Government Benifit Cap
- Thread starter TrixiBuG
- Start date
While this is true.....this is hugely funded by the middle classes and is the reason why so many support a benefit cap.
As George Carlin famously said:
"The upper class: keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class: pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there...just to scare the **** out of the middle class"
If you spend your whole life working to provide for your family and pay your bit into the country to provide these services, only to see 1000's of people sit on their backsides, doing nothing and using all the services you work hard to payt for, then you understand the resentment.
Not everyone on benefits is a sponge....many have very valid reasons, but there is a HUGE group of people rinsing the hardworking man and living an easy life.
Can you give me some percentages please?.
If we want to get people out of perpetual unemployment how about we do something radical.
Identify the causes of perpetual unemployment & put in place social programs to prevent it.
What I really want to know is, what is the end goal - if it's to save money then putting a cap on a few outlier cases isn't going to solve anything (as a vast majority of people on benefits don't get anywhere near that much).
In reality it's a "fix" designed to appease the daily mail/sun reading masses - with no significant economic benefit & further garnering public support for wider cuts (to people who have nowhere near the amount of money in question).
Solving issues this complicated require an array of different approaches - many of which are too "soft & left-wing" for the population.
You encounter the same kind of stupidity when you talk to your average person on crime & rehabilitation (as in they suggest changes which would actually increase our crime rate).
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 14,064
- Location
- France, Alsace
Are you serious? You know when you have something called insurance? Like, if you go on holiday and get ****ed and fall over, smashing half your face in? You have to go to the hospital and normally they'll charge you, as it's a foreign country. Your insurance covers you, right? Because that's the purpose of it? Liek if you crash your car, and you're fully comp, you get a payout if you claim, as you know, that's what it's for? It's not the "claim culture" claiming for anything, regardless of the effect it has had (the great whiplash claims etc.) are a part of that, but using the system for what it is designed to be for, is not. Not doing so, and then complaining about the benefits system is moronic at best.
The problem is that the daily mail readers are sometimes right albeit for the wrong reasons.
Subtract anyone from the non-working population with a real work prohibiting disability, noting that the numbers of unemployed are a lot larger because they typically do not count those who are not activly seeking working.
You have the following categories of unemployed:-
> Those faking illness.
> Legitimately disabled using it as an excuse for non-contributing.
> Baby manufacturing facilities.
> Those who resorted to criminality.
You will have sigifnicant numbers of people, probably over and above the numbers of actual unemployed. What's entirely more interesting is why these people are doing this. This is just anecdotal personal experience, but everyone I look at are filled with massive insecurities masked by pride and bravado that'll rather have them yelling about their entitlement than admitting they need help and every year they sink into this existence thw worse it gets.
You can help these people, but they're never going to accept the help when you're giving them an easy way out such as complaining about back problems to the right doctor and getting almost permanently signed off. You're also never going to get them coming off the sick to do menial jobs for less money than they were getting before. The problem is the right has no interest in helping these people and the left only wants them state supported because it's their massive army of voters.
It's completely shocking that we have have so many whining about cuts which still have able-bodied people earning significantly over the national average nevermind minimum wage and you'll never get anyone sensible onboard when that's what the left is trying to protect.
Last edited:
13%-14% of the current welfare bill goes to the unemployed. 20.3 Million Familes were on Welfare of some sort in 2012.
So thats roughly 2.7 Million families that are on Unemployment benefits.....how many of those are people happy to live like that for life and how many are simply being made redundant and cant find employment I couldnt tell you.
Doesn't make the truth any less facutal, you can believe what you like until you're blue in he face. But the fact is no matter how society works you can't help 100% of everyone. There's always going to be cases like the ones you high-lighted that fall through the cracks. You can hold up cases like that to accuse any current govenment. Heck i bet you could've come up with loads during Labours 13 years of power. Posting pictures of ugly politicians pulling faces only make you look a silly to be frank. I could do the same for Ed Milliband and Ed Balls but i don't want anyone here becoming sick.
The only thing you can do is have a system that will benefit most people, and that's what we're working towards
Last edited:
Where does the other 87% go?
Any evidence of this?.
Then no offence, but it's not worth reading then.
While some of the ones stuck in the way may not, we can have a greater impact on the next generation.
I'm sorry but that's wrong.
The poorest in soceity are the least likely to vote for anybody - the reason we pay for basic social care is because it's cheaper than paying for the associated crime which comes with providing no support.
One thing you are correct about is the difference between minimum wage & benefits - I agree it's too small.
