Yet more feckless wasters.

[Roo]

These two were on the TV this morning moaning about how hard life is and the fact that their kids are embarrassed at the parents having to struggle to get by.



I wish I had to struggle to get by on £50k a year. TAX FREE.

[Brother D]

Your solution?

[Negative Creep]

They are correct insofar as it would be pointless to work. How many people would realistically work 40 hours a weak if you can get paid more to sit around doing nothing?

[Puggit]

Brother D said:

Your solution?

Make them work for the government for their money. No one is entitled to their money for nothing,

[crazy about cars]

Brother D said:

Your solution?

Abolish ALL benefits unless you have some form of full/part time employment.

Why should someone get free cash because he/she is not willing to work?

[Mobile Chicane]

The system's fked... but which one?

Is it that benefits pay more than working, or that work pays so little that benefits are preferable?

Gubberments have tried to address it with 'working tax credits', but what does that achieve, other than protect underpaying employers from the consequences of their actions?

Incidentally, something that we all pay for through the tax take.

[davepoth]

Brother D said:

Your solution?

Anyone who gets pregnant while on benefits does not get any extra benefits for that child, including a bigger house. It's a simple measure, and since contraception of many varieties is available free (as is not having sex). If they continue to breed like chavvy rabbits then the children get taken away because they can't live in such cramped conditions.

[powerstroke]

Maybe we should all give up and join them

[Halb]

Mobile Chicane said:

Is it that benefits pay more than working, or that work pays so little that benefits are preferable?

I agree with the principle, but how can we raise pay without companies leaving for Indonesia?

[blugnu]

crazy about cars said:

Abolish ALL benefits unless you have some form of full/part time employment.

Why should someone get free cash because he/she is not willing to work?

And this is why I keep clearing off for months on end.

Have you, even for a moment, considered the consequences of this 'policy'?

What would the people who cannot get a job (for there are more jobs than people) do for food? (I'll give you a clue: people will do almost anything to prevent them and their family starving)

Where would they live? I'd happily break into your shed rather than sleep on the streets in the cold. I'd be gone before you got up, and I'd take something I could sell to get some breakfast - and before you assume anything, I've never stolen anything in my life, and have always worked. But if I lost my job, and your policy left me destitute, I'm coming for your stuff rather than dying.

This 'not willing to work' thing is largely nonsense. I've lived in an old pit village. It was a one-horse town; everyone worked in the pit, for the pit, or for a company supported by people who worked in or at the pit. They closed the pit: shot the horse.

Now the thing with coal is it's not in the middle of towns as a rule; coal mines are a bit out of town. With the price of public transport, Sheffield, Barnsley or Rotherham might as well be on the moon for the people living there. If you're born there you've got no chance., The schools are rubbish, there are no jobs locally, you never get to see anywhere else apart from on the tv, and all the adults are depressed, even if they don't realise it.

Still, probably best for everyone if we just starve them to death eh? I mean, the could get jobs if they wanted them, right? When a supermarket opened nearby there were 300 applicants per post ...

I've not looked in your profile, but I guess you live in the South. The North is a different country. You should come and see it sometime. The industry that kept people in work was sacrificed at the altar of interest rates to help London become the world's leading financial powerhouse. Turns out that might not have been such a great idea.

[Mobile Chicane]

Halb said:

Mobile Chicane said:

Is it that benefits pay more than working, or that work pays so little that benefits are preferable?

I agree with the principle, but how can we raise pay without companies leaving for Indonesia?

Abolish corporation tax. It's 1% in countries like Estonia.

Guess which EU economy is recovering from recession fastest...

Slashing of public sector salaries by 1/3 no doubt helped as well.

[martin84]

Aren't we bored of these stories yet?

[TheDiplomat]

UKIP's policy makes the most sense: only receive benefits for your first 3 children.

[Mobile Chicane]

TheDiplomat said:

UKIP's policy makes the most sense: only receive benefits for your first 3 children.

Or none at all... Why pay people to breed?

Rather invest the money in workplace nurseries for those who:

a. need it
b. contribute something to society.

[zollburgers]

davepoth said:

Anyone who gets pregnant while on benefits does not get any extra benefits for that child, including a bigger house. It's a simple measure, and since contraception of many varieties is available free (as is not having sex). If they continue to breed like chavvy rabbits then the children get taken away because they can't live in such cramped conditions.

Are you sure about that? As in, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary (the recent fire incident for one - if some of the 17 kids were removed then it would have benefited everyone).

Edit: apologies, I've read your response correctly now

[crazy about cars]

Fine, I do apologise as I was a bit harsh there. I've seen people on benefits come for interview late and half arsed (in sandals, shorts and a t shirt - even if it is a factory floor job doesn't mean you can turn up like that) because they don't want the job but yet have to prove to Job centre that they are actively looking for employment. Not willing to work does exist but I guess you choose to ignore that.

Anyway, openly abusing the system is wrong but considering moral issues it will be hard to enforce any kind of strict rules against it.

blugnu said:

And this is why I keep clearing off for months on end.

Have you, even for a moment, considered the consequences of this 'policy'?

What would the people who cannot get a job (for there are more jobs than people) do for food? (I'll give you a clue: people will do almost anything to prevent them and their family starving)

Where would they live? I'd happily break into your shed rather than sleep on the streets in the cold. I'd be gone before you got up, and I'd take something I could sell to get some breakfast - and before you assume anything, I've never stolen anything in my life, and have always worked. But if I lost my job, and your policy left me destitute, I'm coming for your stuff rather than dying.

This 'not willing to work' thing is largely nonsense. I've lived in an old pit village. It was a one-horse town; everyone worked in the pit, for the pit, or for a company supported by people who worked in or at the pit. They closed the pit: shot the horse.

Now the thing with coal is it's not in the middle of towns as a rule; coal mines are a bit out of town. With the price of public transport, Sheffield, Barnsley or Rotherham might as well be on the moon for the people living there. If you're born there you've got no chance., The schools are rubbish, there are no jobs locally, you never get to see anywhere else apart from on the tv, and all the adults are depressed, even if they don't realise it.

Still, probably best for everyone if we just starve them to death eh? I mean, the could get jobs if they wanted them, right? When a supermarket opened nearby there were 300 applicants per post ...

I've not looked in your profile, but I guess you live in the South. The North is a different country. You should come and see it sometime. The industry that kept people in work was sacrificed at the altar of interest rates to help London become the world's leading financial powerhouse. Turns out that might not have been such a great idea.

[martin84]

People don't have morality though, especially when it comes to money. That applies to everybody from the benefit scrounger to the overpaid CEO. Nobody turns down free money.

[crazy about cars]

martin84 said:

People don't have morality though, especially when it comes to money. That applies to everybody from the benefit scrounger to the overpaid CEO. Nobody turns down free money.

Well sad to say I am one of those odd person that tries my best to have acceptable moral standards. I'll have to admit I could've climbed higher in my career ladder if I made some personal compromises.

I am not saying I am a saint but I am a person who like to try his best to "play by the rules".

[martin84]

crazy about cars said:

Well sad to say I am one of those odd person that tries my best to have acceptable moral standards. I'll have to admit I could've climbed higher in my career ladder if I made some personal compromises.

I am not saying I am a saint but I am a person who like to try his best to "play by the rules".

Well done, but even you have a price. You just haven't been offered whatever that price is yet.

[crazy about cars]

martin84 said:

Well done, but even you have a price. You just haven't been offered whatever that price is yet.

One thing's for certain no amount of money will buy me out from my family. However, I cannot disagree with what you say... ultimately everyone has a price... it's just how well one handles the guilt that follows.