There is an argument for that, but the underlying principle that some people ought to be left alone to leech off society whilst those who do want to work can be the ones to prop them up is pretty revolting don't you think?
Agreed, happy to provide for those in their hour of need or unable to work due to incapacity. Those that cant be arsed deserve nothing but a kick up their backside
I am equally sure that you noticed I did acknowledge that fact - my gratitude for the safety net in place. I did not, however, see it as an alternative to being employed - no matter how menial the job might be. So those who paid for me benefitted in that I didn't raise children who are workshy and my education enabled me to become an employer - I think I've repaid the support I was given several times over.
There's others, today, trying to do what you manged to accomplish but the problem is many cannot make it to the first rung. It's a safety net for the majority claiming but that net is being pulled away unfortunately. I think you were lucky to have the chances you did.
There is an argument for that, but the underlying principle that some people ought to be left alone to leech off society whilst those who do want to work can be the ones to prop them up is pretty revolting don't you think?
Well, the cost of not providing benefits would be much higher to the state in the long run. So, it's a choice of paying a basic amount for people to survive on or live in a country which resembles Brazil or India with a vast increase in crime, to boot. There will never be enough jobs out there for everyone, so it makes sense that those jobs should go to those who want them.
Unless it's the same person day in day out and you know for a fact that they are claiming how do you know their circumstances?
I said people - plural. You get used to seeing the same faces and I doubt they were that wealthy they could afford to live their lives that way - all of them? I pretty much lived in that area for around 3 years so they were a regular feature (go to the pub to watch the footie, and there they were again so not working nights either). From what I was told, a fair bit of 'on-the-side' taxi driving went on - maybe that's where the extra money came from, who knows.
So lets put this into context shall we. People who have paid their taxes and NI contributions with no choice in the matter then find themselves out of work, possibly through no fault of their own. They then apply for benefits only to be told that they will be issued with a card which restricts them where they can be used and what items they can spend on. And people think this is fair, the money we pay into the system is given back with strings attached! I don't think so, the only people who need strings attaching to their incomes are MP's, their wages and expenses, they are the real problem in this country, not the average guy on the street.
They would not discuss anything with your daughter.
Hell, when I got my dad to call on my behalf when I was really ill, they wouldn't speak to him about it because he wasn't the one receiving the benefit.
It was the claimant herself who told my daughter the logistics of the claim - sorry, I didn't make that very clear did I. This same woman also has a cleaner go into her home 3 times a week, paid for by the tax payer, as 'she's too depressed to do the housework'.
Yes i agree there will always be some that abuse things, and these people should be targeted.But this goverment is going after everyone who has to claim any benefit. When we have food banks opening al over the country that must tell people some thing. the number of homeless as doubled in two years, There are now 48 thousand family living in temp places like BB or hostels or hotels because of the shortage of affordable homes, and how much do people think that is costing the tax payer every week. Well i know because i did ask my local council £565 for a family in a 2 star hotel per week
Payment cards can make good weapons you know! Just sharpen the corner and slit the fcuking throats of the gob shites on this forum and any one else in public who have never experienced being on benefits that complain about claiments.
I said people - plural. You get used to seeing the same faces and I doubt they were that wealthy they could afford to live their lives that way - all of them? I pretty much lived in that area for around 3 years so they were a regular feature (go to the pub to watch the footie, and there they were again so not working nights either). From what I was told, a fair bit of 'on-the-side' taxi driving went on - maybe that's where the extra money came from, who knows.
You don't know their circumstances, that's my point, and why should you?
Yes i agree there will always be some that abuse things, and these people should be targeted.But this goverment is going after everyone who has to claim any benefit. When we have food banks opening al over the country that must tell people some thing. the number of homeless as doubled in two years, There are now 48 thousand family living in temp places like BB or hostels or hotels because of the shortage of affordable homes, and how much do people think that is costing the tax payer every week. Well i know because i did ask my local council £565 for a family in a 2 star hotel per week
None of this would be happening if a large proportion of this country weren't buying all the benefit scrounging crap that the right-wing press dish out. That's who this government are pandering to.
It was the claimant herself who told my daughter the logistics of the claim - sorry, I didn't make that very clear did I. This same woman also has a cleaner go into her home 3 times a week, paid for by the tax payer, as 'she's too depressed to do the housework'.
That's not what you said. It's quite clear. You said "My daughter became so enraged by some of her neighbours that she contacted the DHSS to ask why, for example, X car is being paid for; she was told that as they have 6 young children, it's unreasonable to expect them to take that many children on the bus."
It was me who said that. If I could name names, trust me, I would. My daughter became so enraged by some of her neighbours that she contacted the DHSS to ask why, for example, X car is being paid for; she was told that as they have 6 young children, it's unreasonable to expect them to take that many children on the bus. Then another neighbour, who has had a bad back for nearly ten years, gets a people carrier, tax and insurance also paid for - he uses this to do his window cleaning round whilst still claiming disability. This is how a lot of them do it.
There's others, today, trying to do what you manged to accomplish but the problem is many cannot make it to the first rung. It's a safety net for the majority claiming but that net is being pulled away unfortunately. I think you were lucky to have the chances you did.
I can't say if luck does or doesn't come into it but I do think too many people take the easy way out. I was a nightmare child, expelled from school, expelled from my teen stint at college and fired from my first two jobs. If I can turn that around, anyone can (unless they've done something seriously worse of course!) - there's nothing special about me at all, I just learned to apply myself to the areas that I stood the best chance ini.
So lets put this into context shall we. People who have paid their taxes and NI contributions with no choice in the matter then find themselves out of work, possibly through no fault of their own. They then apply for benefits only to be told that they will be issued with a card which restricts them where they can be used and what items they can spend on. And people think this is fair, the money we pay into the system is given back with strings attached! I don't think so, the only people who need strings attaching to their incomes are MP's, their wages and expenses, they are the real problem in this country, not the average guy on the street.
Yep that's the idea. Seems that's acceptable to some, until I suppose they find themselves in that position :rolleyes:
Whenever I see people on threads like this talking about how much their tax is being used and their money as a taxpayer I always imagine that someone comes to them and asks them for a personal cheque to subsidise these claimants benefits. I work hard, the harder I work the more tax I pay but I've never thought to myself oh these people are using my money like only I am asked to pay for them.
You were complaining that long term unemployed get so much money that they can afford luxury goods and nice cars and annual holidays.
Now you are saying they get hardly anything.
No, I am trying to make a distinction between long-term unemployment being a choice or being imposed (for whatever reason). As I said previously, I doubt very much that those who fall into the latter category will be harshly treated; I believe it is the career claimants that the government is trying to deter.
The people who abuse the system will carry on abusing the system and the people who use benefits to drink etc will carry on doing that. They will just pay for a relative/friends shopping with the card and then get the cash off them. It is the decent people who would suffer. Whether people know you are using a card or not, it would just be another blow to your pride and possibly your pocket if the cards could only be used in certain places that you had to travel to. People who haven't been on benefits can't seem to be able to grasp how demoralizing it really is.
That's not what you said. It's quite clear. You said "My daughter became so enraged by some of her neighbours that she contacted the DHSS to ask why, for example, X car is being paid for; she was told that as they have 6 young children, it's unreasonable to expect them to take that many children on the bus."
And she was told - by the claimant. I acknowledged my original post read misleadingly and that was unintentional. But don't let my previous apology and acknowledgement of my poor wording get in the way of your rant.
The people who abuse the system will carry on abusing the system and the people who use benefits to drink etc will carry on doing that. They will just pay for a relative/friends shopping with the card and then get the cash off them. It is the decent people who would suffer. Whether people know you are using a card or not, it would just be another blow to your pride and possibly your pocket if the cards could only be used in certain places that you had to travel to. People who haven't been on benefits can't seem to be able to grasp how demoralizing it really is.
Also, a lot of people on benefits learn to budget well by shopping around. How would that work if they were only allowed to buy in certain shops? Probably stores owned by the wealthy chums of the government.
Whenever I see people on threads like this talking about how much their tax is being used and their money as a taxpayer I always imagine that someone comes to them and asks them for a personal cheque to subsidise these claimants benefits. I work hard, the harder I work the more tax I pay but I've never thought to myself oh these people are using my money like only I am asked to pay for them.
I don't see it that way at all - I see it more that if money wasn't wasted on people who can't be bothered to work, maybe, just maybe, it would end the postcode lottery regards health provision; more houses could be built, roads in a better shape than they are now, schools getting their playing fields back - that kind of thing.
No, I am trying to make a distinction between long-term unemployment being a choice or being imposed (for whatever reason). As I said previously, I doubt very much that those who fall into the latter category will be harshly treated; I believe it is the career claimants that the government is trying to deter.
