Channel 4 - Skint

[Schlong&Stable]

Correlation does not equal causation.

Was the study adjusted for cultural & socio-economic influences?.

Yes, these were adoption studies.

People will of course seek a way to discredit such studies as their outcomes challenge the narrative of absolute equality. But we can at least say the two factors you've highlighted were adjusted for.

I'm not sure why anyone is even surprised by this though. Europeans, Asians and Africans (sub-sahara) lived on very different diets for hundreds of generations. This is obviously going to influence our development.

 

[robgmun]

Sounds like this program is nicely achieving what it set out to do!

Much like the bleeding-heart harpies that bleat on about the 'rich getting richer' and 'tax avoidance is an evil sin!'

 

[Uther]

Of course, playing devils advocate, we are all animals, and as such we are here to keep the species going.
You could say that somebody who has 5 kids (that will go on to have 5 kids each...) is actually contributing more to the the continuation of the species than most people in this thread...

I'll get me coat.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

Of course, playing devils advocate, we are all animals, and as such we are here to keep the species going.
You could say that somebody who has 5 kids (that will go on to have 5 kids each...) is actually contributing more to the the continuation of the species than most people in this thread...

I'll get me coat.

Don't worry I've got it here for you already

*hands coat*

 

[Crimefighter]

The main problem is that the minimum wage is not a liveable wage and those on benefit are being punished for low wages, those on a low wage who also have to claim in work benefits to make ends meet are next to be targeted when universal credits are rolled out.

Agree and this is a really good point imo.

The government has kept the minimum wage low to promote job growth and keep the UK competitive business wise, while the cost of living has continued to increase.

This has squeezed both people on benefits and to the point where even those in low paid employment are getting into debt or unable to make any headway into any kind of savings.

In my view the benefits/minimum wage situation masks the real issue - no real progression in the overall economy or quality of life in the UK at present.

 

[AndyT]

Lots of scum on this programme, particularly the teenage lads who generally have their hands down their pants ALL THE TIME.

But I was quite inspired in a way by the 16 yr old girl (Jamelia?) who had lost her kid to social services and lived in the halfway house with the junky old skank. She seemed to have her head screwed on (avoided drugs, tried to do what was right by her kid) and at least seemed to have the right attitude. She maybe just needs some direction or something to work towards.

Most of the rest of them - bullet in head please. All smoke, all drink, all shag, all play Xbox, all day.

 

[FoxEye]

OK, I'm assuming that these people had a lot of kids to get a lot of benefits?

So why don't we just cap the benefit at two kids, max. You can have more kids, but you have to share the benefit for two kids between however many kids you have. Fail to care for them and they get moved into foster care.

Why can't it be this simple?

And if we're paying for their accomodation, let it be little two bedroom places. The kids can bunk together.

We need to cap benefits a lot lower than they are at the moment.

 

[Mr Jack]

OK, I'm assuming that these people had a lot of kids to get a lot of benefits?

That would be a pretty dumb assumption.

Why can't it be this simple?

What happens if you have four kids and then lose your job? What happens if two people have two children each and move in together?

We need to cap benefits a lot lower than they are at the moment.

Why?

 

[feedtheram]

Not sure if capping benefits is the right thing to do. But ensuring that benefits are spent on the correct things could help. If you are on benefits then you really shouldn't have a sky subscription.

Is there a reason benefits aren't given out as vouchers that can only be spent on certain things...like the way childcare vouchers currently work?

 

[Gogl]

OK, I'm assuming that these people had a lot of kids to get a lot of benefits?

I think it's more that they don't avoid having children in the way that many couples might plan for starting a family and then limit the children they have.

So why don't we just cap the benefit at two kids, max. You can have more kids, but you have to share the benefit for two kids between however many kids you have. Fail to care for them and they get moved into foster care.

Because this won't stop many from having a third or fourth kid regardless, and taking these children away isn't a realistic option, for a start I don't think we have a stellar care system that could handle it and the children must be the primary concern. In the overall benefits system such a scheme isn't worth that sort of effort.

Not sure if capping benefits is the right thing to do. But ensuring that benefits are spent on the correct things could help. If you are on benefits then you really shouldn't have a sky subscription.

Is there a reason benefits aren't given out as vouchers that can only be spent on certain things...like the way childcare vouchers currently work?

