Wait, people still watch Channel 5??
Wait, people still watch TV?
On Benefits & Proud
- Thread starter estebanrey
- Start date
Wait, people still watch TV?
Interesting because there was a guy from the Trussell Trust on the radio last night who said that in order to get food from their food banks someone would have to have a letter from a respected professional (doctor, citizens advice bureau etc) saying that they weren't getting enough food.
The growth in food banks, not just in this country, started with the global economic crisis in 2008.
Except it wouldn't, because the cost of living would go up substanstially as all the costs are passed on to consumers. You also raise the floor price of labour, making young or inexperienced people, or people with limited skills and ability, far less likely to be able to find employment.
The living wage campaign is an example of supreme economic ignorance that shows no understanding of the labour market or consumer behaviour.
Very few are adopted. Fact is, people don't want a disturbed 12 year old, they want a happy blank slate of child to be their own. Most go into foster care which costs an absolute fortune, I know a lady who fosters multiple children and brings in a fair chunk of money a month.
Stand outside a food bank for a few hours, watch the number of people leaving with fags or special brew cans in their hands.
I did this when I was thinking of volunteering, and rapidly changed my mind as a result.
Managed expenditure would be a much better solution than food banks for many of these people.
That depends on your circumstances doesn't it. Living at home with no responsibilities, sure living is cheap. Having a family, even with 1 child, with rent/mortgage and all the corresponding expenses then it's not so cheap...and would certainly be more than the £1000 a month a min wage job would pay.
Btw how many i7's and 50" TVs do you think a person buys each month?
The min wage job still needs to be done, so how does that help the next person who takes it?
Last edited:
The same argument that said the implementation of the minimum wage would cause the collapse of society....oh wait....
I think we should deal with it in the same way that we dealt with the unemployment from introducing the minimum wage.
Who said this? "Paying the London Living Wage is not only morally right, but makes good business sense too." None other than well known lefty hand wringer, Boris Johnson.
Not being funny but those 11 kids have been more than likely been brought up in an environment that promotes doing F'all to make a living. They are tomorrows problems and they will cost the tax payer for years to come.
Some of the comments in this thread are hilarious. I can only imagine some of you live on a small island off the shore of this one where everyone goes to work 9-5, pays their taxes and not once comes into contact with the lazy scrounging inbred scum that waste their days sat on their arses smoking 40 fags a day whilst watching sky TV waiting for the next "babby" to drop from betwixt their loins which will in turn allow them to claim their house, which was given to them, is no longer large enough to keep their family properly sheltered.
I say round them all up and do a trade with the Polish or any other country for that matter who has citizens that actually want to work and earn a living.
Which is why the minimum wage is set low and has been kept low (and it has still massively increased youth unemployment as the low pay commission have acknowledged).
Ramping up employment costs massively can only ever have the effect of pushing up inflation, especially as the rise in minimum wage has already created a floor price that many people sit on already.
Watching a show like that is like watching jeremy kyle, a complete waste of time/oxygen/electricity.
If the show was really bothered about them they should have paid them each 5k & reported them to the dole for working.
If the show was really bothered about them they should have paid them each 5k & reported them to the dole for working.
You do realise that even the living wage pales in comparison to the availability of benefits under our current system where children and housing benefit are involved.
In fact, how about we impose the living wage and cap benefits at a max of living wage less 10% if you are so sure it is the answer. Even with the economic damage of the policy, we would still save money.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 7,438
Utter garbage T.V. Guilty pleasure for some though, hopefully not representative of the majority.
I'm honestly surprised Channel 5 still exists. I remember when it 1st launched all those years back, there wasn't anything decent to watch then and it looks like there isn't anything decent to watch now.
I'm honestly surprised Channel 5 still exists. I remember when it 1st launched all those years back, there wasn't anything decent to watch then and it looks like there isn't anything decent to watch now.
But, But. Everyone is saying that such households are rare....!
That being the case the short term costs of such a policy should be relatively small. In the medium/long term I refer to the later part of my post.
In the long term it is the idea that one can get yourself into the top 10% of earners simply by squeezing out a dozen kids and claiming benefit that needs to be thoroughly demolished even if such extremes are relatively rare!
This needs to filter down to the less extreme cases which, while not so costly, still involve people who have made a lifestyle choice to live off benefits. Benefits should not be an "Option" that people can "choose" or manipulate! and steps need to be taken to make it difficult/impossible to do so! The first part of that message is More kids (doesn't equal) more benefit!
They probably paid 5k to appear on the show.
As long as the declare it as work that is fine.
It is a very tricky problem to deal with.
The issue is that you have a swathe of society who are spoon-fed more cash than those who work full-time around them. Case in point, typical salary in the North-East was £18k, yet a single mum can bring home £24k depending on how many kids (without being taxed, and with home paid for too).
The issue is further exacerbated by 'special case' families - these are ones who cause trouble in council estates, or ones who simply have too many children. The state is duty-bound to provide a suitable house for these people. You will find that these sorts of people are the ones who will be the ones moving into rented properties in very nice/affluent areas, who in turn bring those areas down.
If the Government decided to axe benefits, they'd be riots. Pleas of child-neglect as they'd keeping on popping out more kids who they couldn't afford to nurture/raise, so riots and other nations would step in and likely lay sanctions on the UK.
