Can't Survive on £26k a Year Benefit

[z-layrex]

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

Exactly my feelings.

[Leicfox]

Every Banker earning more than 200k pa should be forced to adopt a benefits family.

Problem solved.

[turkish14]

That's the brilliant thing about children, they just raise themselves.

Ok Daggers, though i hardly post on foxestalk i have been around long enough to class you one of my favourite posters.

You are funny, smart, witty but also pedantic looking at the above post you qouted off my post or is it just sarcasm? Me and my wife both work full time and still manage to raise our children to the best of our ability and have sod all help, not even off our families. Though you do have some point, my brothers children now know how to feed themselves. They simply open the cupboard door and help themselves to crisp, cakes, chocolate.

[Jace]

Ok Daggers, though i hardly post on foxestalk i have been around long enough to class you one of my favourite posters.

You are funny, smart, witty but also pedantic looking at the above post you qouted off my post or is it just sarcasm? Me and my wife both work full time and still manage to raise our children to the best of our ability and have sod all help, not even off our families. Though you do have some point, my brothers children now know how to feed themselves. They simply open the cupboard door and help themselves to crisp, cakes, chocolate.

Turkish did you sell me a ticket a few years ago to Scunthorpe at home when we were in League 1??

[turkish14]

Turkish did you sell me a ticket a few years ago to Scunthorpe at home when we were in League 1??

twas me what a night that was!

[Jace]

twas me what a night that was!

thought so buddy! thought it had been a long time since I last seen you post on here!

[turkish14]

thought so buddy! thought it had been a long time since I last seen you post on here!

Funny really as i frequent this site everyday ! it can take over our lives, i remember not so long ago when your post count was under 50..

p.s not making out you and other large posters do not have a life away from foxestalk

[acooling08]

I think the proposed changes are being blocked by labour peers in the Lords. I hate lefties with a passion.

[Jace]

Funny really as i frequent this site everyday ! it can take over our lives, i remember not so long ago when your post count was under 50..

p.s not making out you and other large posters do not have a life away from foxestalk

haha yeah under 50 probably not long ago, for a couple of years I just used to read what everybody else said and didn't comment much. Think its just been this last year there has been so much more going on to comment on

[UpTheLeagueFox]

I hate lefties with a passion.

Me too.

[Guesty]

Not read all the coments on here. I used to work in a school and when you asked some kids (you'd be suprised how many) what they were going to do after school their answers was "I ain't getting a job, just live on benefits like the rest of my family." They all had ps3's, xbox's and nice clothes etc.

I realise some people need help but if you can afford a games console and to smoke, etc. Then you can afford to have less benefits.

It's daft when you're punished for working compared to some dosser who can't be arsed.

[cosb6]

I just can't believe people think a cap of the equivalent of 34k is too low. And then, it affects 60k families... That's a massive amount of people on silly money. I have 2 kids, housewife at home and earn less than that... Might as well go on benefits! Then I could see more midweek games, rather than working so hard!

I really think the cap should be less than the average wage. That is 26k before tax, so that should be the limit. I just think the country has gone mad, no wonder we have a deficit.

[FoxyPV]

I think the proposed changes are being blocked by labour peers in the Lords. I hate lefties with a passion.

Tory peers are on board now.

Apple sauce bitch.

[leicsmac]

I think the proposed changes are being blocked by labour peers in the Lords. I hate lefties with a passion.

I think it's possible the feeling is mutual.

About the topic itself...this shouldn't be about money, it should be about responsibility and taking it for your own actions. One of the few areas where I agree with Daily Heil-readers is that if you do have a child, or even put yourself in the position where you may have one, you have to take responsibility for the situation - both morally and financially. They are totally dependent on you, and you need to be ready for that, in every respect.

There also needs to be more means-testing of the benefits system itself - every single case is different so they need to be examined and treated as such.

[Captain...]

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...

That will still happen if this law is passed.

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.

But these changes aren't fair, they are targetting those that need the most benefit and not the problems in the benefit system, you are supporting a proposal that goes against what you want, a fairer benefir system.

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

This legislation will not change that.

Not read all the coments on here. I used to work in a school and when you asked some kids (you'd be suprised how many) what they were going to do after school their answers was "I ain't getting a job, just live on benefits like the rest of my family." They all had ps3's, xbox's and nice clothes etc.

I realise some people need help but if you can afford a games console and to smoke, etc. Then you can afford to have less benefits.

It's daft when you're punished for working compared to some dosser who can't be arsed.

This legislation will not change that either.

I just can't believe people think a cap of the equivalent of 34k is too low. And then, it affects 60k families... That's a massive amount of people on silly money. I have 2 kids, housewife at home and earn less than that... Might as well go on benefits! Then I could see more midweek games, rather than working so hard!

I really think the cap should be less than the average wage. That is 26k before tax, so that should be the limit. I just think the country has gone mad, no wonder we have a deficit.

Benefits are not solely there to provide an income for those that don't work, it is also to provide financial support for the sick and disabled to pay for things like carers and the special requirements needed to provide a decent standard of living, things which healthy people earning minimum wage do not have to concern themselves with, so saying that they should be earning minimum wage whilst having huge costs is missing the point. You are also missing the point that it is not the equivalent of in person earning 34K pre tax it is the equivalent of 2 people earning 15K each pre tax. It is per household not individual.

I think it's possible the feeling is mutual.

About the topic itself...this shouldn't be about money, it should be about responsibility and taking it for your own actions. One of the few areas where I agree with Daily Heil-readers is that if you do have a child, or even put yourself in the position where you may have one, you have to take responsibility for the situation - both morally and financially. They are totally dependent on you, and you need to be ready for that, in every respect.

There also needs to be more means-testing of the benefits system itself - every single case is different so they need to be examined and treated as such.

This legislation will not change or help any of that either.

What everyone on here wants is a fairer benefits system which can not be taken advantage of, the Government is not addressing that issue they are just cutting the benefits for those that need it the most.

This is not going to affect people who are having 10 kids to live on benefits, do the Maths, a cap of 26k is £500 a week, job seekers is 60-90 a week, first child is 16.50 and subsequent children are £11, you need to have 40 kids to come close to that amount.

Don't fall for the headlines this is not a review of the benefit system or an attempt to cut out the waste or the red tape, this is just another thoughtless policy on how to save some money without actually addressing the root cause.

It is not even reviewing why these people qualify for such a large amount of benefits.

It is certainly not addressing why so many people on this country are on benefits.

That is why it has failed.

[breadandcheese]

This legislation will not change or help any of that either.

What everyone on here wants is a fairer benefits system which can not be taken advantage of, the Government is not addressing that issue they are just cutting the benefits for those that need it the most.

This is not going to affect people who are having 10 kids to live on benefits, do the Maths, a cap of 26k is £500 a week, job seekers is 60-90 a week, first child is 16.50 and subsequent children are £11, you need to have 40 kids to come close to that amount.

Don't fall for the headlines this is not a review of the benefit system or an attempt to cut out the waste or the red tape, this is just another thoughtless policy on how to save some money without actually addressing the root cause.

It is not even reviewing why these people qualify for such a large amount of benefits.

It is certainly not addressing why so many people on this country are on benefits.

That is why it has failed.

I take on board what you're saying. I guess the debate becomes polarised because those who oppose the government do not seem to offer alternative proposals for reform, which makes it appear as if they think there is nothing wrong with the current benefits system. Whilst I know this isn't the case, there doesn't seem to be an alternative offered up.

Clearly, there is a problem with incentivisation to work, due to the current benefits system. It cannot be more advantageous for two parents to have more and more kids in order to increase their income. Daggers made the remark earlier that children don't raise themselves, in a barb at those wanting the parents to work. I would argue that those parents having kids and living solely off benefits for their lifetime are already failing their children (obviously, this doesn't apply to those who have disabilities and cannot work). There is no reason why the benefits system cannot be altered so that less handouts are received in money and more in services. I agree with more Sure Start centres and free childcare which would allow parents to work during the day. I would also argue that a cap needs to be made as to how much child benefit you can claim, up to say a maximum of three children, so that there is not the incentive to have more children when you cannot look after them.

I guess the distinction needs to be made as to those for whom benefits are a safety net and those for whom it has become a career. No-one but the most idiotic would begrudge the need for benefits to act as a safety net. Everyone should begrudge those who see benefits as a career choice.

[Captain...]

I take on board what you're saying. I guess the debate becomes polarised because those who oppose the government do not seem to offer alternative proposals for reform, which makes it appear as if they think there is nothing wrong with the current benefits system. Whilst I know this isn't the case, there doesn't seem to be an alternative offered up.

Clearly, there is a problem with incentivisation to work, due to the current benefits system. It cannot be more advantageous for two parents to have more and more kids in order to increase their income. Daggers made the remark earlier that children don't raise themselves, in a barb at those wanting the parents to work. I would argue that those parents having kids and living solely off benefits for their lifetime are already failing their children (obviously, this doesn't apply to those who have disabilities and cannot work). There is no reason why the benefits system cannot be altered so that less handouts are received in money and more in services. I agree with more Sure Start centres and free childcare which would allow parents to work during the day. I would also argue that a cap needs to be made as to how much child benefit you can claim, up to say a maximum of three children, so that there is not the incentive to have more children when you cannot look after them.

