Benefits cap

[elmarko]

I think there's something very wrong with society if we bribe people not to break the law with benefits.

If?, there already is already something wrong with society & has been for thousands of years - the question is how we resolve it.

Putting a section of the population in actual poverty/making them homeless will create an underclass & increase crime - which in turn will cost us more as dealing with criminals is considerably more expensive than lazy people.

If we want to stop people being "workshy/scroungers" then perhaps we could ensure that everybody has an equal start in life (which people don't currently) instead of "BEING OUTRAGED" by daily mail articles.

While I'm sure it makes people feel better, it solves absolutely nothing or provides any real insight in the root cause of the problem.

These are complex social issues which we should be listening to sociologists/psychologists recommendations for methods to improve motivation & the aspirations for the next generation of kids who are being born into these family's.

Simply making them live in further misery will create even more of a mess ten years down the line - I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a country which deems having homeless children as acceptable either.

 

[Xiler]

I think the only people that are against it are those so far removed from society/have financial gain from it or those who have gotten/fell in the bad situations.

26K do they really think that is so little? Most people full time on min wage make around 12K P/A and look after their families, they live within their means.

 

[Jokester]

If?, there already is already something wrong with society & has been for thousands of years - the question is how we resolve it.

Putting a section of the population in actual poverty/making them homeless will create an underclass & increase crime - which in turn will cost us more as dealing with criminals is considerably more expensive than lazy people.

If we want to stop people being "workshy/scroungers" then perhaps we could ensure that everybody has an equal start in life (which people don't currently) instead of "BEING OUTRAGED" by daily mail articles.

While I'm sure it makes people feel better, it solves absolutely nothing or provides any real insight in the root cause of the problem.

These are complex social issues which we should be listening to sociologists/psychologists recommendations for methods to improve motivation & the aspirations for the next generation of kids who are being born into these family's.

Simply making them live in further misery will create even more of a mess ten years down the line - I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a country which deems having homeless children as acceptable either.

There's equality of oppurtunity in this country like there has never been before. The welfare system should be providing a safety net such that basic essentials that people need to survive are available to all.

Homeless children? You mean children that have to share bedrooms with siblings which I think the official definition is these days?

Want Sky, or a 42" plasma tv or an expensive mobile phone? Get a job.

Edit: Most of our grandparents will have been brought up in abject poverty, real poverty, not the wooly so much less than the median salary definition that we have today. Did they all turn to crime? Did they hell.

 

[vanandjuanunited]

But how will they get sky tv, how will they afford alcohol and cigs.

Sky and virgin will have to cut jobs.....

 

[gjc10212]

I think the only people that are against it are those so far removed from society/have financial gain from it or those who have gotten/fell in the bad situations.

26K do they really think that is so little? Most people full time on min wage make around 12K P/A and look after their families, they live within their means.

I'm sure they will be receiving benefits to top that wage up. Working/Child Tax Credit or similar?

 

[Amleto]

I assume he's wondering why the parents are having 5 children if they clearly can not afford to provide for them.

I think the cap is a great idea, and it should have been brought in a long long time ago. Nothing really else for me to add.

yeah, that's sums up what I feel too.

 

[elmarko]

There's equality of oppurtunity in this country like there has never been before. The welfare system should be providing a safety net such that basic essentials that people need to survive are available to all.

Homeless children? You mean children that have to share bedrooms with siblings which I think the official definition is these days?

Want Sky, or a 42" plasma tv or an expensive mobile phone? Get a job.

Edit: Most of our grandparents will have been brought up in abject poverty, real poverty, not the wooly so much less than the median salary definition that we have today. Did they all turn to crime? Did they hell.

The crime rate was higher in the past, as was child poverty & child deaths due to malnutrition - along with the infant mortality rate.

There is nothing good about the past.

The problem is you are buying the lie, most people on benefits don't have 42" plasmas & sky sky/mobile phones - just the story's you read in the newspaper.

Even if they did, they would't be going abroad, owning a car, a great PC, living in a nice house or a nice area - have you ever been to a council estate?, do you really want to live there?.

Stop looking at examples of 1 or 2 people in London (which is why for a few it's around 26k because nobody outside of London get's that) & assuming it's like that for all.

A majority of family's on benefits get LESS than 15k PA - FAMILY not individual - this is from the Daily Mail this data so I doubt it's "rigged to make people on benefits sound better).

Just they worded it as "40% of family's on benefits are on over 15k PA to try to enrage people like we have in this thread - ignoring that it actually means that a majority are on less than minimum wage for one person (if they had a family, as they would also receive some benefits, child allowance & tax credits . (for a family).

 

[Xiler]

I'm sure they will be receiving benefits to top that wage up. Working/Child Tax Credit or similar?

Yes but you still earn more through benefits in the long run. Remember what extra outgoings a person with a job has than that without. Travel alone to work 5-6 times a week (travelling 150miles is now seen as a "local work area"), working the first 8-10hrs is just for travel costs alone.

 

[Jokester]

The crime rate was higher in the past, as was child poverty & child deaths due to malnutrition - along with the infant mortality rate.

There is nothing good about the past.

The crime rate was lower in the past.

http://ukcommentators.blogspot.com/2011_04_03_archive.html

Child poverty & child deaths were due to one thing and one thing alone. No welfare support and no free access to health care. Neither of these would change.

My dad grew up on a council estate. My mum wasn't even born in a hospital because the NHS didn't exist back then.

So you think that 40% is still acceptable?

 

[Shadez]

A majority of family's on benefits get LESS than 15k PA - FAMILY not individual - this is from the Daily Mail this data so I doubt it's "rigged to make people on benefits sound better).

Just they worded it as "40% of family's on benefits are on over 15k PA to try to enrage people like we have in this thread - ignoring that it actually means that a majority are on less than minimum wage for one person (if they had a family, as they would also receive some benefits, child allowance & tax credits . (for a family).

Only 15k PA oh now how do people survive on that?

Its only the equivalent of a £20K job, and includes cheap rent and lots of other extra benefits, like free prescriptions and dental care.

 

[elmarko]

The crime rate was lower in the past.

http://ukcommentators.blogspot.com/2011_04_03_archive.html

Child poverty & child deaths were due to one thing and one thing alone. No welfare support and no free access to health care. Neither of these would change.

My dad grew up on a council estate. My mum wasn't even born in a hospital because the NHS didn't exist back then.

So you think that 40% is still acceptable?

To be frank, I really don't care about your personal family history - anecdotal evidence is hardly worthwhile even when recent.

Also, if you are going to dig up an article, at least try to find out a little more accurate.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

It shows an increase in crime, or course - but that's an increase in REPORTED crime - you know, those new inventions - the telephone, the internet, video recording, forensic evidence, increase in population, increase in relative poverty.

Besides, the poverty GAP was smaller then - which more social critics have ascribed to societal problems - simply being poor isn't that bad, as long as you are subjected to viewing the lifestyle of those around you with gross wealth.

If you look at the more reliable data - infant mortality rates, education - life expectancy - you can see what have made great progress - just sensationalist newspapers like to pretend we live in constant danger.

This is pretty basic stuff.

 

[elmarko]

Only 15k PA oh now how do people survive on that?

Its only the equivalent of a £20K job, and includes cheap rent and lots of other extra benefits, like free prescriptions and dental care.

They don't get the rent money, just what's left over - which is less than the 15k after council tax/rent.

It's a family - not an individual & tbh - I wouldn't want to raise a family on 20k for a household income either.

 

[Ahleckz]

Crime rate statistics are so notoriously unreliable that I was told in all my criminology lectures not to rely on them too heavily.