Increasing the minimum wage (which keeping benefits at a level sufficient to prevent the negative social externalities) could achieve both ends (without costing us more in the long-term).
The excessive benefits for these outliers should be examined rationally, not have arbitrary limits imposed on a household.
Think of it like this, what's worse for the tax-payer out of the two below?.
1 massive family living in a big house (costing £30,000 per year in total).
Or splitting up the family over 2 house-holds costing £50,000 a year in total (but just under the limit in each one).
The numbers aren't really published afaik. Never really have been, but doctors being soft touches allowing you to get signed off for work by using the a few generic complaints were pretty common at least through the early period of the last Government as this allows the Government to publish lowering unemployment, regardless of what's actually happening. The spending tells the story, JSA is a small part of the benefits bill.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...come-off-sickness-benefit-ahead-of-tests.html
I don't know about you, but I'd suggest that's a significant amount of people that know they would fail the test.
The poorer of society are a massive voting block, even if they don't all vote, there are plenty more poor than rich, thus the reason we'll vote a completely inept labour Government back in.
Still if you're going to ask me for proof, you could do well to provide some yourself. Otherwise shove your "you're correct", "you're wrong" crap.
Theres not a minimum difference, people on benefits who have housing benefit tend to get more and don't need to worry about affording their next kid. Their lives aren't even remotly comparable to the working class, and that's why they'll happily "earn" more without giving it a second thought.
This would have the same net outcome as cutting benefits with the exception of cutting benefits saves the Government money now while increasing minimum wage will be a case of waiting until inflation kicks in.
Theres nothing irrational or arbitrary about the limits and you can't compare one massive family to two smaller units without considering the implications of what it says to society when you allow a non-working family to earn £900 quid a week because they spit out a ridiculous amount of children.
Last edited:
Are you taking the pee, there?
Your brother can't work because he's bi-polar, but he managed to have *five* kids (a lot more than most), who now all need state support?
Are we turning into Africa, here? People who need the financial support of others being free to have as many kids as they like?
Think he's taking the Micheal mate.
Maybe but it actually happens.
I come from a benefit family. My mom has 5 kids. Step dad has an additional 1-3, and biological dad has at least another 1.
Easy choice to make when you don't plan on paying for it yourself.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 14,064
- Location
- France, Alsace
In a sense, you are right. If you're not in a position to look after yourself (through fault of your own or not, that's irrelevant) you should not have kids, let alone 5, that you can also not support! Complete irresponsibility.
I know it does.....I live in a brand new estate where 20% has to go to council and I get up every day for work to pay my mortgage on my flat, only to walk past the house of a single mum that has 3 kids and no father and she is the same age as me (27).
She is fully lives on benefits as the dads pay her nothing and lives a similar standard of living to myself.
Its very hard to not resent someone like that.
Well clearly we don't want poor people to starve, while the rich live in castles.
But the current benefit culture is just as morally bankrupt. It's just a shame you can't punish the parents without also hurting the kids (who are of course innocent).
At the end of the day, I think we need to look at the broader picture. There are plenty of places like India and China where living conditions for the poor are much worse than here. In the UK even poor families have XBox, and so-called "impoverished" mums are the size of freakin' whales.
We could certainly use a little less carrot and a bit more stick. Definitively need strict benefit caps. People just don't realise how good they have it. And although that sounds like something a Tory would (did) say, there is a lot of truth to it and I'm quite left-leaning.
People need to live within their means and not expect society at large to pick up the slack.
I failed to pick on that LOL! No25 seems like your typical commie that wants the state to throw money at people to do nothing while bleeding anyone dry who earns above the national avarage wage.
What I believe that this proposal is trying to acheive is to have a sensible limit which will throw up a few outliers and these can be sorted rationally. No one is going to be thrown onto the street. Modifications will have to be made to some lifestyles. Some will have to be persuaded that they need to relocate or downsize.
At the moment, there are few limits to what people can claim for and if you are claiming DLA and housing (in some locations) and several child benefits plus a few more, you are certainly going to hit a buffer where you need to consider the fairness to others and the reasonableness of the claims or it may be pointed out to you.
If you are a disabled person living in reasonable accommodation, you will not be affected by these proposals.
At the moment, there are few limits to what people can claim for and if you are claiming DLA and housing (in some locations) and several child benefits plus a few more, you are certainly going to hit a buffer where you need to consider the fairness to others and the reasonableness of the claims or it may be pointed out to you.
If you are a disabled person living in reasonable accommodation, you will not be affected by these proposals.