I guess the distinction needs to be made as to those for whom benefits are a safety net and those for whom it has become a career. No-one but the most idiotic would begrudge the need for benefits to act as a safety net. Everyone should begrudge those who see benefits as a career choice.

An excellent post, and just shows what the government could be doing rather than a meaningless cap.

[breadandcheese]

An excellent post, and just shows what the government could be doing rather than a meaningless cap.

In all honesty, this is where the oppostion should be stepping in to present alternatives. Labour have presented nothing, nor have those criticising government policy. So the only narrative and debate is supporting the welfare state in its current form or supporting the government's programme of reform.

I do believe that Iain Duncan Smith, genuinely wants to make the system fairer and I support his the bulk of his attempts to do so.

[Captain...]

In all honesty, this is where the oppostion should be stepping in to present alternatives. Labour have presented nothing, nor have those criticising government policy. So the only narrative and debate is supporting the welfare state in its current form or supporting the government's programme of reform.

I do believe that Iain Duncan Smith, genuinely wants to make the system fairer and I support his the bulk of his attempts to do so.

By no way is my criticism of the government an advocacy of the opposition, I am pretty fed up with UK politics at the moment, I am just sick of shortsighted "money saving" initiatives which make good headlines but actually have no substance.

This pretty much sums up the pointlessness of the whole exericise:

"Talking about the bill being defeated because it included child benefit as part of the cap Enver Solomon, policy director at The Children's Society, said it was "delighted" with the results of the vote, arguing it was "totally unfair that a small family with a household income of £80,000 a year receive it, yet a large family with a benefit income of £26,000 are excluded".

[Guest MattP]

This pretty much sums up the pointlessness of the whole exericise:

"Talking about the bill being defeated because it included child benefit as part of the cap Enver Solomon, policy director at The Children's Society, said it was "delighted" with the results of the vote, arguing it was "totally unfair that a small family with a household income of £80,000 a year receive it, yet a large family with a benefit income of £26,000 are excluded".

Surely the problem there is a charity intended to help poor families shouldnt be giving money to households earning £80,000??

Not got into this thread but I supported the cap, it's absolutely ridiculous to be quite honest any family not giving anythig bacl should be recieving that amount of money, not just because of the way it looks to the rest of the population but mainly for the reason it's completely unsustainable for any progressive society to be "giving that out" in the long term.

[Webbo]

This isn't just about saving money, this is about fairness and reducing welfare dependency.

How can it be fair for a family that doesn't have to get up in the morning and pays nothing in taxes should have a better standard of living than a hard working family. If the council put you in an 8 bedroom mansion in a posh part of London for free, how much would any job you got have to pay so you could stay there if you did want to come off benefit?

This is the most important thing this govt will do this term. If they get it right, and I think they're on the right path, then this country will be a better place for it.

[Daggers]

This isn't just about saving money, this is about fairness and reducing welfare dependency.

Bollocks is it - it's about Daily Mail readers believing that everyone on benefits is illegal and living in a house with a fvcking swimming pool in the loft.

It's about the "it's not fair" divide and rule Tory policies which pleads to the lowest common denominator. Reducing welfare dependancy? At a time when they have created record numbers of unemployed? Do me a fvcking favour!

It's about fooling cvnts that they pay more to the unemployed thn they did for bank bailouts, the worthless Trident program or the tax major corporations get away with. It's about letting the richest in the country off the hook while slamming the very poorest.

"About fairness"? Fvcking brilliant!

[Webbo]

Bollocks is it - it's about Daily Mail readers believing that everyone on benefits is illegal and living in a house with a fvcking swimming pool in the loft.

It's about the "it's not fair" divide and rule Tory policies which pleads to the lowest common denominator. Reducing welfare dependancy? At a time when they have created record numbers of unemployed? Do me a fvcking favour!

It's about fooling cvnts that they pay more to the unemployed thn they did for bank bailouts, the worthless Trident program or the tax major corporations get away with. It's about letting the richest in the country off the hook while slamming the very poorest.

"About fairness"? Fvcking brilliant!

Unsurprisingly, I disagree.We have an income of less than £26k and we survive. Why should someone who doesn't work be better off than me?

[AoWW]

Turkish did you sell me a ticket a few years ago to Scunthorpe at home when we were in League 1??

A ticket? That's nothing... I got a cat off Turkish. (Yes, really!). Lovely, she is, and utterly, horribly spoilt.

[flowwolf]

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.

An even simpler answer someone should have aborted you , Rat spawn.