Some Stupid Benefit Sanctions

[Guest MattP]

Absolutely shameless

 

leicesterlad - fair play, take my hat off to you, if only everyone had that commitment and self pride we'd have very few problems in this country.

[Rincewind]

Welcome back Matt

[Haydos]

Absolutely shameless

 

leicesterlad - fair play, take my hat off to you, if only everyone had that commitment and self pride we'd have very few problems in this country.

 

Get back to work you dirty timewaster!

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

If anyone on here was sanctioned for any of those reasons they would soon change their minds. How would you feel if you called them up to say you had a job interview, rearranged the appointment then told attending a job interview was not a good enough reason? These are not isolated cases. Many are going or have been through appeals and won. You can pick holes in them and if you cannot find a valid reason then just say its left wing media lies. Easy solution. In fact the stories come from a varidt of sources including the Mail.

Surely there can not be 100% of those cases valid reasons.  What about the bloke who was put on ESA because of a hear attack. He collapsed with a heart attack at an interview and was sanctioned for not completing it. Would it be valid if he had died?

A new "RED KEN" ?

 

 

Only kidding buddy. Your heart is in the right place, but sometimes you come over as a left, left, lefty, but you truly mean well.

 

I reckon you would have been a great social reformer in the 19th century. 

[DennisNedry]

I think we need a re-think on National Insurance.

 

It needs to be a system that takes in to account what NI contributions you have put in before you can take out - like any other insurance.

 

This way everybody who loses a job and needs support can get it, but those who have never worked are unable to draw anything.

[Buce]

I think we need a re-think on National Insurance.

It needs to be a system that takes in to account what NI contributions you have put in before you can take out - like any other insurance.

This way everybody who loses a job and needs support can get it, but those who have never worked are unable to draw anything.

So anyone born severely disabled is, what - euthanased?

[Rincewind]

Well we should not need one in the 21st century. (Social reformer)

 

Next week at our meeting at Apex we will be going through all thw latest benefit changws regarding rules and how they work. In time we will support and pass on information for those that wish to know. Anyone is welcome to come along and ask questions and find out more. It is too complicated to put on this forum as there is a load of information to go through but I have no doubt someone will have all the answers without looking at the documents.

[DennisNedry]

So anyone born severely disabled is, what - euthanased?

 

I didn't say my post was the be all and end all of what I'd do. I don't feel like typing a manifesto at 11pm on a Thursday night.

 

There'd be exceptions for the disabled, those who have lived to an unusually old age and have used up their contributions despite years of work, etc. 

 

I just think the system would be fairer if there was a sense of what you pay in you get out. Many who work for years and years and pay NI/tax only to be made redundant struggle to get help, whereas those who have never put a penny in themselves (foreign and homegrown) get a free house and an income that is above the minimum wage.

 

You can't just walk in to an insurance company and demand a payout if you never bought a policy - why should NI be so much different?

 

I would hazard a guess that the original implementation of NI didn't have our current system in mind at all.

 

Edit: I'm not saying there wouldn't be any losers from these changes. But the standard of living of millions of working/middle class families would improve considerably if they did not have to subsidise the undeserving and feckless.

[Buce]

I didn't say my post was the be all and end all of what I'd do. I don't feel like typing a manifesto at 11pm on a Thursday night.

There'd be exceptions for the disabled, those who have lived to an unusually old age and have used up their contributions despite years of work, etc.

I just think the system would be fairer if there was a sense of what you pay in you get out. Many who work for years and years and pay NI/tax only to be made redundant struggle to get help, whereas those who have never put a penny in themselves (foreign and homegrown) get a free house and an income that is above the minimum wage.

You can't just walk in to an insurance company and demand a payout if you never bought a policy - why should NI be so much different?

I would hazard a guess that the original implementation of NI didn't have our current system in mind at all.

Edit: I'm not saying there wouldn't be any losers from these changes. But the standard of living of millions of working/middle class families would improve considerably if they did not have to subsidise the undeserving and feckless.

I understand, and share, much of your frustration, but you're not really thinking this through.

What about the children of the 'feckless'? Do we allow them to starve? Or live on the streets? Or are you prepared to go down the route of sterilization?

[DennisNedry]

I understand, and share, much of your frustration, but you're not really thinking this through.

What about the children of the 'feckless'? Do we allow them to starve? Or live on the streets? Or are you prepared to go down the route of sterilization?

 

You raise some good points that are difficult to answer. 

 

For one I am a strong believer in food/clothing vouchers instead of just money for welfare handouts. These should be sufficient to ensure people and their children are not in poverty, and even so other publicly funded organisations such as social services are in place to act if it still occurs. People are kept out of soup kitchens, without the taxpayer paying for their booze, TV and Sky+ subscription.

 

Sterilization is too far, although at times of frustration and anger it may cross my mind!

 

I can just see Red Ed upping taxes to squeeze even more out of ordinary taxpayers. (Not that I'd mind him tackling tax avoidance or millionaires)

[Rincewind]

A lot of the people going to foodbanks are low paid workers. Prices have risen, introduction of BT, rent rises higher utility bills with minimum wage the same.

[Buce]

I can just see Red Ed upping taxes to squeeze even more out of ordinary taxpayers. (Not that I'd mind him tackling tax avoidance or millionaires)

'Red Ed'? You invalidated everything you've said, with those two words.

Milliband is about as 'red' as Mohammed Ali's backside, just another 'tory lite' politician. Unfortunately, there is little appetite for genuine socialist policies with the British electorate, and Labour's policy makers know that.

[Guest]

I didn't say my post was the be all and end all of what I'd do. I don't feel like typing a manifesto at 11pm on a Thursday night.

 

There'd be exceptions for the disabled, those who have lived to an unusually old age and have used up their contributions despite years of work, etc. 

 

I just think the system would be fairer if there was a sense of what you pay in you get out. Many who work for years and years and pay NI/tax only to be made redundant struggle to get help, whereas those who have never put a penny in themselves (foreign and homegrown) get a free house and an income that is above the minimum wage.

 

You can't just walk in to an insurance company and demand a payout if you never bought a policy - why should NI be so much different?

 

I would hazard a guess that the original implementation of NI didn't have our current system in mind at all.

 

Edit: I'm not saying there wouldn't be any losers from these changes. But the standard of living of millions of working/middle class families would improve considerably if they did not have to subsidise the undeserving and feckless.

You have no idea what you're talking about do you?

[DennisNedry]

You have no idea what you're talking about do you?

 

Probably not, no.

 

All I can see is my money getting taken from me by the government to be given to lazy ***** like Lamby to spend on gambling. 

 

Edit: I see France actually taxes the average earner considerably less than we do. Up to 70k Euros it's only 30%!

[bovril]

Probably not, no.

 

All I can see is my money getting taken from me by the government to be given to lazy ***** like Lamby to spend on gambling. 

 

Edit: I see France actually taxes the average earner considerably less than we do. Up to 70k Euros it's only 30%!

 

Well seeing is believing, or maybe the other way around.

[Lamby]

Probably not, no.

 

All I can see is my money getting taken from me by the government to be given to lazy ***** like Lamby to spend on gambling. 

 

Edit: I see France actually taxes the average earner considerably less than we do. Up to 70k Euros it's only 30%!

 

I think you find I only get £44 every 2 weeks, and I have to give £30 of that to my mum for rent, so I suggest you shut the **** up and hang yourself from the nearest tree by your balls.

[bovril]

Divide and conquer !

[Voll Blau]

I think we need a re-think on National Insurance.

 

It needs to be a system that takes in to account what NI contributions you have put in before you can take out - like any other insurance.

 

This way everybody who loses a job and needs support can get it, but those who have never worked are unable to draw anything.

 

Whenever I read your posts I get the fvcking Imperial March in my head.

[Jimothy]

I think you find I only get £44 every 2 weeks, and I have to give £30 of that to my mum for rent, so I suggest you shut the **** up and hang yourself from the nearest tree by your balls.

Are you, or are you not, regardless of how much you give to your mum, getting money from the government to sit on your fat arse whilst you turn down any half decent job because it doesn't fit exactly into some unrealistic vision of what you have for your first real job?

I also notice this is the first time you've posted on this thread since people gave you some pretty harsh home truths. Time to face up and stop blocking out the constructive criticism.

[DennisNedry]

I think you find I only get £44 every 2 weeks, and I have to give £30 of that to my mum for rent, so I suggest you shut the **** up and hang yourself from the nearest tree by your balls.

 

 

 

£22 a week more free money than I get.

[MC Prussian]

I think you find I only get £44 every 2 weeks, and I have to give £30 of that to my mum for rent, so I suggest you shut the **** up and hang yourself from the nearest tree by your balls.

So you spend £50 of those £88 you're "earning" on match tickets and booze how often?

[DennisNedry]

Whenever I read your posts I get the fvcking Imperial March in my head.

 

Funny, when I read yours I hear Busy Bee by Arthur Askey.

[Voll Blau]

Funny, when I read yours I hear Busy Bee by Arthur Askey.

 

Look fella, if you want to start a game of "who can name the least contemporary song" I'll just say Au Clair De La Lune now so we get get it over and done with.

[Lamby]

So you spend £50 of those £88 you're "earning" on match tickets and booze how often?

 

I pay £30 every time I'm paid, so I only have £24 to myself a month, hardly anything. It's to help top up my wages, nothing wrong with that.

[Voll Blau]

I pay £30 every time I'm paid, so I only have £24 to myself a month, hardly anything. It's to help top up my wages, nothing wrong with that.

 

So, sorry if my arithmetic's toss (my old teacher Mr Spittle said as much), but the state pays you £24 worth of disposable income a month as well as what you earn from your job?