are saying that these people should be advised to use contraception, or have these things forcibly carried out on them, against their will if needs be?
Actually, your economics are just plain wrong. If the UK implemented what you seem to be advocating, and that we stopped all those that are benefit dependent on having children (most people who rely on benefits are working and use it to supplement an income, remember?) there would be a crisis within 2 generations, as we would have an ageing population with not enough taxpayers coming through to pay into the public coffers and support that older generation. I suggest you read about the population crisis in Germany before you champion this particular cause. The trick is not some half-baked population control policy (which if they can’t implement properly in China where they have complete disregard for human rights, then what chance do we have?), but to find a way of getting those children born into families where total benefit dependency exists to reject that predictable cycle and enter the employment market and start paying taxes.
So let me get this straight, the only way to deal with these issues, in your opinion, are either forced contraception, or forced adoption? Is that what you’re saying?
your missing my point, if he had a stable business owning and running horses in a legitimate business how does that invalidate his opinion. Just because of his occupation? I actually agree with his statement in fact and I am not an MP.
What about Joe Public who is not an MP but siphoning his income from his business to an off shore account and illegally avoiding taxes??
What about Amazon and Starbucks who avoid taxes legally do you blame them?? It's the UK government, specifically HMRC who is at fault for having such loop holes or having poor enforcement procedures
Point is where ever you are from in the walk of life, your opinion does count, however if you break the law that is a different matter and different thread
Trust Profile HEXUS Forum FAQ and Colour coding/Post Count awards
'The Fox is cunning and relentless, and has got his Fibre Optic Broadband'
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)