Fixing Benefits Britain

Do you have a carer who could assist you with that? If not, such vouchers should be available to use with supermarket online deliveries or other means if you want to get down to the real nitty gritty.

Non-disabled adults have the ability to work - why should people who do work pay for them in any way?

Well if you work in the private sector and money you earn comes from the spending of someone else. You don't create money.

Um, the £1 shop, maybe?

Oh shut up. You wouldn't say that to my face.

I'm done with this forum. It seems to be a place for people to abuse others because they lack the guts to in real life

I agree entirely - I believe welfare should only be available to the disabled and children in the form of raw materials (e.g. things to cook with, pre-paid utility bills, etc.)

there are plenty of employment opportunities if you can be bothered to work hard and/or present yourself well.

Why should the taxpayer (especially the working and middle classes) prop up others who cannot be bothered? Remove their JSA and housing benefit and see how quickly they would strive to find a job.

It is this sickening sense of entitlement that people expect others to work hard and subsidise their lives - I'm glad Cameron is doing this, but he should go a step further and remove all forms of welfare with the budget for children and the disabled, and the state pension, ring-fenced. After all, it is not the fault of the child that their parents are lazy and/or stupid unentitled layabouts.

Not all disabled people need a carer.

Why?



How do you know? Also, the old ''work hard'' phrase rearing its ugly head again there. I think you mean ''work''.



Ok well this sounds like something Katie Hopkins would say. It really does seriously sound like middle England brainwashing.

This whole debate never really seems to hinge on how much benefits people receive, rather the reasons they receive it.

On the one hand, you have the group of people that seem to think that a majority of people are on benefits because they are ''lazy'' and ''workshy'' and other Daily Mail phrases.

On the other hand, you have the group of people, including myself, that think that most people are on benefits out of necessity, however there are a small minority of people that abuse the system.

Whatever system you put in place, there's always going to be shrinkage. Open a shop and you'll get items stolen. Run a benefis system and you'll get abusers.

Cut benefits and sit there all proud because you're teaching the ''workshy'' a lesson. Whereas in actual fact what you're doing is ruining a lot of people's lives and taking away the only real lifeline they have. Is it really worth the sacrifice in order to ge the ''workshy'' into work?

And banging on about how the taxpayers money gets wasted is illogical. If you were that concerned about where your tax was going, benefits would be low down on the list.

Coming from the same kind of people that think that 48 is somehow an unusual age for a bloke to have a kid. I think some of you live in some kind of unrealistic bubble here tbh.

So if both parents are in receipt of the normal state pension that is an entitlement that they have put in. Every tax payer gets a state pension after paying national insurance for 40 years.

Although it is correct that a state pension is a benefit, it is not what most people are referring to when they talk about "benefits" ( despite the state pension actually being the main component of the "benefits bill")

I don't have an issue with anybody who has worked receiving their entitlement and receiving their private pension etc

But if claiming any benefit that is intended to compensate the claimant for loss of work, the claimant has to declare any income and savings. They need to spend any savings before claiming benefits.

Someone I know was made redundant and had to spend the entire sum before getting any benefit ( that is fair enough) but also had to spend the cash from a medical compensation before receiving benefit. The result is that the money that was supposed to pay for a back problem to be sorted out has been spent on food. He now has to wait for NHS treatment instead of private

And not all of us who need a carer can get them.

You are fallaciously attempting to compare two entirely different things - in the private (and public) sector, people offer a service or good valuable to that market and they are rightly remunerated for it because they offer a competitive service.

You are being paid just for existing!

Why?



How do you know? Also, the old ''work hard'' phrase rearing its ugly head again there. I think you mean ''work''.



Ok well this sounds like something Katie Hopkins would say. It really does seriously sound like middle England brainwashing.

This whole debate never really seems to hinge on how much benefits people receive, rather the reasons they receive it.

On the one hand, you have the group of people that seem to think that a majority of people are on benefits because they are ''lazy'' and ''workshy'' and other Daily Mail phrases.

On the other hand, you have the group of people, including myself, that think that most people are on benefits out of necessity, however there are a small minority of people that abuse the system.

Whatever system you put in place, there's always going to be shrinkage. Open a shop and you'll get items stolen. Run a benefis system and you'll get abusers.

Cut benefits and sit there all proud because you're teaching the ''workshy'' a lesson. Whereas in actual fact what you're doing is ruining a lot of people's lives and taking away the only real lifeline they have. Is it really worth the sacrifice in order to ge the ''workshy'' into work?

And banging on about how the taxpayers money gets wasted is illogical. If you were that concerned about where your tax was going, benefits would be low down on the list.

Coming from the same kind of people that think that 48 is somehow an unusual age for a bloke to have a kid. I think some of you live in some kind of unrealistic bubble here tbh.

Yes, it is worth the sacrifice. Just as I disagree with corporate taxpayer subsidies, I disagree similarly with working age benefits.

It is not the only lifeline they have, the best and most cost-effective lifeline they have is getting employed!

If you give me vouchers, I can't then go and spend them in the local £1 shop. I am forced to somehow get to the local supermarket, (which as a non-driver is impossible) and spend my money there.

Why the disabled and children? What about non-disabled people?

Once it reaches my account, it is my money.

That is very true.



Ok, so I need MORE stigma. I already know there are lots of people that would consider me a 'scrounger' and say that my illnesses aren't real. Christ I beat myself up enough about claiming benefits but when I only leave the house to buy food and spend all day in bed surrounded by a growing pile of rubbish, I don't have a choice.

Perhaps if you tried putting yourself out, and even merely attempting to gain employment, you wouldn't feel this way.

So you'd rather carers didn't bother and the NHS picked up the tab?

You don't have the first idea about mental illness, do you?

How is carer funding related in any way to what you quoted me on?

Its a working age benefit, and you said you disagree with working age benefits.