Oh dear, the benefit scroungers are scared!

I was told I hadn't be unemployed long enough when trying to claim JSA when I was made redundant. Even though my rent was late (1k) and I had prior bills stacked up and my company didn't pay me my last months wages.
It's like you have to have hit so far rock bottom before you can get support, which then it's so hard to get out of.

Luckily I DID have the option of staying with my mum while I looked for work. I still had a good few K of debt from it to clear off when I was back on my feet though. Which I did, all on my own.
 
randomshenans said:
elmarko, I know you joked about the kids, but in seriousness, why the hell should the state pay for them? Just because you want them? (not you, the "you")
You should be able to support yourself before you can consider bringing another life in to the world.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, the cap on CB on more than 2 kids simply cannot come quick enough. It'll put the breaks on benefit families within a generation. Some of the scum pump out kids like crazy, creating clans that blight the local street with feral kids making life hell for everyone else.
 
SPG said:
I look forward to some of you falling on hard times and you will as nothing is certain in these time, then we shall see how righteous you are. Its **** being unemployed and not everyone is capable or able to run there own startup. It is a nightmare once you start playing by the rules (hence why spending £1500 a year on a accountant is worth it) and the TAX man will find you, no matter how much you make. Again this is how it should be.

As i said before, the money these people take is next to nothing of the benefit system, not even 2%, thats not to say it wrong but it does not deserve the "crap TV and vitriol" its getting. What is fraud and more evil and dangerous to the public is large corporation not paying there taxes. IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME fraud, and yet the government don't want you to kick up a fuss about it. LAST COUNT 24billion.

Lets see Chanell 4 do a ****umentery on those cheating CEO`s etc.
Click to expand...

Again, I agree with this and there isn't the same media **** slinging match on this for obvious reasons. You could argue (devils advocate) that at least these corporations are contributing to society, providing jobs, boosting economic growth, whereas the long term unemployed contribute nothing but a drain.

Easy targets though, aren't they?
 
robgmun said:
As far as i'm aware no one has said that, and if they do then they're right idiots. All my disdain is for those on the benefits lifestyle as in the first paragraph.

i mean man almighty i was on JSA for 2 months last year when was made redundant. Thats what it's there for. I used it correctly and treated looking for a job as a job in itself. and 2 months i was back in work with better pay then ever before
Click to expand...
Which after the OP starts suggesting all benefits should be stopped (which after a number of other posts seems related to bitterness related to being denied them himself), you can understand the context to which some in this thread are replying in.

As while we may disagree on many aspects, even we can find common ground on those who are obviously deserving of assistance (the disabled, people made redundant, claimants with a full history of work etc).

I totally agree, there is no shame in claiming while out of work (which some here seem to thing is somehow wrong, even if the person has worked like you had for example).
 
If you want to prove a point, you can... I was teaching my 8yr old about business. He saved his pocket money and with 10eur bought ingredients to make rice crispy cakes (deemed biggest profit margin after doing cost analysis) and sold them at school fete (after jumping through red taped hoops, granted) for 50c each. He had 50 in total, made 25EUR. So you know.
 
elmarko said:
As while we may disagree on many aspects, even we can find common ground on those who are obviously deserving of assistance (the disabled, people made redundant, claimants with a full history of work etc).

I totally agree, there is no shame in claiming while out of work (which some here seem to thing is somehow wrong, even if the person has worked like you had for example).
Click to expand...

That's the thing, we can agree on that. I want to see far more benefits control and where we disagree is how far it should go, but the basic things you listed above we can agree on.

I think people that have made a lifestyle on benefits have some so riled that they essentially have become extremists and just want to dump the whole system completely. Which is unfortunate.
 
I just love how the ring wing muppets see "dangers" in society only from certain groups of people:
- the unemployed;
- struggling parents;
- immigrants;
- the ill who can't afford a cure.

Basically, any group that has difficulties in various circumstances, which can be easier to handle thanks to the existance of welfare, is a valid target. I wonder what it is about the weak and the suffering that scares these people to such an extend that they consider them so dangerous.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
Then we need to build some tower blocks for the long-term unemployed so we can turn over the better quality social housing to the genuine needy rather than the lumpenproles.
Click to expand...

They need more social housing projects, but the circle of **** continues when they don't deem budgets for them (or have none) a priority over other things, and then private landlords start turning people on benefits away, so drive up prices of rent that the gov pay too.

