Jobless mum spends £2k of benefits on christmas

[Gwagon111]

Why not design a system, where if (as in this case) someone tries to take the piss, you remove their children and place them in a care system. The care system must not be funded by the public purse, only by charitable donations. That way, these people would be deterred from having offspring they can't afford, and my taxes aren't used to pay for their christmas presents. It also keeps all the liberal bedwetters happy. If they are happy to support these creatures, then they can.

[Deva Link]

Vipers said:

Dracoro said:

Vipers said:

Cap benfits at the average wage for those who genuinly can't find work.

Why "average" wage and not minimum wage? Many unemployed don't have the skills (yet) to earn the average wage so there's no incentive to find work only to end up with less money than when unemployed.

Whoops, your right, not average.

Define "wage"? Do you mean what people actually get paid by their employer, or do you mean household income, including benefits?

A single unemployed person gets way less than minimum wage (about 25% of it) if they're unemployed.

Someone working on minimum wage who has a couple of kids pretty well doubles their income once benefits are taken into account.

[DonkeyApple]

Gwagon111 said:

Why not design a system, where if (as in this case) someone tries to take the piss, you remove their children and place them in a care system. The care system must not be funded by the public purse, only by charitable donations. That way, these people would be deterred from having offspring they can't afford, and my taxes aren't used to pay for their christmas presents. It also keeps all the liberal bedwetters happy. If they are happy to support these creatures, then they can.

I don't think punishing children is the answer.

Making the father 100% responsible would be a more sensible route. Placing them in detention centres if they are not able to provide would probably have more positive impact.

Once we logically accept that a child is best reared by the mother and that mothers of young cannot work then the onus falls to the man.

Once men are solely accountable and it is enforced appropriately then you will probably see a sharp decline in feckless bints getting knocked up and children being borne into inappropriate households.

[Roo]

Deva Link said:

Someone working on minimum wage who has a couple of kids pretty well doubles their income once benefits are taken into account.

Why?

[Deva Link]

DonkeyApple said:

I don't think punishing children is the answer.

I know someone who works with families in a pretty rough area where most people are unemployed and the kids run wild. He reckons (but obviously could never say this publically) that taking the children away and having them adopted by "nice" families would be the best thing that could happen to them, and it would break the cycle of the kids turning out just the same as their parents.

[matchmaker]

Vipers said:

Dracoro said:

Vipers said:

Cap benfits at the average wage for those who genuinly can't find work.

Why "average" wage and not minimum wage? Many unemployed don't have the skills (yet) to earn the average wage so there's no incentive to find work only to end up with less money than when unemployed.

Whoops, your right, not average.

Average wage in the UK is currently £26,500. I'm a skilled administrator and don't earn anything near that There isn't a hope in hell of me getting a better paid job, especially at my age (55)

[DonkeyApple]

Deva Link said:

DonkeyApple said:

I don't think punishing children is the answer.

I know someone who works with families in a pretty rough area where most people are unemployed and the kids run wild. He reckons (but obviously could never say this publically) that taking the children away and having them adopted by "nice" families would be the best thing that could happen to them, and it would break the cycle of the kids turning out just the same as their parents.

I'm sure it cuts both ways but I don't see the creation of State run orphanages being a logical step forward.

Finding homes for legitimate foster children appears hard enough. Just looking at how the system currently works these children wouldn't find the utopia of competent adopters but just get lost in a transient caring system that can never break the cycle that the children are trapped in.

I'm inclined to believe that the majority of single mothers are not feckless monsters as the DM likes to paint them but people like everyone else but in need of support.

It's why I think if you used Draconian laws to force men to be fully accountable the problem would diminish very quickly. There would be a large number of casualties in the first few years but people would soon adjust to the fact that knocking a bint up is a generally bad thing to do. After all, if a man isn't man enough to take responsibility for his children what real use is he to society?

It'll never happen but it strikes me as the logical solution.

[Digga]

DonkeyApple said:

After all, if a man isn't man enough to take responsibility for his children what real use is he to society?

As I've admitted before on PH, one of the few paternal bits of advice that was offered and heeded was "do not get anyone pregnant". As I saw it - it would have been my responsiblity.

It seems the rights (and fun) enjoyed are expected to be without responsibility these days.

[Deva Link]

Roo said:

Why?

...because that's what The State has decided it's necessary to do.

[otolith]

DonkeyApple said:

It's why I think if you used Draconian laws to force men to be fully accountable the problem would diminish very quickly.

Absolutely - but what do you do if estranged dad is living on JSA?

[crankedup]

JagLover said:

crankedup said:

We know that the benefits scandal is being addressed so quite why the Government continues with its divisive narration is a mystery and completely unnecessary.

Is it?

Benefits are capped at a level where someone would have to earn higher than the average wage, before tax, to achieve the same level.

Increases in benefits have been restricted to 1% for the next three years (after rising at over 5% last year)

Tinkering around the edges so far rather than really 'addressing' the issue. The universal credit sounds promising lets see how it works in practice.

As for why the government needs to continue with 'divisive narrative' their is an inbuilt bias in favour of ever higher benefits in much of the media. They are trying to counter that and are nowhere close to winning the argument.