The reporting of crime (as in, what is a crime and what isn't) has changed drastically and is very fluid. You can generally pick out crime statistics to support whatever agenda that you have.

Just a word of warning, before you go down the track of relying on them too heavily.

 

[Kamwah]

This guy is a total retard.

I can pick out several things he shouldn't have if he's a burden on the state... Sky TV, Going out once a week, fags, mobile phones that aren't just used for emergencies, the lager in the shopping.

In 10 years he could have been a specialist in any other area of expertise that I could think of from just self-learning!

 

[Jokester]

To be frank, I really don't care about your personal family history - anecdotal evidence is hardly worthwhile even when recent.

You brought it up.

have you ever been to a council estate?, do you really want to live there?.

And what is wrong with council estates by the way?

Also, if you are going to dig up an article, at least try to find out a little more accurate.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/c...9/rp99-111.pdf

It shows an increase in crime, or course - but that's an increase in REPORTED crime - you know, those new inventions - the telephone, the internet, video recording, forensic evidence, increase in population, increase in relative poverty.

That shows the same thing, a massive increase in crime since 1900 a time when the welfare state just didn't exist. Even if you go with the homicide rate which presumably were even back then when people could only communicate with smoke signals and carrier pidgeons, despite there being a bobby in every local community, were well reported there's been a 50% increase!

Besides, the poverty GAP was smaller then - which more social critics have ascribed to societal problems - simply being poor isn't that bad, as long as you are subjected to viewing the lifestyle of those around you with gross wealth.

A wealth gap is no excuse ultimately and it comes back to the "bribing people not to break the law". It's moronic.

If you look at the more reliable data - infant mortality rates, education - life expectancy - you can see what have made great progress - just sensationalist newspapers like to pretend we live in constant danger.

Non of which have anything to do with the over the top benefit culture we now have.

This is pretty basic stuff.

Do you think it's is acceptable that 40% of benefit households receive more cash than what a minimum wage household earns after tax?

It's a basic question.

 

[bloodiedathame]

I wish the term 'benefits' was outlawed. It doesn't benefit anyone.

 

[Kamwah]

Benefits them in a way XD

 

[bloodiedathame]

Benefits them in a way XD

Hardly, they get bullied by the rest of the population and get given no incentive to do anything with their lives.

 

[Shadez]

They don't get the rent money, just what's left over - which is less than the 15k after council tax/rent.

It's a family - not an individual & tbh - I wouldn't want to raise a family on 20k for a household income either.

oh forgot about the council tax, which they dont pay.

so they take home 15k - 4k(£75 per week for a 3 bed house) completely tax free, That would give them only £211 per week to live on. how do people on benefits survive.

 

[Mace_y2k]

Do you think it's is acceptable that 40% of benefit households receive more cash than what a minimum wage household earns after tax?

It's a basic question.

No, it's a disgrace.

I don't get to go out once a week because, guess what...I can't afford it. We have sky, but recently reduced it to the basic package, and why...because we couldn't afford it. I used to drink a glass of wine, or a bottle of ale every day but I don't anymore, and why...because I can't afford it.

I work full time, my wife works 3 days a week and we have 2 children.

Since having children we've had to make some personal sacrifices in what we could have due to the fact we couldn't afford them anymore. This guy clearly isn't trying to get a job, smokes, drinks, goes out, has a mobile phone and Sky TV with the movie package (and sports IMO at that price per week) and is having additional children whilst on benefits.

It's people like this that make people like me want to bring in drastic changes, far beyond a 26k cap, because it's blatant **** take of the system that I'm footing the bill for, whilst I go without, and it shouldn't be allowed. IMO, their benefits should be cut by the amount they're paying on their luxury items immediatly and an investigation into how a software developer is apparently unable to find any work in 10 years!

Maybe I should apply for some benefits on the grounds that I can no longer afford the things I used to be able to afford. I'll go to the European Court preaching some bull about my human rights, and the scary thing is...I just might win!!