I think one problem is that benefits are given to such a wide range that we are often all talking about different segments when it comes to talking and arguing about it.

A system that is adjusted for households where employment is non-existent in the long term may be warranted, but saying:

"If you are on benefits then you really shouldn't have a sky subscription."

Do you think that should encompass all benefits recipients regardless of circumstance? I'm not sure you do, but then again you might...

 

[Bobcat]

Watched this for the first time the other night, whilst i understand its not a true representation of the whole of the UK, the way i viewed it was its a snapshot look at how the benefit system is/has failed in communities such as where this was filmed, which i guess happens in other areas of the country too, where old industries have been closed down.

What i thought was evident throughout, is that the cycle needs to be broken, the state paying out is seen as a wage and whilst there is that mentality you will never stop the cycle, so something has to be done.

If your able bodied and in receipt of state benefit for X amount of time, why cant they do community service or a government training scheme, refuse to do this and the benefit will be stopped, that way it starts to brake the cycle of being a constant wage for doing nothing at all, but also it would bring a bit of self worth back to the individuals plus the communities.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Of course, playing devils advocate, we are all animals, and as such we are here to keep the species going.
You could say that somebody who has 5 kids (that will go on to have 5 kids each...) is actually contributing more to the the continuation of the species than most people in this thread...

I'll get me coat.

Nations have a vested interest in encouraging people to have kids, because those children will be tomorrows workers and provide the services we ally rely upon. However the children of many of those living on the welfare state are, well dead weight. They are contributing to the problem, not the solution.

We should have a Chinese style 1-child policy for the long-term unemployed.

 

[arknor]

If you are on benefits then you really shouldn't have a sky subscription.

indeed just a free-view box , Jeremy kyle isn't even on sky? and all the other chav stuff is on itv and channel 4

 

[Monkeynut]

indeed just a free-view box , Jeremy kyle isn't even on sky? and all the other chav stuff is on itv and channel 4

Oh the ironing.

 

[arknor]

Oh the ironing.

ramsays us kitchen nightmares bruv.

how do you remember what I posted days ago anyway? took me a couple of seconds to get it.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

Ahh yes general discussion,

Home of debate.

Thanks for mods to donating to this event by keeping it in GD,

YEAH BUDDAY!!!

 

[FoxEye]

Why?

Because we keep hearing that people would be worse off if they got a job.

There seems to be a real incentive amongst some people to live as much as they can on benefits. I think the amount they get is obviously a factor in this decision.

Answer me this: why should the state pay to raise your kids? Two I can justify. But if you have more than two kids, *why* should anyone but *you* take on the burden of raising them?

Go ask your parents, your siblings, your extended family to help you support them. And if they won't, why should the taxpayer?

(you in the general sense, not you specifically)

 

[MadmanDan]

5 kids wouldn't bother me if it wasn't for the fact most of them are from different fathers.

 

[arknor]

5 kids wouldn't bother me if it wasn't for the fact most of them are from different fathers.

but she loved all of the fathers at some some point lol....

She sounds like a lot of the mothers at the school across the road from me that say the stupidest **** you have ever heard or don't realise just how embarrassing they are

 

[davejh666]

OK, I'm assuming that these people had a lot of kids to get a lot of benefits?

So why don't we just cap the benefit at two kids, max. You can have more kids, but you have to share the benefit for two kids between however many kids you have. Fail to care for them and they get moved into foster care.

Why can't it be this simple?

And if we're paying for their accomodation, let it be little two bedroom places. The kids can bunk together.

We need to cap benefits a lot lower than they are at the moment.

You can't really cap benefits to a maximum amount of children for various reasons. As has been said, in my case, I have chosen to have 3 children and have worked all my life. If I was unfortunate to be out of work for a little while, why should it be my children that suffer. And, if someone does have triplets why should they suffer?

If they can't care for them and they get moved into foster care, hold on, we have to pay for the foster care anyway, so what's the point in taking it away on one hand and giving it out on another? A child should only be put into care in the most serious of cases, and taking away a benefit so that a child has to be put in care is no solution to the problem.

Kids do have to bunk together. 2 children of the same sex are required to share a room, 2 children of opposite sex are required to share until the one child is 10.