[BVR7]

(Original post by Tedaus)
Of course they can, but how many actually do that? I would guess below 1 percent of benefit fraud is people putting this much commitment into just not working. Some people probably don't even realise they're doing it.

I didn't see the story they posted though.

You'd be surprised how many people actually do that. My step-aunt starting having a child every one or two years when she was seventeen...She's now twenty-five and is living from benefits and money from each father. I know of tonnes of other examples, too...Lots of people do put that much effort in...

[rmpr97]

I think the benefit system is a good thing for those unemployment who have hit hard times, but the long-term unemployed need to be assessed and be forced to get a job or no benefits. They don't have a right to them, it's a gift from the taxpayer.
I think the idea of making people on benefits do mandatory work experience is a good one (not short term ones who are only on it for say 3-7 months because they're unemployed, but those who are on it for over a year and even more). It's not slavery because your being paid for it are you not? And if you don't like it no benefits for you simple. Plus chances are its gonna benefit them when they do choose to get a job. Being a street cleaner looks better than benefits for x amount of years.

I do think there should be a cap on benefits depending on the amount of dependents you have. I was watching a show this morning and a couple were getting 50k pa on benefits. That disgusted me. The fact that someone can get the same or sometimes more than someone who works is awful. What message does that send out? 'Hey, I know you was gonna get a job, but you can get the same amount of money for doing nothing at all.'

I think it should be around 15k for one person. 25k for two. 35k for 3 etc.

[alj123]

I think we should have benefit officers who assess the person receiving benefits' current situation a lot more frequently. Also benefits are meant to support people, not fund them for their whole life.
The UK is lucky we have benefits, and I have absolutely nothing against people who genuinely need them.
If people abuse the system they should be restricted from voting and ever receiving benefits again. What do you think?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[OU Student]

(Original post by Courtney05)
benefits pay very well!

Not always. Unless £56 a week is a lot of money?

Sure. I agree with you on that but I don't think it's as bad as the media make it out to be.

It's nowhere near as bad as the media make out. 0.5% fraud per year for DLA, it's higher for errors or something.

How many stories have you seen about people using the benefits system responsibly?

A grand total of zero, I think. There are stories out there of the man who was found fit for work, went to claim job seekers and was told he's too ill to claim. There's also stories about 32 people on ESA dying per week and those who died before assessment.

[Like a BAWS]

(Original post by ANARCHY__)
How many families like this exist? You pulled a random figure out of the air to decide a cap on child benefit just because you're disgusted by one or two stories. Do you have any idea or any kind actual, hard evidence to suggest why we should be conservative with the benefits system or is this just based off your own political ideology? What happens to a middling family which makes enough money to scrape by but has 4 kids? Under your legislation, that 4th child wouldn't be addressed by the state and simply termed a family problem.

The family themselves admitted that the system allowed for these kind of loopholes. I am sure many people, when they are given the opportunity, take it. We have seen this at virtually every single level in society and I think it's a little trite to simply start targeting one strata because of a few anecdotal stories and because it is current news.

I'd be interested to see how well a family of 7 work on a £50,000 budget per annum.

You must not be from an area as rough as I am, in every single street there is at least one family like this. I don't see it as anecdotal, I see it as a real problem. And I think the problem is going to grow. I said I personally knew of a family like this, and already one of those 7 children is a dad themselves at 15 or 16, its a cycle that needs to be destroyed.

The problem in society is that those who are not in the position to afford children, are often the ones who have the most children. Whilst those who actually are ie white middle class in their late 30s for example, usually only have one or two children. This means the offspring of the less desirable in society such as the underclass jeremy kyle types are by far outnumbering the rest. And before you say mentioning Jeremy Kyle types are anecdotal and I'm just being convinced by the media, two people near where I live have actually been on Jeremy Kyle aswell

I also think in times where contraception and abortions are free, its pretty stupid to have four kids if you're in doubt that you could sustain the cost of 4 children.

[zippyRN]

(Original post by Tedaus)
Tax evasion gets a fraction of the media coverage benefit fraud gets.

that depends where you look for your news doesn't it ...

if you only look at the red-tops and the Faily Heil / Daily Sexpest then of course benefit fraud will feature highly

as tax evasion and avoidance is too complex a topic fot he level the red-tops are pitched at and the fail / sexpest don't want to alienate their core readership by suggesting that their fiddles are just as bad as the fiddles of the under-class and those 'faking' disability.

[ANARCHY__]

(Original post by Like a BAWS)
You must not be from an area as rough as I am, in every single street there is at least one family like this. I don't see it as anecdotal, I see it as a real problem. And I think the problem is going to grow. I said I personally knew of a family like this, and already one of those 7 children is a dad themselves at 15 or 16, its a cycle that needs to be destroyed.

The problem in society is that those who are not in the position to afford children, are often the ones who have the most children. Whilst those who actually are ie white middle class in their late 30s for example, usually only have one or two children. This means the offspring of the less desirable in society such as the underclass jeremy kyle types are by far outnumbering the rest. And before you say mentioning Jeremy Kyle types are anecdotal and I'm just being convinced by the media, two people near where I live have actually been on Jeremy Kyle aswell

I also think in times where contraception and abortions are free, its pretty stupid to have four kids if you're in doubt that you could sustain the cost of 4 children.

I'm not from an area like that, no. I still don't see how your evidence is any more than anecdotal. Even if you see it as a problem, you're still talking in conjecture. You know one family, I've read of another and you claim there are many more exactly like this? How does that account for the entire 60~ million strong population?

I'm not sure if you understand what anecdotal means. Saying that two people who live near you have been on the Jeremy Kyle show is precisely anecdotal. Of course, if there is a problem with the benefits system, then we need to strive to change that. I'm not disputing this and have not done. However, I don't believe that people simply have more children because they believe they will get additional child benefits (if that's what you're implying). Usually, the case is poor family management, supplemented by poor financial management.

I believe it's not a god idea to have a large family (or one at all) if you can't support it either. Therefore, the problem lies in educating people on how to manage and raise a family alongside an income and how benefits can contribute to this management and how it can help people remove themselves from a perpetual cycle.

[Like a BAWS]

(Original post by ANARCHY__)
I'm not from an area like that, no. I still don't see how your evidence is any more than anecdotal. Even if you see it as a problem, you're still talking in conjecture. You know one family, I've read of another and you claim there are many more exactly like this? How does that account for the entire 60~ million strong population?

I'm not sure if you understand what anecdotal means. Saying that two people who live near you have been on the Jeremy Kyle show is precisely anecdotal. Of course, if there is a problem with the benefits system, then we need to strive to change that. I'm not disputing this and have not done. However, I don't believe that people simply have more children because they believe they will get additional child benefits (if that's what you're implying). Usually, the case is poor family management, supplemented by poor financial management.

I believe it's not a god idea to have a large family (or one at all) if you can't support it either. Therefore, the problem lies in educating people on how to manage and raise a family alongside an income and how benefits can contribute to this management and how it can help people remove themselves from a perpetual cycle.

I think we just have quite different opinions on the matter haha

I have reason to believe its exactly what some people do. I've witnessed in my year at school, girls who made no effort in school, got pregnant during GCSE time and since then have had baby after baby and have their own council flat because they're given priority and all that.

And whilst you see education as the solution, I see the solution as slashing benefits, as I feel that people would take more drastic situation to ensure they dom't get in such situations in the first place. Heartless perhaps, but I feel 100% sure it would at least work.

[ANARCHY__]

(Original post by Like a BAWS)
I think we just have quite different opinions on the matter haha

I have reason to believe its exactly what some people do. I've witnessed in my year at school, girls who made no effort in school, got pregnant during GCSE time and since then have had baby after baby and have their own council flat because they're given priority and all that.

And whilst you see education as the solution, I see the solution as slashing benefits, as I feel that people would take more drastic situation to ensure they dom't get in such situations in the first place. Heartless perhaps, but I feel 100% sure it would at least work.

Sure. I don't mind disagreeing. I do actually think that benefits can be cut or streamlined but I don't believe it needs to be done drastically or focussed upon as much as education.

I'm sure there are many people who get pregnant at a young age for whatever reason but I don't see why you are saying this is a problem with benefits. That's a problem with culture (if you see it as a problem, that is).

Sure, slashing benefits might be painful at first and help in the short term but I think past that, it's difficult to really say how far it can go. Eventually, people will need those benefits which are no longer there and instead funding another sector of society. If you educate people, surely they'll use the system more responsibly and understand it actually makes more financial sense to use benefits as an aid to get out of poverty (which it is not, at present) rather than a life line to survive.

[Scumbaggio]

Hypothetical situation.....

If all unemployment benefits and tax credits stopped tomorrow what kind of effect would that have on the economy and the crime rate?

I think we might see a considerable amount of disorder.

[Oswy]

(Original post by alj123)
I think we should have benefit officers who assess the person receiving benefits' current situation a lot more frequently. Also benefits are meant to support people, not fund them for their whole life.
The UK is lucky we have benefits, and I have absolutely nothing against people who genuinely need them.
If people abuse the system they should be restricted from voting and ever receiving benefits again. What do you think?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

This kind of normative functionalism is (sadly) all too common, taking as axiomatic the legitimacy of arrangements which produce differentials in development and opportunity as well as producing things like unemployment, underemployment, homelessness and so on. A more critical approach is to focus not on whether recipients of benefits are 'playing by the rules' but on why the very system which produces those rules is allowed to advantage some and disadvantage others, systematically. After all, it's one thing to expect people to play by the rules of monopoly when they have been invited to do so and do so willingly, it's quite another to impose upon them arrangements which they didn't agree to and which do them no favours. The poor should take the benefits system for all it's worth in my view as it is, under capitalism, the product of an illegitimate economic, social and political system.

[Oswy]

(Original post by Scumbaggio)
Hypothetical situation.....

If all unemployment benefits and tax credits stopped tomorrow what kind of effect would that have on the economy and the crime rate?

I think we might see a considerable amount of disorder.

Yeah, I sometimes suggest, only half-jokingly, that all these right-wingers should have their wish granted. Within days of ending a 'benefits' system, which is mostly designed to keep the disadvantaged from being radicalised into action, we'd see riots in every town and city as a matter of routine and which might just result in revolution. The truth is that the advantaged classes in our society actually need a benefits system of some kind to keep them safe, even as they resent the rest for accepting their lot through its machinery.

[hmon93]

(Original post by izpenguin)
I believe that if someone is unemployed, and then has a baby while they are unemployed, they should not receive more benefits for having the baby.
Obviously if someone has already has kids when they become unemployed they should get more money because they have kids because it isn't their fault.
But if someone is unemployed, they should not be becoming pregnant! And they should not be rewarded for doing so with more benefits! Anyone having a baby whilst on benefits is almost certainly a benefit scrounger, because those genuinely looking for a job would wait until they found one to have a baby, so we are paying benefit scroungers to breed, and they will most likely be breeding kids who will go on to become benefit scroungers themselves.

Accidents happen, and do you really think a child should suffer just because their parents were irresponsible? In a lot of cases the money is needed for baby food, nappies, cots etc. Raising a child is not cheap. Instead of preventing "breeding" of "scroungers" - and believe me. they're going to have kids anyway - the child should be given the opportunities to have a better future through improved education in poorer areas and such.

[Mexican Red Knee]

The benefit system (dole in other words) should only be given to people who have paid something into the kitty (paid taxes) and are looking for word.

**NOT** to kids having kids or immigrants who come here for a luxury lifestyle.

[billydisco]

(Original post by Quady)
Sorry, what exactly do you expect pensioners to do?

After the decades of work they've done its a bit rich to say they are 'milking' society.

All that work, why did they save nothing for a rainy day?

[billydisco]

(Original post by Origami Bullets)
I'm sure it's nice to be so young, naive and comfortably off that you and your family have never been in the position of having no choice but to claim benefits.

95% of people on benefits - particularly at the moment when there are far more people out of work than there are jobs - want to get [back] into work as quickly as possible, but have no alternative to claiming benefits if they wish to keep a roof over their heads and feed their children.

Bollox 95%, more like 65%

[billydisco]

80% of benefits should be paid in vouchers

We should also build massive "centres" for them to live in. Concrete blocks, safe, secure and the police would only have to police one area!!!!

[Mexican Red Knee]

(Original post by alj123)
I think we should have benefit officers who assess the person receiving benefits' current situation a lot more frequently. Also benefits are meant to support people, not fund them for their whole life.
The UK is lucky we have benefits, and I have absolutely nothing against people who genuinely need them.
If people abuse the system they should be restricted from voting and ever receiving benefits again. What do you think?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

I get what you mean but what do you say by 'support people'

Two examples:

Kids having kids... a 15/16 year old girl (which one age is illegal as we both know) just about to leave school and purposely gets pregnant so she doesn't have to work (and the father as it does take two to tango), should they be allowed benefits?

No.

Someone just came over here, never paid a penny into the tax system and get given everything left right and centre because their are now a 'British citizen'?

No.

There is a fine line between receiving them when you genuinely need them then taking the biscuit, fortunately for me I work but if I ever did go unemployed I would sign on and quite happily claim my dole as I'm entitled to it and have paid thousands of taxes, yet I never get to see where it helps me!

If your partner is working full time (or earning too much) after 6 months your benefits will be stopped as well, I don't think that is hardly fair neither.

The system should be a lot tougher and make **SURE** people are looking for work, ringing places, and so forth many people lie about it and the job centre can't prove otherwise... although due to the current economy of Britain, the recession and so forth... it is very difficult to get a job and I understand that.

[Dalek1099]

(Original post by emkayheych)
I do love a good debate about the benefit system in the UK.
Personally, I think it's utterly ridiculous, and is so lenient about who recieves benefits that it allows lazy people to live comfortably whilst giving nothing back to the society they're milking.
Any opinions?

How dare you mock benefits.Some people often only get £65 a week to live on benefits and currently unemployment levels are so high that people can't get a job and then have to live on benefits,which aren't that high unless you have children or a disability only about £65 a week.

[Mexican Red Knee]

(Original post by Dalek1099)
How dare you mock benefits.Some people often only get £65 a week to live on benefits and currently unemployment levels are so high that people can't get a job and then have to live on benefits,which aren't that high unless you have children or a disability only about £65 a week.

People who have children or a disability get more than that.

I think she is meaning it needs to be tougher on the lazy people, which it does how can you say its okay for lazy people to still receive benefits?

He/she actually makes a very good point, you've just took it the wrong way I think.