Benefits Britain 1949
- Thread starter Stretch
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,798
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
They receive pittance but then find a partner pump out some kids and claim child benefits. Easier when you club together.
I know you are being Ironic because this old cliché has been worn to the bone, through the bone, into the next bone and out the other side.
You are looking at it wrong. Of course not paying council tax and tax counts.
Janek Anyjobkowski, a Polish national finds his first employment as a Poundland Shelfstacker in Training initially receiving minimum wage. He works 7 hours a day with an hour of lunch break, 35 hours a week at £4.98 per hour. Taxable £174.30 a week. He's in super lucky situation the taxman does not want most of his money, leaving him with £171.26 every week. Which translates to £8,905.73 in hand a year.
His British neighbour next door Johnny McClever observes Janek leaving every morning and returning every evening and wonders why on earth would anybody go through so much effort to be just £4 a week better off than what .gov pays all the peeps in Sideways Estate to stay at home and watch Homes Under Hammer and Bargain Hunt.
And now we have a story ready for daily mail headlines.
Yes it's sad when that happens but some people just cannot grasp that fact the a lot of people with "cushy well-to-do lives" did it by not messing about in school, going to uni and then getting decent jobs
But the left would have to believe that anyone who earns anything above an avarage wage was born with a silver spoon in there mouths and live of the bank of mummy and daddy while crusing into top jobs through nepotism. And they all deserved to be taxed 90% because they're all evil money grabbing bar-stewards they look to tread on the lowely abused poor.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 61
I only watched the end half where was the girl in the trailer with the black baby?
Young mother, black baby, no father of course. That's modern Britain for you. We should abort kids of single mothers like this and do society a favour.
Of course it's mostly the men to blame if they actually raised their kids we wouldn't have to pay for them.
Young mother, black baby, no father of course. That's modern Britain for you. We should abort kids of single mothers like this and do society a favour.
Of course it's mostly the men to blame if they actually raised their kids we wouldn't have to pay for them.
See, this is where we disagree on an ideological level. I want ensure that everyone has a minimum level beyond which they cannot fall, and that society treats everyone equally, without enforcing restrictions on success. you want equality of outcome, something which I can never support.
The thing I find the most irritating is that these sort of programmes look to polarise peoples opinion and paint folk very often at their worse. And I agree there are lots of ordinary people who have worked dammed hard for what they have and while a good education and good work ethic is something that most will applaud it, however annoys me that we never see how hard the last few years have been on some these people. The notion that if you work hard and are committed and determined to you job/career does not mean that it cannot unravel in front of your eyes and be beyond your ability to control. What about the blokes who have held down good jobs and through no fault of their own have found themselves re-mortgaging or losing there home, with shocking strain being placed on family and friends. We never see those because it doesn't make good TV.
It's far better to pick out someone who fits the "stereotype" so people can tut and finger-wag. We all know there are some real scumbags out there, but my suspicion is that there aren't as many as people would have you believe. It feels like there's an acceptable attitude being nurtured that people are being drip fed which is "out of work = Scumbag" Irrespective of whether it's actually true or how they got there.
Almost every country within the E.U. has undergone financial meltdown since 2008, yet somehow in this country in particular we are telling people it down to the benefits system and that is enemy number 1. Bit odd that 10's of thousands less were not even claiming benefits before the country got stiffed by the banks and financial markets.
No right minded person could argue that the benefits system doesn't need an overhaul. But imo and of course it's only an opinion it feels like there's a witch hunt in progress that has more to do with a political view and the poor are stealing our money mantra being used to push through ever harsher policies for the poorest in the country.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Clearly you didn't watch the programme as only one of the participants could be described as the modern 'stereotype'. The other two were a pensioner who never moaned at the restrictions and man with spina bifida who didn't want to be on the welfare state but to work.
Anyway your example of the high flying middle manager isn't featured as much because they aren't that abundant. It's rare that someone goes from having a well paid job to being a lifer on benefits (without severe injury), even if they get made redundant they would like find another job if they are skilled.
People who work in below average wage jobs and then get a bad back are fair more numerous.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,599
Yes, it was reality TV at its worst. How convenient that one(disabled guy) appears to long for job and is really trying and with 1949 magic gets one. One is dependant and nice and gets help and third appears obnoxious and benefit grabber and gets hit by 1949 rules.
Apart from the blindingly obvious that things were different just after the War
rationing was still enforced in certain things. The State was all powerful and intrusive as it was still basically on a war-footing due to rebuilding, something the program showed when firms were told to employ disabled. The situation is the reverse now, companies have the whip hand. Almost all newly married women were sacked as it was deemed they should be looking after the household. A situation that led years later to employers going over to the colonies to get people to work in the NHS etc. Most pensioners were looked after by their families when they got ill or infirm, it was only the exception that were put in homes. It was only during the 80's that extended family breakup occurs. A lot of other things in this program showed that you could not take the situation of 1949 and apply it today. It will only feed the far right Tory element that wants to abolish most benefits under the guise of rolling back the State and bring in a flat rate tax that ensures the wealthy get a much greater slice of the cake, or some of the tabloid readers who let the papers do their thinking.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,717
With a good education and work experience this is far far less likely to happen to you than if you didn't have either. Sorry but it simply doesn't wash. My previous company went into administration this January and of the 300+ people I had in my linked account 90-ish % were in new roles within a couple of months. Heck 5 of them started a new company together!
I'm not saying it isn't. I'm simply saying its not that simple and there is no one hat fits all. Life isn't fair, you dont always get what youve worked for or the rewards youve earned. Sometimes its beyond your control. Simply because you've had no experience of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I have a close friend whos had a very difficult time. Thankfully he's now back on course.
Not arguing, I just think as with most things there is more than one way to look at something. I try not to dismiss views because they don't agree with my own. I'm old enough to realise my own views have changed over the years.
Not arguing, I just think as with most things there is more than one way to look at something. I try not to dismiss views because they don't agree with my own. I'm old enough to realise my own views have changed over the years.
I know right, but its a very well done report, genuinely impressed me.
Not at all, I simply stated that wages should be more evenly distributed for the labour done.
You support theft at point of generation of the wealth (via hugely unbalanced wages), as opposed to theft as taxation (as many put it).
Besides, I don't think economic reward is the only factor is rewarding success - we can provide the population with a high standard of living without ignoring contribution.
I don't get economically rewarded for the charity work I do, I simply value the work I do & obtain greater satisfaction from it than the work I get rewarded economically for.
A reward doesn't have to be economic & it shows a bit of a limited perspective if you think supporting balancing economic rewards equates to supporting equality of outcome.
The people who have contributed most to our world have done it out of a desire to advance our species - none of our greatest scientists (all of which we can thank for the great increases in our standard of living) were motivated by fiscal rewards.
As a species we are better than that (just most seem to have forgotten it)
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
The social security structure takes away the independence and incentive of individuals to look after themselves. This is why it results in these sorts of problems. I recently read that social welfare actually increases poverty and not decreases it, the impact on incentives is that severe that it has been found recently through a study of data on the subject that social welfare is counter productive.
The people that benefit from it will continue to try and convince everyone else that stopping social welfare programs it is required or it will lead to negative consequences.
The people that benefit from it will continue to try and convince everyone else that stopping social welfare programs it is required or it will lead to negative consequences.
Last edited: