Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

What exactly is your problem with benefits?

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The government actually persuade people to stay on benefits


    Posted from u a hoe mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Good lad, someone has to say this kind of stuff.

    Also, I know its not relevant to the thread but you're kind of a cute guy, if you don't mind me saying
    No I don't mind lol bit different than before when you randomly insulted me but I'll take the compliment
    And ye I will do it later because what inspired me to make the thread was just recently like this weekend actually I had to go. My mum didn't wanna go but we needed to, she gets paid fortnightly, so last week it was tight. I was like "I'll go easy. :indiff:" Dont see what the big deal is lol
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EnemyofState)
    The government actually persuade people to stay on benefits


    Posted from u a hoe mobile
    Not sure where you are going with this one but I have thought this and it's been said..that's why I call it a trap sometimes..it's kinda hard to explain if people are so uneducated about benefits anyway.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    AngryRedhead by my mum didn't wanna go, I mean the food bank :yes: btw
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Yeah I'm sorry about that, really, I am. I don't know why I was in such a terrible mood that time. I actually agree with a lot of the stuff you post tbf.
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Ah, I see. I understand. I hope your situation gets better though. What are you doing at uni?
    It's fine and business economics bsc
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    My point is right here:
    do you know what their life is like if they do? Psh go visit someone who lives solely off benefits lol with like one kid as well. It's a crack in the floor away from living like a tramp on the streets. Some people are envious of those who seem to live pretty good off them with loads of kids. That's an unfair and untrue depiction.
    Having children whilst on benefits is irresponsible. If you can't financially support a child then it's foolish to bring one into the world, the only exception would be rape but even then there are options like an abortion. It's not fair on the child, either, if you can't provide for it.

    Well there's clearly two versions of the benefit story: one is of the family with 6 kids who have a flat screen TV, iPhones etc. which I recognise is unrepresentative of the average benefits claimant, but the fact that this can even occur at all is disgusting and the loopholes should be closed. The second, as you mentioned, is the person who is struggling to make ends meet. This is how benefits should be, they're not supposed to allow you to live a luxurious life where they have a load of disposable income to spend on what they wish, they're supposed to provide just enough money for food/bills/rent until you can find a job so that you no longer need to claim them. They aren't supposed to be a permanent solution, and if you intend to be on them long-term then it's perfectly justified that you can't afford luxury goods. And if you're in them short-term, as they are intended, then it shouldn't have a major impact on your circumstances.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    Well some people are trapped into claiming because then their monies will stop if they get a job or residence lol I myself have been on JSA only and that was once during a gap year :\ but temporary/emergency claimants are still stigmatised.
    Claiming JSA whilst on a gap year is exactly what I'm talking about regarding unwarranted claiming. Benefits are not needed for a gap year (assuming you aren't living by yourself ofc).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JRKinder)
    Having children whilst on benefits is irresponsible. If you can't financially support a child then it's foolish to bring one into the world, the only exception would be rape but even then there are options like an abortion. It's not fair on the child, either, if you can't provide for it.

    Well there's clearly two versions of the benefit story: one is of the family with 6 kids who have a flat screen TV, iPhones etc. which I recognise is unrepresentative of the average benefits claimant, but the fact that this can even occur at all is disgusting and the loopholes should be closed. The second, as you mentioned, is the person who is struggling to make ends meet. This is how benefits should be, they're not supposed to allow you to live a luxurious life where they have a load of disposable income to spend on what they wish, they're supposed to provide just enough money for food/bills/rent until you can find a job so that you no longer need to claim them. They aren't supposed to be a permanent solution, and if you intend to be on them long-term then it's perfectly justified that you can't afford luxury goods. And if you're in them short-term, as they are intended, then it shouldn't have a major impact on your circumstances.
    Your 1st paragraph is only applicable according to belief system. Some people will say no matter what have children, that children are blessings. So I won't get into that and I don't want to.

    I'm not even gonna have a discussion about the 1st line of your 2nd paragraph lol. Yes it is like not even 3% of benefits claimants. Most live in conditions you cannot imagine. There are no loopholes with benefits. There is understanding of how the system works. Benefits is generally a shameful thing; it's a shame to have to ask for money, to live how you do whilst on benefits, to live how you would needing them but too proud to claim. It's a shameful scene. Having to climb through your own window because the doorknob doesn't work and the landlord doesn't give a toss, yet you claim whichever benefits. It's not something that loopholes are created for. It's something that loopholes if any should be created for to avoid having to be in that position. No one is trying to find ways and "loopholes" to decide whether they're gonna eat or top up the electric. While claiming benefits. Benefits is like ...couple hundred quid a month. And with that there's a daily limit they can use. Like a tenner. So the food is minimum, the quality of it. It's a horrible life. Idk anyone on benefits who lives like the televised version of having flatscreens and that. And if they do have flatscreens then that's their budgeting issue. It doesn't mean stop them getting help because they spend money other than on what you like. Did you bother to read the op? :\ Because if they didn't claim they will be on the streets. Then you'd be complaining about all the tramps on the streets lol



    (Original post by JRKinder)
    Claiming JSA whilst on a gap year is exactly what I'm talking about regarding unwarranted claiming. Benefits are not needed for a gap year (assuming you aren't living by yourself ofc).
    Excuse me? Do you know me? lol

    I was in my 2nd year of uni, had to drop out because of tuition higher than my student loans and I was not able to live at home so don't bother judging me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    all of u are so sad, why do you even care if someone is on benefits. Why are you so insecure. If you care so much, do something about it u mongs


    Posted from u a hoe mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CBMFM99)
    Here's some of my viewpoints:

    .Wanted Brexit

    .Increase in tax on Businesses and Wealthy Families

    .Increase in public spending and nationalisation of services

    .Skeptical on immigration- I believe it's fine when the numbers aren't too high

    .The Workers of the country should be paid more and have a voice

    .Anti-Monarch- Cannot stand the Queen

    . Atheist- Religion causes too much trouble

    . Benefits are valuable but we should regulate it to make sure it's going to the correct people (if you can work, work basically)

    .Support Gay marriage

    .I believe that certain drugs should be legalised but placed under heavy regulations for businesses

    .An Australian Points based system could work, with lenient stances on migration for Refugees and Asylum Seekers

    So... I know it's a long list, but those are some of my viewpoints. Where would you place me politically? What party do I link with? I would vote Labour but what would you think?
    Like I said in your thread, yea, read the OP closely and click the link I provide as well so you can see where the funds of the Welfare Budget are being allocated. It has nothing to do with sitting on your back doing nothing. Benefits is already regulated hence people who receive benefits qualifying to get it. I emphasise qualifying because that means not just every Tom, Dick n Harry can waltz in claiming benefits and receiving it. Most people who receive benefits as you will see in my OP need it, like they are disabled or they are already working but the pay is not substantial for their particular living situation such as distance and travel and/or the number of children they have and/or the rent and/or the type of work that they do underpays according to their needs
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not going to debate you seriously, and am not even sure what your stance is, because it wasn't necessary to read any further than the following.

    -Child benefits/Child tax credits-what is your issue with people having kids?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dragonzrmetal)
    I'm not going to debate you seriously, and am not even sure what your stance is, because it wasn't necessary to read any further than the following.
    Whilst I agree that individual people don't need children, the country as a whole needs more people to work to sustain the large aging population, whether it be by immigration or children
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Whilst I agree that individual people don't need children, the country as a whole needs more people to work to sustain the large aging population, whether it be by immigration or children
    Yeah, that's fine. Funnily enough, I suspect that immigration to fatten out the younger part of the population is the main reason we've been doing better than the rest of Europe. Well, the treasury figures also show that EU and non EU migrants especially are a net economic benefit as compared to the native British, and I certainly didn't support Brexit because of immigration, but I digress.

    My point was his fallacy is appalling and I don't even want to talk to someone whose logical structure goes like this:

    > Against child tax credit = against people having kids
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dragonzrmetal)
    Yeah, that's fine. Funnily enough, I suspect that immigration to fatten out the younger part of the population is the main reason we've been doing better than the rest of Europe. Well, the treasury figures also show that EU and non EU migrants especially are a net economic benefit as compared to the native British, and I certainly didn't support Brexit because of immigration, but I digress.

    My point was his fallacy is appalling and I don't even want to talk to someone whose logical structure goes like this:

    > Against child tax credit = against people having kids
    I believe the OP is trying to appeal more to emotion than to logic when he used this sentence, even I read it and was a little bit uneasy but why else would someone oppose child tax credit unless they believed that people in Britain had too many kids that the taxpayer picks up the bill for? It's not even like you can use the argument that people pop out kids to live off benefits because they only support up to two children
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't have anything against benefits

    besides don't benefits take up only 2% of tax income?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Verrine
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Nothing against those who need it but not very supportive for those who can get a job but don't want to because why work for a minimum wage your butt off when you can just get your money for free by putting in a minimal effort.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah why work a job where you earn the same in a day as you would get in a week of benefits. Low income homes also get housing benefit so there is a cross over of some description. Also they used to allow a HB and council tax run on when you went into work so that you wouldn't start work with rent debt accruing. And back to work grants. And working tax credit that can be equal to your JSA/ESA on top of your earned income. Yeah totally would prefer to stay on benefits.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My main issue is the stigma.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If you try to work a few hours to build confidence whilst still on benefits, your benefit money is reduced. You might think fair enough but it's hardly an incentive for people to keep trying and build towards working enough hours to not be state dependent..if when they do those hours they are out of pocket.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you have exam superstitions?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.