I am trying to understand why you are moving the goalposts. You complained that long term unemployed have lots of money to spend on televisions and holidays.
Do you mean long term unemployed who are defrauding the benefit system and getting their income supplemented in another way?
If so, you should make that clear. Your viewpoint appears to meander with every post.
And she was told - by the claimant. I acknowledged my original post read misleadingly and that was unintentional. But don't let my previous apology and acknowledgement of my poor wording get in the way of your rant.
I don't do rants. But I am pedantic. Why mention her phoning the DSS when that has nothing to do with your clarification that your daughter spoke to the claimant herself?
I don't see it that way at all - I see it more that if money wasn't wasted on people who can't be bothered to work, maybe, just maybe, it would end the postcode lottery regards health provision; more houses could be built, roads in a better shape than they are now, schools getting their playing fields back - that kind of thing.
Yes because people out of work and claiming benefits are the only cause of there being no money available for these things?
Surely the obvious solution to most of the issues raised in this thread is only issue the card after the claimant has been claiming for 1 year. This way the genuine people who use the system as the safety net it was intended to be don't get affected, but the long term scroungers who choose benefits as a lifestyle do!
Comments
Agreed, happy to provide for those in their hour of need or unable to work due to incapacity. Those that cant be arsed deserve nothing but a kick up their backside
There's others, today, trying to do what you manged to accomplish but the problem is many cannot make it to the first rung. It's a safety net for the majority claiming but that net is being pulled away unfortunately. I think you were lucky to have the chances you did.
Despite saving the taxpayers a fortune, I'm not entitled to claim a penny. in benefits or tax credits.
Well, the cost of not providing benefits would be much higher to the state in the long run. So, it's a choice of paying a basic amount for people to survive on or live in a country which resembles Brazil or India with a vast increase in crime, to boot. There will never be enough jobs out there for everyone, so it makes sense that those jobs should go to those who want them.
I said people - plural. You get used to seeing the same faces and I doubt they were that wealthy they could afford to live their lives that way - all of them? I pretty much lived in that area for around 3 years so they were a regular feature (go to the pub to watch the footie, and there they were again so not working nights either). From what I was told, a fair bit of 'on-the-side' taxi driving went on - maybe that's where the extra money came from, who knows.
Did you even understand your own post?
You were complaining that long term unemployed get so much money that they can afford luxury goods and nice cars and annual holidays.
Now you are saying they get hardly anything.
It was the claimant herself who told my daughter the logistics of the claim - sorry, I didn't make that very clear did I. This same woman also has a cleaner go into her home 3 times a week, paid for by the tax payer, as 'she's too depressed to do the housework'.
You don't know their circumstances, that's my point, and why should you?
None of this would be happening if a large proportion of this country weren't buying all the benefit scrounging crap that the right-wing press dish out. That's who this government are pandering to.
I can't say if luck does or doesn't come into it but I do think too many people take the easy way out. I was a nightmare child, expelled from school, expelled from my teen stint at college and fired from my first two jobs. If I can turn that around, anyone can (unless they've done something seriously worse of course!) - there's nothing special about me at all, I just learned to apply myself to the areas that I stood the best chance ini.
Yep that's the idea. Seems that's acceptable to some, until I suppose they find themselves in that position :rolleyes:
No, I am trying to make a distinction between long-term unemployment being a choice or being imposed (for whatever reason). As I said previously, I doubt very much that those who fall into the latter category will be harshly treated; I believe it is the career claimants that the government is trying to deter.
And she was told - by the claimant. I acknowledged my original post read misleadingly and that was unintentional. But don't let my previous apology and acknowledgement of my poor wording get in the way of your rant.
Also, a lot of people on benefits learn to budget well by shopping around. How would that work if they were only allowed to buy in certain shops? Probably stores owned by the wealthy chums of the government.
I don't see it that way at all - I see it more that if money wasn't wasted on people who can't be bothered to work, maybe, just maybe, it would end the postcode lottery regards health provision; more houses could be built, roads in a better shape than they are now, schools getting their playing fields back - that kind of thing.
Do you mean long term unemployed who are defrauding the benefit system and getting their income supplemented in another way?
If so, you should make that clear. Your viewpoint appears to meander with every post.
I don't do rants. But I am pedantic. Why mention her phoning the DSS when that has nothing to do with your clarification that your daughter spoke to the claimant herself?
Yes because people out of work and claiming benefits are the only cause of there being no money available for these things?