Are benefits still too generous in the UK?

Original post by TheMoralStruggle

Its certainly a huge mistake giving money/housing to single/teen mothers. Flog the little harlots red raw for devaluing morality and draining the national purse.

Agreed

Reply 82

TimmonaPortella

Original post by i<3milkshake

Google Cheryl Prudham.

I really should have known not to do that. Now I'm just annoyed.

I thought there was a cap now? Why isn't the cap taking effect?

Reply 83

Original post by TimmonaPortella

I really should have known not to do that. Now I'm just annoyed.

I thought there was a cap now? Why isn't the cap taking effect?

No idea. Just goes to show that while single/disabled people who want to work can be treated with contempt and given virtually no money, yet these people who blatantly don't want to work can get paid a fortune. All funded by the taxes of those on minimum wage/low wages.

This cap is pretty lenient as it is, and Corbyn wants it removed all together? Madness.

Reply 84

TimmonaPortella

Original post by i<3milkshake

No idea. Just goes to show that while single/disabled people who want to work can be treated with contempt and given virtually no money, yet these people who blatantly don't want to work can get paid a fortune. All funded by the taxes of those on minimum wage/low wages.

This cap is pretty lenient as it is, and Corbyn wants it removed all together? Madness.

I just hate the hubris of it more than anything else.

Frankly I'd like it to be possible to take benefits from people who brag about abusing the system just for that reason.

Reply 85

Asolare

20

This entire thread is one massive generalisation fallacy, I don't know how anyone is expected to argue with points made in here when examples to """""""prove"""""" the OPs point are extremely over the top and rare individual ones when the reality is a lot of people struggle on benefits.

God this thread is making me push towards voting Corbyn as much as I don't want to.

Reply 86

Original post by TimmonaPortella

I just hate the hubris of it more than anything else.

Frankly I'd like it to be possible to take benefits from people who brag about abusing the system just for that reason.

Look at council estates. They wear their feckless nature with pride. My solution?

Benefits are based on years paid into the system. So if you haven't got say five years of paying National Insurance you get the bare minimum, kids or not. Just £56 a week.
And the more you have paid in, the more you can get. Of course the maximum paid will still be just enough to help you get buy as good people would prefer to have low NI paid while they work by themselves and lower benefits when out of work.

People will say; what about the children? Under my system it is clear they won't get paid a penny. That will see the people just popping out kids stop asking society to just foot the bill. (See the Question Time Tory voter Tax Credit moaner) with four kids, a dog and no father in sight).
If you want to have kids supported if you fall on hard times then work for 5 years first. If you work for five years your kids will be taken into account, fine. Hardly unreasonable-work from 22-27 and you are sorted.

I would also have the initial amount received by people with enough contributions quite high but it fall gradually. So if you have paid in for five years after 1/2 a year it goes to a minimum level, if yiu have paid in for 10 years you get 1 year etc. This would allow people who have been in work a while (and thus have a skill or general desire to work in a particular area) to try and find work in that sector. Good for them, good for collectors of income tax, good for the country,

Just the top of my head thoughts-the principles more important than the idea and numbers.

Reply 87

Original post by Inexorably

This entire thread is one massive generalisation fallacy, I don't know how anyone is expected to argue with points made in here when examples to """""""prove"""""" the OPs point are extremely over the top and rare individual ones when the reality is a lot of people struggle on benefits.

God this thread is making me push towards voting Corbyn as much as I don't want to.

This thread has probably pushed many more away from Corbyn "no benefits cap" and Labour. No biggie.

I myself said that many struggle on benefits; that some however manage to milk the system. That is fair-it is not an attack on people claiming £55 a week so not reall taking any money, not an attack on the disabled, but the people who get a house and an income for doing nothing but breeding (all whilst being less selective about the person they mate with than a hamster).

Reply 88

TimmonaPortella

Original post by Inexorably

This entire thread is one massive generalisation fallacy, I don't know how anyone is expected to argue with points made in here when examples to """""""prove"""""" the OPs point are extremely over the top and rare individual ones when the reality is a lot of people struggle on benefits.

God this thread is making me push towards voting Corbyn as much as I don't want to.

It doesn't require generalisation at all. If people who don't deserve the level of support they're getting are getting it anyway, benefits are too generous to that extent. It's the principle of it.

Original post by i<3milkshake

...

I think just capping it at two, as I understand there are plans to do, would be a fair enough way to react, so that people can't just keep popping them out as a way to game the system, although I'm not against the idea of taking into account contribution in general.

Reply 89

ChaoticButterfly

20

Original post by i<3milkshake

This thread has probably pushed many more away from Corbyn "no benefits cap" and Labour. No biggie.

I myself said that many struggle on benefits; that some however manage to milk the system. That is fair-it is not an attack on people claiming £55 a week so not reall taking any money, not an attack on the disabled, but the people who get a house and an income for doing nothing but breeding (all whilst being less selective about the person they mate with than a hamster).