Agreed, there is still a long way to go in bringing down welfare payments, another 10 billion is being examined. Talk of (softening up process)means testing of fuel allowance and bus passes being withdrawn from those pensioners who are 'better off'. Additionally, as you point out, increases in benefits will be minimised to 1% increases.
As for Osbourne, his rather stupid and inaccurate talk of 'closed curtains whilst striver's are on their way to work' was so crass and ignorant all he succeeded in was devaluing the Government even further.
The media can print/broadcast almost whatever they choose, the Government has a somewhat higher principle to uphold and show leadership, both aspects showing abysmal failure.

[otolith]

crankedup said:

As for Osbourne, his rather stupid and inaccurate talk of 'closed curtains whilst striver's are on their way to work' was so crass and ignorant all he succeeded in was devaluing the Government even further.

He was voicing a legitimate concern that many MPs will have heard out of the mouths of their constituents - the benefit system needs to be fair, and to be perceived as fair, and someone going to work to pay taxes to keep his neighbours in bed until lunchtime has a reasonable perception of unfairness. There is a tendency for the debate to polarise between Daily Mail and Guardian perceptions, neither of which is entirely true, but people have genuine grievances based on their own experiences.

[DonkeyApple]

otolith said:

DonkeyApple said:

It's why I think if you used Draconian laws to force men to be fully accountable the problem would diminish very quickly.

Absolutely - but what do you do if estranged dad is living on JSA?

That would be the point. Ron the point they are declared the father all benefits are diverted at source to the child. If they are private sector it is taken via a change in tax code. And if they are being paid cash you stick them in prison for tax evasion.

The idea being that instead of knocking a bint up for a housing benefit or just because they don't care you would change their mindset so that they don't spaff up the sleeve for risk of losing their benefits or hard earned wage.

A man can easily travel to find work and live on beans and toast so we don't need to worry about them when their money is diverted to some clunge they knocked up.

[Vipers]

As long as benifits pay more than working, we will always have scrounges, at least the government could make benifits realistic.

[Steffan]

crankedup said:

JagLover said:

crankedup said:

We know that the benefits scandal is being addressed so quite why the Government continues with its divisive narration is a mystery and completely unnecessary.

Is it?

Benefits are capped at a level where someone would have to earn higher than the average wage, before tax, to achieve the same level.

Increases in benefits have been restricted to 1% for the next three years (after rising at over 5% last year)

Tinkering around the edges so far rather than really 'addressing' the issue. The universal credit sounds promising lets see how it works in practice.

As for why the government needs to continue with 'divisive narrative' their is an inbuilt bias in favour of ever higher benefits in much of the media. They are trying to counter that and are nowhere close to winning the argument.

Agreed, there is still a long way to go in bringing down welfare payments, another 10 billion is being examined. Talk of (softening up process)means testing of fuel allowance and bus passes being withdrawn from those pensioners who are 'better off'. Additionally, as you point out, increases in benefits will be minimised to 1% increases.
As for Osbourne, his rather stupid and inaccurate talk of 'closed curtains whilst striver's are on their way to work' was so crass and ignorant all he succeeded in was devaluing the Government even further.
The media can print/broadcast almost whatever they choose, the Government has a somewhat higher principle to uphold and show leadership, both aspects showing abysmal failure.

I think most Ph'ers recognise that since welfare spending is by far the largest sector on government spending and that this sector has been spiralling out of control for some years, the resulting Benefit Society problem that we now have in the UK is by far the most serious difficulty preventing the balancing our budget.

Every politicians is aware of the glaring need to permanently reduce benefit joyriding. No politician wants to actually face the problem and make the permanent changes needed. In consequence the actual reduction in benefits has been minimal under the present government.

However, there has at last been a start on the process which is a vast improvement over the spend, spend, spend approach of Tony Bliar and Gordon Brun and the glimmer of reality has started to dawn in the UK that the current level of benefit costs are simply not sustainable. I do think that the problem will begin to be addressed as time goes by.

New Labour, or whatever they have metamorphosed into under Millipede and Balls Up are really beginning to struggle with this new reality. Balls Up was clearly floundering during the recent Autumn budget debate. To be a credible government New Labour(?) have to demonstrate how they will cut the necessary expenditure and this they cannot do. As Balls Up clearly realised in that debate.

I anticipate a wholly unfounded and completely spurious round of new retrospective taxation proposals from New Labour to attempt to suggest balancing the budget by a greater tax take from the wealthy and big companies. None of this will actually work and the overall tax rake will fall as the recession deepens in the UK. It may provide a short term smokescreen but that is all.

Permanent lasting reduction in the overall spending of government is the ONLY way to address this problem. Regrettably the shilly shally coalition is addressing this much too slowly. Bit I do think it is coming and I do think, on time, the budget will begin to return to sustainable levels. By the time it dies our debt will be far higher than it should be.

But that is the only real economic future for the UK.

[GroundEffect]

vdp1 said:

Pistonwot said:

vdp1 said:

If only I was in charge of the benefits system.

9am monday down the office: ring ring.
dole scum: 'yea, what is is mate, I aint got no money in my bank in it'
me: Well have you done any work in the last two weeks sir?
DS: 'na mate, me aint done nufink bro'
me: well there's you fking problem then you lazy fking tt.

In fact the best answer would be to use the benefits money to pay for child care between true working hours, say 0700 to 1800, or earlier/later if needs be. That way the 'parents' would have no excuse not to go to work as the kids would be looked after and fed. And if they didn't bother then who cares what happens to them.
I would gladly pay more taxes just to see the great unwashed stood at a bus stop in the dark in January heading off to put nuts and bolts in a cardboard box all day for £6.

Id bet money youre ignorant enough to believe this would fix the problem? Another brain-dead mouthbreathing tt.
Regurgitating a tired old Daily Mail scenario is the best effort at a 'solution' you have? Thats it is it?
An exemplary simpleton and grade A tool combined is a rare thing, I genuinely pity those that have to be around you.


I applaud you for 1 thing.
Your imbicillic response means I need to readjust my understanding of what an "ignorant idiot" is,
you've shown me a whole new level of stupidity that I never even knew existed.

Bravo

fk you, you socialist piece of st, why the fk should even one penny that I work for go to someone else who is too bone idle to do fk all all day.
Do you not understand that the money these cretins get come directly out of the working persons wages. You do understand that if everyone stopped working and went on benefits then the system would be bankrupt overnight. There is no magic money tree you tt.

People are unemployed because they are unemployable, and I dont give two fks if they freeze to death because they have no money.

Its so simple, stop the benefits and use the money to build factories that make things like televisions or cars or whatever, the options are endless. Then get the feckless working for their money.

I would imagine most of the working population feel like this fella below, and yes he would make a good Daily Mail reporter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pAC0YSmK0g

Probably not quite safe for work but it should be watched by every worker.

One again fk you dhead.

Hahahaha, I was wondering when good ol' racist Pat would be brought up.

Also, read Pistonwot's other post near his reply to you. He's referring to fixing the financial system and holding the government accountable rather than focussing on the rather trivial matter of those that just take advantage of a LEGAL benefit system. Compared to the billions (if not trillions) that the banking bds lost us over the last 5 years, this woman getting a depressing amount of money to live on (I earn 3x what she does and I'm a young single man with no dependants and still don't feel well off) is not the real issue.

Also, look at the US. Look at their lack of welfare system and how retarded it is.

[DonkeyApple]

Digga said:

DonkeyApple said:

After all, if a man isn't man enough to take responsibility for his children what real use is he to society?

As I've admitted before on PH, one of the few paternal bits of advice that was offered and heeded was "do not get anyone pregnant". As I saw it - it would have been my responsiblity.

It seems the rights (and fun) enjoyed are expected to be without responsibility these days.

We do live in a world of equal rights etc but I can't help thinking that if you heap all responsibility onto the man then the man would think twice about who he becomes a father with and when.

[Steffan]

DonkeyApple said:

Digga said:

DonkeyApple said:

After all, if a man isn't man enough to take responsibility for his children what real use is he to society?

As I've admitted before on PH, one of the few paternal bits of advice that was offered and heeded was "do not get anyone pregnant". As I saw it - it would have been my responsiblity.

It seems the rights (and fun) enjoyed are expected to be without responsibility these days.

We do live in a world of equal rights etc but I can't help thinking that if you heap all responsibility onto the man then the man would think twice about who he becomes a father with and when.

I entirely agree. However as usual in administration the devil is in the detail. Tax avoidance in the UK demonstrates daily how easy it is for the determined and ruthless to completely avoid complex laws and to frustrate legislation.

The CSA debacle decade by decade under successive governments and the total failure by the UK government to collect vast sums from absent fathers decade upon decade once again confirms the reality of the problem. It is easy to propose the solution. It is virtually impossible to legislate effectively to actually correct the defects.

[Deva Link]

Steffan said:

I think most Ph'ers recognise that since welfare spending is by far the largest sector on government spending and that this sector has been spiralling out of control for some years, the resulting Benefit Society problem that we now have in the UK is by far the most serious difficulty preventing the balancing our budget.

More than half of the welfare bill is pensions.

The sort of welfare being railed against in this thread is actually fairly small beer in the great scheme of things.

[Steffan]

Deva Link said:

Steffan said:

I think most Ph'ers recognise that since welfare spending is by far the largest sector on government spending and that this sector has been spiralling out of control for some years, the resulting Benefit Society problem that we now have in the UK is by far the most serious difficulty preventing the balancing our budget.

More than half of the welfare bill is pensions.

The sort of welfare being railed against in this thread is actually fairly small beer in the great scheme of things.

The overall spending of the government has to be brought into line with the level that the UK taxpayer can actually service. Something has to be cut. The overall expenditure is not affordable.

I think that one of the unforeseen consequences of the and benefits system in the UK is that it has undoubtedly reduced the need to work. In consequenbce a significant proportion of working age individuals use the system to avoid work. You may think this is small beer. I do not. There are various other choices, each of which has serious downsides.

Somehow the overall spending has to be cut. There is simply no other way to balance the budget. What would you suggest?