Alexikokopops Posted 20 October 2010 Posted 20 October 2010 A stupid opinion, frequently and ignorantly banded about when not even Cameron has quite come out going that far. I hate how ridiculously right wing people get from positions of privilage. Try being a school leaver with no work experience, no parents to mooch off and no qualifications in the current climate. Yes, there are benefit fraudsters but there's also a whole generation of hopelessly lost people literally stuck on the dole. Shut up and polish my shoes, boy.
Finnegan Posted 20 October 2010 Posted 20 October 2010 That's it, kokopops. No more spooning for you.
Alexikokopops Posted 20 October 2010 Posted 20 October 2010 That's it, kokopops. No more spooning for you. I never liked the way you always had to be big spoon anyway.
z-layrex Posted 20 October 2010 Posted 20 October 2010 A stupid opinion, frequently and ignorantly banded about when not even Cameron has quite come out going that far. I hate how ridiculously right wing people get from positions of privilage. Try being a school leaver with no work experience, no parents to mooch off and no qualifications in the current climate. Yes, there are benefit fraudsters but there's also a whole generation of hopelessly lost people literally stuck on the dole. Yes, but why do we have to pay out the arse for their 8 kids they'll inevitably have? Why do we have to give them money for their endless fags and booze? I work so so hard at that hospital, it affects friendships, relationships and generally everything in my life. As do the jobs of millions of others who work hard. So why the hell should the government get to tax so much of it off me, and then give so much of that to these people? Why can't we just pay for their council house and give them food vouchers so they can eat? Why do we have to give them money?? The people who genuinely need more hep can then be individually assessed. I know how stupid this sounds and I don't mean it in a literal sense. I'm finding it hard to articulate how I feel. To put it simply, I want my money to only go to people who need it and have no other choice. Not to people who are better off not working when they really could. Do you see what I mean? On another note I have a friend who was given a giant iMac on taxpayer money just because she's epileptic. I mean what the hell??
Jon the Hat Posted 20 October 2010 Posted 20 October 2010 A stupid opinion, frequently and ignorantly banded about when not even Cameron has quite come out going that far. I hate how ridiculously right wing people get from positions of privilage. Try being a school leaver with no work experience, no parents to mooch off and no qualifications in the current climate. Yes, there are benefit fraudsters but there's also a whole generation of hopelessly lost people literally stuck on the dole. If you feel that way then you must recognize that Iain Duncan Smith is bang on when he talks about the benefit trap, marginal rates of tax and the fact that way too many people are better off not working? And hence be fully behind the his proposals to try and tackle the problem by simplifying benefits and withdrawing then at a rate which means people who work are always better off? Otherwise where is the incentive for people to even try?
Finnegan Posted 20 October 2010 Posted 20 October 2010 Yes, but why do we have to pay out the arse for their 8 kids they'll inevitably have? Why do we have to give them money for their endless fags and booze? I work so so hard at that hospital, it affects friendships, relationships and generally everything in my life. Thanks. You've just made yourself look like such a childish, ignorant bigot that you've saved me the effort.
Guest Bilo Posted 20 October 2010 Posted 20 October 2010 Yes, but why do we have to pay out the arse for their 8 kids they'll inevitably have? Why do we have to give them money for their endless fags and booze? I work so so hard at that hospital, it affects friendships, relationships and generally everything in my life. As do the jobs of millions of others who work hard. So why the hell should the government get to tax so much of it off me, and then give so much of that to these people? Why can't we just pay for their council house and give them food vouchers so they can eat? Why do we have to give them money?? The people who genuinely need more help can then be individually assessed. The thing is that the administrative costs of all this would be astronomical. Employing somebody to pay off the many thousands of letting agents, distribution of food vouchers via the post (after all, with no money they won't be able to buy computers so the internet will be off limits) and all the other considerations. Yes it is fair to say you wouldn't have the thousands of scroungers taking the piss, but it would represent a case of cutting off the nose of the state to spite its face. The bottom line is that it's cheaper and easier to give people on benefits the money to buy food, clothes and other essential items than for the state to do it for them. It's pretty obvious that central and local government are already grotesquely bloated, largely through Labour's spendthrift approach to the civil service, and such an approach would exacerbate this factor to a ridiculous extent. Also, how can you expect these people to function without money? Bus journeys to job interviews, feeding and clothing their children and all the other prerequisites of modern life would be closed off to them. How on earth are they going to get out of the cycle of benefits and welfare state handouts without being given the tools to do so? There are many people who simply can't be bothered to get a job and in an ideal world, these people would indeed get bugger all from the state but it just isn't that simple. Their children may want to escape that way of life but if you leave their families completely and utterly dependent on food vouchers and the like, I guarantee they'd have no chance of doing so. You can't punish people for being poor, you should try to lift them out of the circumstances that have led to their being poor in the first place. Making them even poorer and dependent on what would amount to rationing would make their lives worse and that of the country as a whole. It's a tricky situation but this whole 'let them eat cake' attitude to the poor has never been and will never be the answer to it.
Tilley Posted 20 October 2010 Posted 20 October 2010 I do to an extent agree with the idea that child benefit should be paid by food vouchers or school uniform vouchers etc. It is quite clear that when you see some of the students at work, the benefits their parents or guardians receive are definitely not being spent on the child.
z-layrex Posted 20 October 2010 Posted 20 October 2010 Thanks. You've just made yourself look like such a childish, ignorant bigot that you've saved me the effort. Ugh I am not talking about everyone, I am only referring to those that DO have so many kids and just live off the benefits because it's more of an income than working. I hate talking to people like you, you're just so fooking PC arent you? Anyone with an opinion over their money being chucked at people who havent worked in years, if ever, and you label them a bigot or tory facist.
Guest Bilo Posted 20 October 2010 Posted 20 October 2010 If you feel that way then you must recognize that Iain Duncan Smith is bang on when he talks about the benefit trap, marginal rates of tax and the fact that way too many people are better off not working? And hence be fully behind the his proposals to try and tackle the problem by simplifying benefits and withdrawing then at a rate which means people who work are always better off? Otherwise where is the incentive for people to even try? I would say the fact that for many people benefits represent a better financial option than working is an indictment of the previous government and perhaps its predecessor. After all, if not for the Thatcher government's wrecking ball to industrial communities we wouldn't have generations of 'ne'er to be employeds' in South Yorkshire, South Wales and the North East. The Thatcher government laid the seeds and then the Blair government, with its naive approach to the welfare state, came along with a massive watering can and we're left with a huge weed that needs trimming back. If that analogy makes any sense. I actually fully agree with the IDS approach to benefits if it really is about simplification and making sure people who work are better off, but again I wonder about those people who simply can't work either because they happen to have been born in a town with next to no employment opportunities, have no qualifications due to a severely disadvantaged background or any other number of unfortunate circumstances.
Finnegan Posted 20 October 2010 Posted 20 October 2010 Ugh I am not talking about everyone, I am only referring to those that DO have so many kids and just live off the benefits because it's more of an income than working. I hate talking to people like you, you're just so fooking PC arent you? Anyone with an opinion over their money being chucked at people who havent worked in years, if ever, and you label them a bigot or tory facist. Yeah. Only ridiculously PC people get annoyed when narrow-minded people make silly statements about the working classes having hundreds of children and drinking away all their money. Oh but it's okay because you're only talking about "some of them." Brilliant.
FoxyPV Posted 20 October 2010 Author Posted 20 October 2010 Yes, but why do we have to pay out the arse for their 8 kids they'll inevitably have? Why do we have to give them money for their endless fags and booze? I work so so hard at that hospital, it affects friendships, relationships and generally everything in my life. As do the jobs of millions of others who work hard. So why the hell should the government get to tax so much of it off me, and then give so much of that to these people? Why can't we just pay for their council house and give them food vouchers so they can eat? Why do we have to give them money?? The people who genuinely need more hep can then be individually assessed. I know how stupid this sounds and I don't mean it in a literal sense. I'm finding it hard to articulate how I feel. To put it simply, I want my money to only go to people who need it and have no other choice. Not to people who are better off not working when they really could. Do you see what I mean? On another note I have a friend who was given a giant iMac on taxpayer money just because she's epileptic. I mean what the hell?? The problem with what you want to do bar any admin costs is that by reducing the benefits etc you creating a greater gulf between the working poor and the non working poor. It leads to further criminality as people seek to survive and regardless of what anyone says crime effects the poor the most. So what you get is a vicious cycle of crime, poverty and general anti state behaviour as they question why the fook should i do anything because i'm fooked anyway.
Finnegan Posted 20 October 2010 Posted 20 October 2010 If you feel that way then you must recognize that Iain Duncan Smith is bang on when he talks about the benefit trap, marginal rates of tax and the fact that way too many people are better off not working? And hence be fully behind the his proposals to try and tackle the problem by simplifying benefits and withdrawing then at a rate which means people who work are always better off? Otherwise where is the incentive for people to even try? I think you miss my grievance entirely. Plenty of people do try, for plenty of people there is incentive to work. But while, admittedly, the job market is better now than it has been during the recession there still isn't a staggering amount out there and it's often incredibly difficult for people to get out of unemployment, especially given that that situation worsens and worsens the longer you are unemployed. It doesn't help that schemes like the Future Jobs Fund have had to be shelved as part of the never-ending cuts to the public sector. IDS and the Tories don't have the plight of the poor at heart, they've got the country's deficit on their mind and they know that they've got to make cuts somewhere. Cutting the benefits that almost exclusively effect the poorest are the easiest way to do so without angering their own demographic or the the politicized electorate. It's a coward's way to tackle the financial crisis. And to an extent, the harshest strands of me see their logic and I accept that that's a part of life. But it's utterly deplorable and what's worse is putting on an act that it's all in the favour of social mobility. "Encouraging them back into work!" yeah, alright, sure. More like stealing their lunch money to buy prawn sandwiches for your mates.
z-layrex Posted 20 October 2010 Posted 20 October 2010 Yeah. Only ridiculously PC people get annoyed when narrow-minded people make silly statements about the working classes having hundreds of children and drinking away all their money. Oh but it's okay because you're only talking about "some of them." Brilliant. what the hell is wrong with you? So i'm not allowed to be pissed off at those who do it? Because according to you it's narrow minded? Is something wrong with you? Where did I say working classes? I don't think classes even exist anymore fyi. The family two doors down from my gf do the exact same thing and they'd be quite 'middle class'. I am against people not working because they can live comfortably enough in their eyes off the tax payer. Not people trapped in a jobless town with absolutely no hope, nor the thousands of people losing their jobs these days, they totally deserve JSA, it's what it's there for. Never did I say anything about class, I was ranting against those that abuse the system. I made no generalisations anywhere, you are just the kind of argumentative person who sees what they want to see. Argh you are infuriatingly pig headed.
Finnegan Posted 20 October 2010 Posted 20 October 2010 You flat out stated that JSA should be scrapped and that only those made recently redundant were entitled to any sort of assistance from the state. That you've back-pedalled quickly and started re-qualifying people (whilst still maintaining tired, Daily Mail stereotypes about low-earners) because you're being rounded on and lack the conviction to stick by your statement isn't really my problem.
z-layrex Posted 20 October 2010 Posted 20 October 2010 You flat out stated that JSA should be scrapped and that only those made recently redundant were entitled to any sort of assistance from the state. That you've back-pedalled quickly and started re-qualifying people (whilst still maintaining tired, Daily Mail stereotypes about low-earners) because you're being rounded on and lack the conviction to stick by your statement isn't really my problem. Yes, I still mean only recently redundant should get JSA. It should not take someone more than a year to find some sort of work if they had a job before. I don't understand what you think i'm back peddling on unless my first post was that confusing.
Finnegan Posted 20 October 2010 Posted 20 October 2010 Yes, I still mean only recently redundant should get JSA. It should not take someone more than a year to find some sort of work if they had a job before. I don't understand what you think i'm back peddling on unless my first post was that confusing. The problem being the long-term unemployed are the group with the most difficulty finding work and simply slashing their benefit as punishment for being trapped is an utterly ridiculous notion. The problem being you're making the sweeping generalization that everyone who has been out of work for a year (by your latest clarification) is "obviously" going to recklessly spawn eight offspring to drain the state and then smoke and drink themselves into a stupor that will piss away their money and cost the NHS a fortune.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 20 October 2010 Posted 20 October 2010 We should - Stop the war, Cut the police right down to a skeletal organisation by decrimminalising hundreds of offences, sack everybody in the NHS who doesn't know anything about healing people, cap public sector earnings at 150k, massively reduce our welfare expenditure by stopping Poles taking all the menial/agency jobs and stop funding bullshit courses for morons at university. That should just about do it. If we are a bit short after all that we could kidnap that rich Mexican bloke's wife and hold him to ransom for the rest.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 20 October 2010 Posted 20 October 2010 The problem being you're making the sweeping generalization that everyone who has been out of work for a year (by your latest clarification) is "obviously" going to recklessly spawn eight offspring to drain the state and then smoke and drink themselves into a stupor that will piss away their money and cost the NHS a fortune. Im a graduate with a decent degree from a respectable university. If I don't find a job soon (and I'm not really being that fussy) I may have to consider that as a viable way forward.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 27 January 2011 Posted 27 January 2011 # I'm a big fan of the local library, I just read a book but that's another story Never read his books but I thought this was great: http://falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/save-oxfordshire-libraries-speech-philip-pullman#
fox123 Posted 27 January 2011 Posted 27 January 2011 Yes, I still mean only recently redundant should get JSA. It should not take someone more than a year to find some sort of work if they had a job before. I don't understand what you think i'm back peddling on unless my first post was that confusing. I think you're a little bit ignorant to the climate and jobs out there if you think it shouldn;t take someone more than a year to find some sort of work. Yes there are jobs out there, but it's not those jobs that are the problem, it's finding sustainable long term jobs to stop people going back to the dole que. I deal with customers who are referred to us from the Job Centre at Stage 4 of JSA on the Flexible New Deal Program (1 year plus signing on). I have a caseload of 180 customers and targetted to 7 job outcomes a month. I have some excellent candidates from managing directors to cleaners people that are genuinly trying hard to find work (Activate customers I like to call them) but are really struggling. I then have a caseload of customers that are so far from the job market it's unreal (Engage customers) - some genuinly want to work but have so many barriers stopping them and are generally expected to fail, however, our aim i not to find them work but to help them over come their barriers and be closer to the job markets. Customers on stage 4 of Job Seekers have to do an MWRA (Mandatory Work Related Activity) for 4 weeks, 30 hours a week. Those that refuse to do this have their benefits sanctioned. There are procedures in place for 'the lazy ****ers' and those not wanting to work, and I have a few customers that have had their benefits sanctioned for 6 months due to not attending my appointments or refusing MWRA's. People are also scared to lose their housing benefits if they start work, and that, imo, is where the problem lies. I believe if people had a little bit more help with their housing benefits they would sign off, but why should they live rent free? It's catch 22 really.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.