What exactly is your problem with benefits?

@0to100 C ya, hope you have a good nights sleep, farewell

1st what? My first post was the op...

my first response to you was just saying your post recognised different situations...why take issue with me agreeing with you, unless you're losing track of your own posts, which is a bad sign for how the rest of this conversation will go.

It was my intention, "what is your problem with the aforementioned statement about each type of benefit" basically...you didn't answer that question, you went on to squeeze in stereotypical scenarios. What has the fat guy you claim to have seen got to do with people on disability who have mental issues for example?

It was the first post though, yes?

I didn't take issue. You agreed with me, fine. I then went on to expand on my post, I didn't take any issue in you agreeing with me whatsoever and have literally no idea how you got that impression after going back and re-reading my own post just to make sure. You then responded to me with an attitude anyway more or less saying 'okay, you have an issue with ingenuous claimants, no need to go on about it'.

A fat guy claiming when he shouldn't be indeed has nothing to do with those with mental health issues. Hence me separating and addressing the two separately. I have a problem with the former; the latter I am well aware are in genuine need and deserve every penny they get. You can't just list benefits, explain what they're for, ask what people's problem is and expect people to not address the negative as well as the positive. I'm clearly not the only one in this thread who was mislead as to what sort of answers you were expecting in with this thread, if you'd been more concise then people wouldn't have felt the need to address ingenuous claimants.
I don't see the point of this thread if you're just genuinely hoping for people to say "Yes, I agree, there are disabled people and people having trouble finding work that need benefits" or "no, nobody deserves benefits" because nobody is stupid enough to say the latter.

No that's fine, your passion on this subject and relevant subtopics is definitely welcome But while I agree the benefits don't need to be stopped or prevented, but they do need to be surveyed to make sure the money is being putting to proper use just in case it isn't, there are people who neglect their kids, as we both agreed, who aren't claiming but the fine line is that they still may need financial assistance that is not available to them because of a razor thin technicality

So their kids look like ****. And maybe I never knew teachers are entitled to confidential information like each pupil who is on benefits, in order for them to report the parent for not spending it on the kid based on their appearance does that happen?

Hope not lol But yea even though their nosiness can sometimes bring welfare to your door and get your kids taken or something, I think there needs to be a bit more care from teachers and more proactiveness to protect kids. I'm wondering how it can be made legal to survey everyone's spending on their kids.

The point of the thread is for me to speak my mind about those who judge everyone on benefits, simply because they don't know wtf they're talking about or watch too much Jeremy Kyle. Someone disagreeing with me is welcome and expected but I don't see the point of you posting if you expect me to agree with anything you say either lmao.

You're disregarding people who don't abuse benefits because your--yes--scrutiny of those who do abuse means you obviously want some changes to the system, to make sure they no longer commit "fraud." Not only are you being stupid in your lack of realisation that people get their benefits stopped all the time ALREADY for fraud...this issue you still foolishly have could lead to hypothetical futile and unnecessary changes in the current system, which would jeopardise people who actually need it, despite the fraudsters being a minority as you admitted anyway. That is literally disregarding mate. As I said before and you damn well understood.

it should only be given to you if you don't have parents - the first line of obligation is with the parents. if the parents then can't pay, then that's when the state should provide some facilitation, but not to fund a lifestyle

That just makes 0 sense. You asked questions, I posted my answer. I then elaborated on my first post - at this point, as far as I was aware, we were just having a friendly discussion. You then all of a sudden came back with a shirty post and said I needn't have posted what I posted, so naturally I disagreed for reasons I've stated. If the purpose of the thread is simply to state your view, why ask a whole host of questions???

Pretty much my experience too


Posted from TSR Mobile

Yes, it's important that the money is used wisely particularly when it comes to children It's not right for a child to be bullied in school because they smell or have loads of nits in their hair simply because of useless parents. Of course this doesn't only happen to people on benefits but if something can be done for these people then I think we should help.

I do think it would be difficult for those who earn some money but not enough to get a lot of help which means they have a hard time helping themselves and their family... I guess these are more difficult to assess?



I don't think teachers get told directly but you can sort of work it out based on whether or not they're on free school meals etc..

If a child constantly comes into school on a Monday with holes in their jumper and old food stains on their shirt but the mum looks perfectly fine then clearly something is wrong.



Yeah, it can sometimes be annoying for a normal family.

If a teacher notices a child constantly coming into school looking as though they haven't been taken care of or if a child is behaving strangely then they should be encouraged to report it and tell the parents.. But I know some parents get really moody when teachers say anything that's negative which is why they sometimes refrain.

A survey would be good but I think parents would find it invasive.

Penalise the parents for having a disabled child? What a brilliant idea. They (the parents) probably can't already work full time because of having to care for their disabled child. Or they're having to do what my parents have to do - take their child almost every single month to the hospital.

You have no idea how disability works at all, do you? A friend of mine has 6 children, 5 of whom have a disability. Because of this, she can't put them in child care over the holidays which means she has to work term time only, which means a lower salary.

Have you seen the cost of disability equipment? And just how would people pay for care if they couldn't get DLA because according to you, the parents should pay for it? Not everyone has a spare few grand lying around to pay for the equipment they need, which may need replacing every few years.

And it's not just equipment. I have a cousin whose child is constantly in and out of hospital. It costs money to go and see him. Thankfully, they do have family anf friends nearby to help out with the eldest. But it means that his mum can't work.

Yes, I want more scrutiny of those who commit fraud to reduce their ability to do so. Those who claim benefits properly do not need to be scrutinised and can be disregarded, and left to continue claiming benefits as they are, because there are no problems with what they're doing.

I've suggested no change to the system other than what you've already suggested yourself: "they do need to be surveyed to make sure the money is being putting to proper use just in case it isn't"

That just makes 0 sense. You asked questions, I posted my answer. I then elaborated on my first post - at this point, as far as I was aware, we were just having a friendly discussion. You then all of a sudden came back with a shirty post and said I needn't have posted what I posted, so naturally I disagreed for reasons I've stated. If the purpose of the thread is simply to state your view, why ask a whole host of questions???

That was for a specific type of benefits, not a generalisation of all benefits claimants like you, and that wasn't about fraud either, that was about spending child tax on children after receiving for genuinely needing child tax (it's hard to fraudulently claim benefits for children since the benefits are often proportionate to the number of children and their ages so once again you show the skin of your arse)

Whatever the case may be, I don't think there's anything wrong with monitoring those who claim benefits to ensure that those who claim them fraudulently or inappropriately find it more difficult to do so, and those who claim them correctly can continue to do so.*

By the way, you seem really touchy about this subject for some reason, calm down a bit lol... *

Ok bye

See ya

y...

...what is this? You make no sense, you keep repeating the same ****! I already told you I disagree with you feeling the need to ridicule people who claim benefits because of some fat guy you saw. That's your implication and I don't like it, I addressed it, oh well bro. Hopefully you've rested up so you can use your brain next time you post. No we weren't having a friendly discussion, I sensed snark in your tone since we started obviously. Look back on your post and see how absolutely nothing useful was written at all, that alone lets me know you're tryna get tough with me lol because you won't be quiet even though I already said what I had to?

I want a sports car but can't afford one. Should I be able to get government assistance to buy one?

Penalise the parents for having a disabled child? What a brilliant idea. They (the parents) probably can't already work full time because of having to care for their disabled child. Or they're having to do what my parents have to do - take their child almost every single month to the hospital.

You have no idea how disability works at all, do you? A friend of mine has 6 children, 5 of whom have a disability. Because of this, she can't put them in child care over the holidays which means she has to work term time only, which means a lower salary.

Have you seen the cost of disability equipment? And just how would people pay for care if they couldn't get DLA because according to you, the parents should pay for it? Not everyone has a spare few grand lying around to pay for the equipment they need, which may need replacing every few years.

And it's not just equipment. I have a cousin whose child is constantly in and out of hospital. It costs money to go and see him. Thankfully, they do have family anf friends nearby to help out with the eldest. But it means that his mum can't work.