The benefit swathe of society has grown up to expect to be spoonfed the ability to exist quite luxuriously in society, and often spend their time harrassing or causing issues for those in society who work hard.
The irony is that people call them unintelligent for doing this, but it is us, the workforce, who are stupid. I know that I couldn't afford a mortgage or a child currently, as if I did, i'd be bankrupt on my mediocre salary.
The country is causing huge issues for the future for itself - the benefit-culture of society can continue growing as it is insulated from the reality of economics, responsibility and accountability - they are actually encouraged to have more children. Whilst the hard-working individuals can barely afford a mortgage and raise a family of 1 child at the same time. This will mean shortly that you have a working population who are merely working for the uneducated to continue to thrive and grow.
Potential end result? Country will have more expenditure to it's citizens than the revenue raised from taxes - taxation will rise, therefore pushing the hard-working people out of work, or into poverty.
The issue is that you have a swathe of society who are spoon-fed more cash than those who work full-time around them. Case in point, typical salary in the North-East was £18k, yet a single mum can bring home £24k depending on how many kids (without being taxed, and with home paid for too).
The issue is further exacerbated by 'special case' families - these are ones who cause trouble in council estates, or ones who simply have too many children. The state is duty-bound to provide a suitable house for these people. You will find that these sorts of people are the ones who will be the ones moving into rented properties in very nice/affluent areas, who in turn bring those areas down.
If the Government decided to axe benefits, they'd be riots. Pleas of child-neglect as they'd keeping on popping out more kids who they couldn't afford to nurture/raise, so riots and other nations would step in and likely lay sanctions on the UK.
The benefit swathe of society has grown up to expect to be spoonfed the ability to exist quite luxuriously in society, and often spend their time harrassing or causing issues for those in society who work hard.
The irony is that people call them unintelligent for doing this, but it is us, the workforce, who are stupid. I know that I couldn't afford a mortgage or a child currently, as if I did, i'd be bankrupt on my mediocre salary.
The country is causing huge issues for the future for itself - the benefit-culture of society can continue growing as it is insulated from the reality of economics, responsibility and accountability - they are actually encouraged to have more children. Whilst the hard-working individuals can barely afford a mortgage and raise a family of 1 child at the same time. This will mean shortly that you have a working population who are merely working for the uneducated to continue to thrive and grow.
Potential end result? Country will have more expenditure to it's citizens than the revenue raised from taxes - taxation will rise, therefore pushing the hard-working people out of work, or into poverty.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,384
- Location
- Darwen
Oh look another bash the people on benefits thread, every time there is one of these you can almost predict the kind of posts that are here.
As of January 2011 4,200 people had been claiming JSA for over 5 years, that represents a WHOPPING 0.3% of all people claiming JSA.
Long term unemployed people cost you 28p per year or less than a penny a week, of course that is YOUR penny and you shouldn't have to support people like that.
Really gets on my **** when the lynch mob comes out flinging insults at people on benefits because of a VERY VERY low percentage of them have been out of work for a long time.
How about you stop the people who earn £10k+ a year who can rake in an extra £2500 in Working Tax Credits. Or the fact that the Queen costs you 3x as much as people on long term benefits do, But no you go after the people who are easiest to pick on.
There are more important things to worry about.
As of January 2011 4,200 people had been claiming JSA for over 5 years, that represents a WHOPPING 0.3% of all people claiming JSA.
Long term unemployed people cost you 28p per year or less than a penny a week, of course that is YOUR penny and you shouldn't have to support people like that.
Really gets on my **** when the lynch mob comes out flinging insults at people on benefits because of a VERY VERY low percentage of them have been out of work for a long time.
How about you stop the people who earn £10k+ a year who can rake in an extra £2500 in Working Tax Credits. Or the fact that the Queen costs you 3x as much as people on long term benefits do, But no you go after the people who are easiest to pick on.
There are more important things to worry about.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 5,298
- Location
- Ipswich
The Queen and royal family earn there position through all the things they bring into the this country. Tourism included.
The people who are on benefits pushing out kids and taking advantage of the system are like leaches on our countries life blood.
As I said there are not many but there are enough that in the long term they will exaust our economy if they are not removed.
The majority just feed when they need and move back into employment as it is supposed to be, we must make sure we dont tar the good people because of the bad.
The problem is the bad people are EXTREMELY BAD.
Those 2 women the young ones with kids were soooooooo hypocritical reminds me of so many girls i use to know in east london who talked about employment like that only to go down the local market and buy clothes with there dole money.
lol
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,384
- Location
- Darwen
Don't get me wrong I am not condoning the wasters but with programmes and issues like this people tend not to discriminate and every person on benefits is in the crosshairs despite people protesting that they don't have a problem with genuine people. Just look at the government, they are screwing over everyone just to go after a tiny percentage because it looks good to the general public, my cousin has been out of work for a year and hes on a 2 year work programme now where he gets treated like crap by some "training" provider who won the government bid.
I don't know the current figure but as I said 0.3% of all people on JSA are long term unemployed costing £14m a year as of 2011, it's a lot of money that could be spent elsewhere but it's hardly going to break the bank.
Tax credits costs £30+ BILLION a year and that goes to people who are actually getting a wage but you would begrudge £5billion that goes to JSA just because less than a percent of people are taking the **** sponging off benefits?
Last edited: