Daggers Posted 23 January 2012 Posted 23 January 2012 My bro has had 4 offspring in 4 years, they live in a council house and the mother does not work and never has done! That's the brilliant thing about children, they just raise themselves.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 23 January 2012 Posted 23 January 2012 That is a very short sighted view to the problem, moving house is a huge amount of disruption especially if you have kids, and you have based your house and home on what you were entitled to receive. It also depends if the situation is temporary or permanent, if it is someone who has lost their job due to the crisis but will most likely find work when the economy picks up, or if they own the house and are struggling to repay the mortgage, then forcing them to move house will end up costing them a hell of a lot more than helping them with the mortgage in the short run. Unless you know the intricacies of benefit law and each case that receive over 26k in benefits it is very narrow minded to just blame it all on chavs popping out kids I wasn't suggesting as soon as somebody in a nice area becomes unemployed they should be cast out and I think you know that. I'm sure we have legislators in this country capable of devising a mechanism to make my idea workable and approaching fair. time out of work, amount of benefits claimed, number of dependants and their circumstances - all these considerations and more could quite easily be factored in. Also the cost of relocating people could be offset by the jobs created in developing purpose built housing for the project. Not to mention the presumably superior housing stock that would be freed up by moving non-contributing families out of highly desirable areas.
Captain... Posted 23 January 2012 Posted 23 January 2012 I wasn't suggesting as soon as somebody in a nice area becomes unemployed they should be cast out and I think you know that. I'm sure we have legislators in this country capable of devising a mechanism to make my idea workable and approaching fair. time out of work, amount of benefits claimed, number of dependants and their circumstances - all these considerations and more could quite easily be factored in. Also the cost of relocating people could be offset by the jobs created in developing purpose built housing for the project. Not to mention the presumably superior housing stock that would be freed up by moving non-contributing families out of highly desirable areas. But who would buy the housing that is vacated? building houses is not going to get us out of this crisis, if anything that is what got us into this crisis. Also the cost of relocation is not just on the Government but also on the people that have to move, people with mortgages could lose everything if they lost their house and never recover.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 23 January 2012 Posted 23 January 2012 But who would buy the housing that is vacated? building houses is not going to get us out of this crisis, if anything that is what got us into this crisis. Also the cost of relocation is not just on the Government but also on the people that have to move, people with mortgages could lose everything if they lost their house and never recover. Estate agents in London have on average 15-20 buyers in waiting who have registered their interest but can't find a suitable property (knowledge courtesy of Kirsty and Phil). I'm a big advocate of large scale infrastructure developments/public works programmes. Honestly believe they could drag us out of this shitpit we're in. And hey if not at least we'll have some shiny new roads and beautiful bridges to pitch our cardboard boxes under in a few years.
Captain... Posted 23 January 2012 Posted 23 January 2012 Estate agents in London have on average 15-20 buyers in waiting who have registered their interest but can't find a suitable property (knowledge courtesy of Kirsty and Phil). I'm a big advocate of large scale infrastructure developments/public works programmes. Honestly believe they could drag us out of this shitpit we're in. And hey if not at least we'll have some shiny new roads and beautiful bridges to pitch our cardboard boxes under in a few years. Fair enough I bow to your superior real estate knowledge, I am also a big advocate public development and I think that the Government are fvcking things up royally with their cuts, but purpose built houses for... ah **** it the match has started. Byeee
dave the caveman Posted 23 January 2012 Posted 23 January 2012 Benefits will be the death of this country. We desperately need to harden up. £26k is a ****ing fortune for most people. If you're under 50 and you don't work you should be entitled to a room in a shared house and food stamps, nothing else. No cash at all. If you're a family you get the cheapest house available in the country and if that means moving, get on your ****ing bike son i don't give a shit. Don't like it? Get a job. Food stamps cover you for bread, milk, cheese, jam and ham. That's all. You want luxuries? Earn them. Too many softies in this country. They mean well, but have lived such desperately sheltered lives that they don't appreciate how easily the social structure that supports us in this country could fall down, and how bad things will be if it does. They don't realise that their well-meaning attitutes are a serious danger to everyone.
Phube Posted 23 January 2012 Posted 23 January 2012 26,000 does sound like a lot, but when you consider it is for a family then it is the equivalent of 2 adults earning 13,000 each, which is pretty much minimum wage, I tried to read the BBC article but to be honest I got lost and confused over who was entitled to what, but if you are living in London or other expensive cities then 13,000 is not that much. No where near equivalent... this is £26,000 tax free, as mentioned in the first post this is the same as earning ~£34,000 a year. Still, divide and conquer, eh?! Divide and conquer. It's what us white folk do best isn't it! That's the brilliant thing about children, they just raise themselves. Too true, but it depends on whether they claim anything for it. My wife hasn't worked since our littl'un was born. But has never claimed owt. Just got child benefit (we all get) and tax credits... which we'll lose in April... But unlike certain folk if it came that we couldn't afford to carry on in this manner, she'd get a job... not ask for any hand outs!
Vacamion Posted 23 January 2012 Posted 23 January 2012 I used to do a job which involved visiting Council tenants in their homes. The vast majority of the ones I visited were signing on. The vast majority of those had 50 inch plasma TVs and Sky+ HD at a time when I had neither. None of them ever wanted me to visit before 9.30am and many was the time that they opened the door to me during the afternoon in their jimjams or dressing gowns. One guy told me he was signed off for the rest of the year with stress, because his Dad had died three months earlier. I used to wonder why I bothered getting up early when these leeches didn't have to.
broughtonblue Posted 23 January 2012 Posted 23 January 2012 As the late kenny Everett used to say 'round em up, put em in a field, and bomb the bastards!'
m00nie Posted 23 January 2012 Posted 23 January 2012 Benefits will be the death of this country. We desperately need to harden up. £26k is a ****ing fortune for most people. If you're under 50 and you don't work you should be entitled to a room in a shared house and food stamps, nothing else. No cash at all. If you're a family you get the cheapest house available in the country and if that means moving, get on your ****ing bike son i don't give a shit. Don't like it? Get a job. Food stamps cover you for bread, milk, cheese, jam and ham. That's all. You want luxuries? Earn them. Too many softies in this country. They mean well, but have lived such desperately sheltered lives that they don't appreciate how easily the social structure that supports us in this country could fall down, and how bad things will be if it does. They don't realise that their well-meaning attitutes are a serious danger to everyone. so someone can work for 30 years and pay all there taxes, get ill or made redundant and you want to give them food stamps and a shared room..
Mike the Metal Ed Posted 23 January 2012 Posted 23 January 2012 Benefits will be the death of this country. We desperately need to harden up. £26k is a ****ing fortune for most people. If you're under 50 and you don't work you should be entitled to a room in a shared house and food stamps, nothing else. No cash at all. If you're a family you get the cheapest house available in the country and if that means moving, get on your ****ing bike son i don't give a shit. Don't like it? Get a job. Food stamps cover you for bread, milk, cheese, jam and ham. That's all. You want luxuries? Earn them. Too many softies in this country. They mean well, but have lived such desperately sheltered lives that they don't appreciate how easily the social structure that supports us in this country could fall down, and how bad things will be if it does. They don't realise that their well-meaning attitutes are a serious danger to everyone. Do they use this sustenance to escape after they steal the "luxury" of an apple or a head of lettuce?
dave the caveman Posted 24 January 2012 Posted 24 January 2012 so someone can work for 30 years and pay all there taxes, get ill or made redundant and you want to give them food stamps and a shared room.. Yes. The tax system is not a lifestyle insurance policy. If you're not earning you don't deserve any luxuries. It's that simple.
Bloomer Posted 24 January 2012 Posted 24 January 2012 My brother is a single parent raising 3 children under the age of 12, he works full time. He gets some help from family with looking after the kids and he claims some benefit, don't know the details. He asks wheres the incentive to work? He gets nothing like £26K p.a. wages + benefits, he goes without if he can't afford it. We try and help him where we can but he is a proud man. Not only is the incentive to claim benefits, we have created an entire industry within Government to manage it. We can afford compassion and we can afford to look after those in need, we can't afford to fund the cheats who claim just because they can.
Captain... Posted 24 January 2012 Posted 24 January 2012 No where near equivalent... this is £26,000 tax free, as mentioned in the first post this is the same as earning ~£34,000 a year. It may be the equivalent of one person earning 34k a year, but households are not normally just one person, in a family it is the equivalent of 2 people earning about 15K a year, which is a bit more than minimum wage with both parents working full time minimum wage jobs. But this also includes child benefits which people working also receive so you can't compare like for like, you also don't know the circumstances of those that receive that amount in benefits (this is not the norm). It may be high because of kids, because of disability allowances or the need for a live in carer, but these families have legally been awarded this amount in benefit due to their circumstances, and now it is being cut. If you relied on benefits (for whatever reason) and you were not cheating the system and they said that they were reducing your benefits by £100 a week, how would you feel?
dave the caveman Posted 24 January 2012 Posted 24 January 2012 If you relied on benefits (for whatever reason) and you were not cheating the system and they said that they were reducing your benefits by £100 a week, how would you feel? Dissapointed that i would have to cancel my all inclusive sky HD/internet/phone package. How am I going to fill the endless hours where I have nothing to do now?
Captain... Posted 24 January 2012 Posted 24 January 2012 Dissapointed that i would have to cancel my all inclusive sky HD/internet/phone package. How am I going to fill the endless hours where I have nothing to do now? Crime is always a time filler. I have read a bit more about this today, and here is what seems to be the problem, this is not a general cut of benefits, child benefit, disabaility, job seekers are all staying the same, so it is only going to affect those that claim the most, because they need the most. You claim more benefits because you have more problems, you need the extra money to compensate for these problems, this money is being reduced without any consideration on a case by case basis. This is not looking at the amount of benefits mistakenly awarded or stolen from the system nor is it addressing the issue that benfits rates may be too high, or looking at ways to make the system clearer easier and more efficient. It is just taking money from those that may need it because it looks like they are doing something. I don't trust this Government and it looks like they failed.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 24 January 2012 Author Posted 24 January 2012 Simple answer, stop fvcking breeding you disgusting vile creatures. It seriously angers me how people think it's okay to keep letting their dumb fvcking rat spawn tumble out of their repulsive cvnts every 9months. Everyone should be financially tested for allowing a pregnancy to continue. If you or your partner can't afford it then baby gets aborted. Simple. Even if you're rich, 3 child cap. Thinking about a 4th kid, no, gets aborted. All the problems in the world come down to over population. What about if you have Quads or more? Einy meeny miney...
I am Rod Hull Posted 24 January 2012 Posted 24 January 2012 What about if you have Quads or more? Einy meeny miney... Poor Moe...
z-layrex Posted 24 January 2012 Posted 24 January 2012 I have to do one shift a week on maternity, the amount of couples I meet where they're having like their FIFTH child, and when I ask neither of them has a job...
cambridgefox Posted 24 January 2012 Posted 24 January 2012 Poor Moe... or There once was a lady called Kat Who had triplets Matt,Pat and Tat She said it was fun in the breeding but hell in the feeding as she found she had no tit for Tat!!!
Guest Basildon Fox Posted 24 January 2012 Posted 24 January 2012 I have 3 kids and while now fortunate that me and the wife can afford to live comfotably it has not always been the case. When we were really struggling about 6 years ago I feared I may go bankrupt but on each of the 3 occasions we managed to find a way to scrape through. The way we did it was by working hard and progressing in jobs to the point where we earn enough to let them go to do acting, dancing and football clubs. We have even managed to book a cheap holiday abroad and are now relatively debt free. The point I suppose I am trying to make is that at no point did I ever expect or get handouts (except for child benefit). For us It was a pride thing. Unfortunately there are a lot of people in this country who have none and think the world owes them a living. I have a lot of friends in Cardiff and most of them survive on handouts through one reason or another. Excuses like there are no jobs out there at the moment or I would be worse off by working is the norm. The short sightedness of this that I point out to them by way of if they work hard they will be rewarded seems to be ignored. If we cut the benefits to a bare minimum for everyone except those in most need then a lot of them would be forced to earn a living. Of course it may also mean that we have more people willing to steal or sell drugs but what other option do we have. The country can not afford to keep on giving the amount of hand outs they currently do. the country is in a financial mess. With people who have children, a better way to deal with the cutting of benefits would be to offer a subsidised, government run nursery system. This would then make it further beneficial for people on support to go back out to work.
UpTheLeagueFox Posted 24 January 2012 Posted 24 January 2012 The best thing the government have done so far... My bro has had 4 offspring in 4 years, they live in a council house and the mother does not work and never has done! Do they want more children? you bet they do. With their hard earned tax payers cash they are taking their children euro disney this year, whilst me and my wife and our two children look on envious but also disgusted. Still were going Butlins in may, which is more than most hard working parents can afford. Agree with all of that. My folks wanted another kid but couldn't afford it without major state help. They could barely afford me and the older sibling even with dad working full time and mum part time. Had second hand clothes and stuff. No designer brand clobber. Not even Adidas trainers - they were Asda or Dunlop. Didn't go on holiday abroad until I was 21. We made do with Butlins - and not even every year. Butlins was amazing though - so many happy memories. The way I was brought up taught me many great values. You cut your cloth accordingly. If you can't afford something, you don't have it. It really is that simple. I support this Government but the difficulty they have is finding a system that's fair to all. They'll never find it. There will always be some swinging the lead and taking the piss - and the decent people who get clobbered. But we have to do something. And they're making a start.
Saxondale Posted 24 January 2012 Posted 24 January 2012 I'm too angry to say much about this. All I know is that some people have no intention of doing anything at all and live very comfortable lives courtesy of the state, then you have my mum who's worked all her life, gets cancer and they nearly lose their fvcking house because there's no adequate support. The system doesn't support the right people. You're basically kicked in the face and spat at if you're hard working and rewarded almost endlessly for being a feckless, lazy corrupt cvnt. New Labour created this system and, as such, I hold them in the same regard as rapists and burglars. END OF
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.