When you say things like "They wear their feckless nature with pride" that is precisely what you are doing. Then go on to use dehumanizing language like "breeding" as if you an awful racist american talking about poor black people living in a ghetto. You are just as prejudiced.

Reply 90

username1148663

Some of the posts over the last day on here are a disgrace that show a massive lack of knowledge

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 91

Tiger Rag

22

Original post by TimmonaPortella

I really should have known not to do that. Now I'm just annoyed.

I thought there was a cap now? Why isn't the cap taking effect?

The cap doesn't exist for people who receive DLA / PIP or the support group of ESA.

Reply 92

jamesthehustler

19

as i know a number of disabled people they get benefits cut let right and centre and are on a couple of hundred a week but these scroungers just need to be dealt with just cut them off entirely

Reply 93

Farm_Ecology

12

Original post by i<3milkshake

This cap is pretty lenient as it is, and Corbyn wants it removed all together? Madness.

The problem with the cap (like all of the simple "solutions") is that it just puts an arbitrary top limit, instead of reforming the way benefits are handled so that nobody would reach the cap.

Original post by i<3milkshake

This thread has probably pushed many more away from Corbyn "no benefits cap" and Labour. No biggie.

The benefits, like the immigration cap, is such a ridiculously stupid and simplistic way of dealing with the problem.

Reply 94

username1494226

19

Original post by TheNote

I just can't bring myself to say that people who make optional choices like having a child should get more than a student from a poor background going to university. I just think it's plain wrong that the people who work hardest are given ****, even to the point that being "smart" is a bad thing, I support Camerons cuts to child benefit.

NB. I fully support benefits for the unemployed, there will never be 0 unemployment and we need to support those who have been made redundant, but with more and more automation more people will be out of a job and I worry what we will do then.

But students aren't workers. Unless a student is working a job whilst at university, they're still as parasitic as a welfare bum who's hoovering up benefits that others are more deserving of(the recently unemployed and ill come to mind). Arguably, students as a class of people are becoming an increasingly larger burden on the country fiscally because for the time they're at college, they're not contributing to society at all. Now the difference is that college students are supposed to be working themselves towards a career but do many of them even make it there in the end. I think not based on statistics. Its a bit disingenuine to compare welfare folks to students and to suggest students deserve more aid because you just don't(in my opinion anyway, I'd be all for extra support to students studying in demand degrees like engineering) as you hoover up too much money now anyway and are becoming nothing more than IOUs to the state

Reply 95

Tiger Rag

22

Original post by TheNote

I just can't bring myself to say that people who make optional choices like having a child should get more than a student from a poor background going to university. I just think it's plain wrong that the people who work hardest are given ****, even to the point that being "smart" is a bad thing, I support Camerons cuts to child benefit.

NB. I fully support benefits for the unemployed, there will never be 0 unemployment and we need to support those who have been made redundant, but with more and more automation more people will be out of a job and I worry what we will do then.

I may be missing something here; but why can't a uni student work?

Reply 96

silverbolt

19

Original post by TheMoralStruggle

Its certainly a huge mistake giving money/housing to single/teen mothers. Flog the little harlots red raw for devaluing morality and draining the national purse.

yeah and flog the men right up next to them as well, after all it takes two to tango and they are also "devaluing morality" as well,

Reply 97

Tiger Rag

22

Original post by TheMoralStruggle

Its certainly a huge mistake giving money/housing to single/teen mothers. Flog the little harlots red raw for devaluing morality and draining the national purse.

Not all single mothers sleep around. Before she remarried my grandfather, my grandmother was a single mother. Her ex-husband (mum's dad) was in prison. They were married at some point. I have a friend who had 4 children when she was married. She's now divorced.

I know people who are single mothers because their childs father was killed doing their job, etc.

You really shouldn't be so quick to judge people.

Reply 98

Original post by Farm_Ecology

The problem with the cap (like all of the simple "solutions" :wink:

is that it just puts an arbitrary top limit, instead of reforming the way benefits are handled so that nobody would reach the cap.

The benefits, like the immigration cap, is such a ridiculously stupid and simplistic way of dealing with the problem.

Not if you set the cap at a reasonable level. I also said that the level of benefits (and also the cap if you wanted it to) could be changed depending on how long you have paid National Insurance. I also gave other examples of how to limit how much people can claim.

So my idea; have benefits based on the amount paid in and an outright cap to ensure that if someone has paid in a long time, and has many kids, they won't get more than is actually needed to run the household.

Your idea; none it seems. Or even worse go for a Corbyn style no cap and allow the council estates to become the new Royal Family with the amount they will claim.
The area will still be a run down dump-You can take the girl out of the trailer park, but you can't take the trailer park out of the girl idea, but its income will be huge.

Reply 99