One thing that does annoy me though, is that if you can't afford to live in an expensive area, you shouldn't be living there. You shouldn't expect the state to provide the same standard of living as someone who pays a boatload to live there. Likewise, you don't want to create these slums of areas where people are herded to, so it's again, a vicious circle.
 
robgmun said:
That's the thing, we can agree on that. I want to see far more benefits control and where we disagree is how far it should go, but the basic things you listed above we can agree on.

I think people that have made a lifestyle on benefits have some so riled that they essentially have become extremists and just want to dump the whole system completely. Which is unfortunate.
Click to expand...
The irony is, I'm keen on resolving these social issues as much as you are - just for different reasons.

I want to live in a society in which the population are happy, productive & have a genuine sense of self-esteem which stems from making a contribution.

Depression, crime, poor physical & mental health, obesity & a number of other negative social experiences are associated with long term unemployment & the reduced self-esteem which results from it.

While my motivations may be different, the end goal is the same - just I'd rather use scientifically backed methods with the greatest chance of success as opposed to draconian methods which are likely to exasperate the situation (coupled with an appreciation that the extreme cases are statistical outliers & should not be taken as representative of the norm).

While it may not satisfy the schadenfreudic tendencies of the public - the more subtle & nuanced approaches are usually more effective at resolving the actual problem.
 
Last edited:
Zethor said:
I just love how the ring wing muppets see "dangers" in society only from certain groups of people:
- the unemployed;
- struggling parents;
- immigrants;
- the ill who can't afford a cure.

Basically, any group that has difficulties in various circumstances, which can be easier to handle thanks to the existance of welfare, is a valid target. I wonder what it is about the weak and the suffering that scares these people to such an extend that they consider them so dangerous.
Click to expand...

The "right-wing" are not some monolithic entity. They have varied views on most of the issues you highlight. Even the term 'right-wing' itself is not very descriptive as it is commonly used to refer to both economic and social positions, which are obviously not the same thing. A fascist for example is on the left economically, but on the right socially.

So although I'd love to reply to your post with a meaningful response, your lack of precision has made it difficult. Which specific ideology are you identifying on the right-wing?

Pro tip: 'Tory' is not an ideology.
 
randomshenans said:
They need more social housing projects, but the circle of **** continues when they don't deem budgets for them (or have none) a priority over other things, and then private landlords start turning people on benefits away, so drive up prices of rent that the gov pay too.

One thing that does annoy me though, is that if you can't afford to live in an expensive area, you shouldn't be living there. You shouldn't expect the state to provide the same standard of living as someone who pays a boatload to live there. Likewise, you don't want to create these slums of areas where people are herded to, so it's again, a vicious circle.
Click to expand...
What made this country great was the fact that all areas had a mixed population.
Now we are segregating people by class in London we are on the road to becoming like Paris creating no go areas and even higher dependency on welfare.
The Tories came pushed forward the affordable rent policy, social homes being transfer to affordable rents policy an increase almost of 200% in rents.

The social cleansing of areas will reduce social mobility, increase welfare dependency and reduce the chances of working class individuals to add to our culture.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
The "right-wing" are not some monolithic entity. They have varied views on most of the issues you highlight. Even the term 'right-wing' itself is not very descriptive as it is commonly used to refer to both economic and social positions, which are obviously not the same thing. A fascist for example is on the left economically, but on the right socially.

So although I'd love to reply to your post with a meaningful response, your lack of precision has made it difficult. Which specific ideology are you identifying on the right-wing?

Pro tip: 'Tory' is not an ideology.
Click to expand...
I do most certainly agree that a huge difference exists between right wing social & right wing economic policy.

Fascism was never really left-wing economically, fascist nations have never increased worker empowerment or followed the traditions of collective ownership (usually they end up as 'state' owned, with very few benefiting from the fruits of the state) & are usually incredibly hostile to unions.

Really the problem relates to the fact that politics is far too complex to fit on any two dimensional scale.
 
matdom said:
What made this country great was the fact that all areas had a mixed population.
Now we are segregating people by class in London we are on the road to becoming like Paris creating no go areas and even higher dependency on welfare.
The Tories came pushed forward the affordable rent policy, social homes being transfer to affordable rents policy an increase almost of 200% in rents.

The social cleansing of areas will reduce social mobility, increase welfare dependency and reduce the chances of working class individuals to add to our culture.
Click to expand...

Eh? This is simply not true. The phenomena that you are describing where lower and middle classes are living in the same area's of London is something that really only began in the 90's due to extremely generous welfare payments. This enabled people with low incomes to remain in an area which would have otherwise been turned over to those who could afford the rising housing prices.
 
elmarko said:
I do most certainly agree that a huge difference exists between right wing social & right wing economic policy.

Fascism was never really left-wing economically, fascist nations have never increased worker empowerment or followed the traditions of collective ownership (usually they end up as 'state' owned, with very few benefiting from the fruits of the state) & are usually incredibly hostile to unions.

Really the problem relates to the fact that politics is far too complex to fit on any two dimensional scale.
Click to expand...

It depends on how you define the economic spectrum and which branch of fascism you describe. There is significant differences between say Italian fascism or National Socialism. Corporatism could be described as left or right wing depending on your starting point.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
It depends on how you define the economic spectrum and which branch of fascism you describe. There is significant differences between say Italian fascism or National Socialism. Corporatism could be described as left or right wing depending on your starting point.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it's very washy - usually I tend to just go with the basic aspects of 'left wing economics' regarding collective ownership & worker empowerment.

From that perspective it's never really been done, but you are correct - it's very much pendent on which group specifically you are describing (which is why I tend to go with basics).
 
For some reason I have taken the time to read nearly every post in this thread, a few I didn't bother due to the way they started but I think I have got the jist. I don't mean this to be too personal but here goes.

OP has started a successful business and should feel proud of the fact
OP has a very immature outlook on others
OP has an ego that I feel has come from the need to impress others, probably from a lack of engagement as a child. I noticed that dad wasn't mentioned.

One thing that did spring to mind is that education has not been mentioned nearly enough. Through my education from my parents and my schooling I have an outlook on life that equated to me wanting to work and not spend my time sitting at home. Before I get berated for going to a posh school, I didn't. IT was a pretty poor school to be honest but school is what you make of it. The two people I looked up to as a child and in many respects, still look up to now are my parents. They installed the trait in me that means I am very uncomfortable when not working. Despite them going through a very trouble marriage, alcoholism and a number of other very upsetting circumstances that I could have used to blame unruly behaviour on and subsequent traits that would lead to being for want of a better phrase, a little ****. I never once was content with sitting at home and not applying myself to looking for work or working. I am not an angel by any means but I work and I pay tax and very rarely ask for anything from the government.

If you have parents who were happy to doss, it is a possibility that you too are happy to doss. If you don't respect your parents you will not respect your teachers and thus you will not gain a decent education. Something hard to comprehend as a 5 year old when the two greatest people in your life are your parents.

I haven't watched the show as I know it will annoy me so can't comment on that subject but I have worked in schools for a number of years and have seen the good, the bad and the ugly when it comes to parenting. You only need to see how a child talks to their parents to know how their child acts in class. There are however, exceptions as with all things.

With regards to benefits, the system is there to provide and it does so to ensure people can live and look for work (when able ). It is abused by many, but not all and there needs to be a clear dividing line between the two. Suggesting that people should start a business if they can't find work is just stupid as a suggestion. If it was that easy, everyone would be a director.

There is also a culture in this country where people feel they are too good to work doing certain jobs, the OP is one of those people, but when the system allows that culture to be practiced then the system is to blame. The ego of graduates who feel they should be able to walk into a 50k job after gaining a degree is a problem too.

One thing that is a personal bugbear that I see quite a lot in the area I live are people who are not working being in a position to somehow afford cigarettes and alcohol. I think the benefit structure should be such that food, babies supplies and rent should be taken care of by a voucher system and travel should also be supplied ( I haven't looked into whether it is or not, its just how I would run it) and that luxuries are not available. Human rights, human ****es, I don't think it is an appropriate use of money, even though the tax goes straight back into the Governments pocket.

I have kinda lost my train of thought now


The OP must remember that being a success at business doesn't mean you are successful at everything and that compassion should be shown when deserved. If the OP continues to talk to people the way he does he will miss out on business ventures. My brother is very successful in terms of his business and his life. I don't see eye to eye with him on everything but I know that if he were to treat people the way the OP does he wouldn't be where he is today.

I bet I get a TL: DR but meh :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom