What exactly is your problem with benefits?

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    And that's what their parents are for.

    As a responsible adult, why have something you knowingly can't afford without outside help?

    As previously mentioned, I'm all for a safety net for people who's situation changes, but a default handout just because? Why?
    I get that, but you can't punish the child for their parents wrongdoing
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmallTownGirl)
    Not all disabled people can't work. But people on ESA can't work due to illness or disability. Our 'willingness to work' isn't part of the criteria.

    My point is that you shouldn't talk about benefits when you don't understand what the benefit actually is for. The rhetoric that people on ESA WRAG are able to work (when the eligibility is that they can't) has led to a huge cut in benefits for thousands of people who have no choice and will lead to the worsening of the health problems and disabilities of the people in WRAG.
    I never said willing to work is part of anything. My point is despite not being able, that doesn't mean they're feckless scroungers, but it's their circumstance preventing them?! Also one minute you say they can't work, you whined about it till now, and now you're saying "some disabled can work." Listen mate figure it out alrite and meantime understand what I'm saying.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Child benefits/Child tax credits-what is your issue with people having kids?
    None, I just don't thibk that I should pay for others people's life choices. I also dont want to pay for this type of personal choice http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-multiply.html

    -Guardian's allowance-this is for people caring for children. What's wrong with that?

    Most people, when it has anything to do with the disbaled, are sympathetic

    -NHS travel scheme and dental care-for those who need assistance with traveling for care or to hospital or whatever. Should someone die or stay ill simply because they're currently not in a good place financially?
    I think the sy
    -JSA/jobseeker's allowance-without it, people will be homeless whilst looking for work and skint. It's been cut massively and there are strict sanctions/penalty fees anyway. So what's the issue?
    People that do not work, should be helped with a loan to tide them over. It should be at a low rate, and if they get a new Job quickly, then the debt should be forgiven.A lot of people do not like the fact that thry get up early, get on a crowded bus/train to work, get home tired, and then get the same amount of disposable income as those on benefits, who are sitting at home, doing nothing.
    -ESA-for disabled people still wanting to work. The problem is where?
    People pretending to be disabled, just to get benefits.Also, the ESA is discrominatory, thoae over 25 get more than those under. When one goes shopping, milk is not discounted because one is under 25, neither is the bread they buy, or the tea they drink.

    DLA-for disabled people again, and you can be very young claiming it or getting it claimed for you. Any issues with the disabled, anyone? No, no issues with the disabled, only issues with how they get paid. It is non means tested, and so is often paid to those not in financial need. Once again, people can pretend to be disabled.-Working Tax credit-ermm these people are working. Operative word, "working."We are subsiding Tesco, Primark and all the other organisations that pay workers peanuts. if we removed this, and people couldn't survive, then we should be raising the minimum wage(we are), instead of helping business get away with silly wages.-Pensions are a form of benefits. Any silly problems with that?No silly problems, but I think OP is quite silly.The problem with pensions is that yhe retirement age is raising, and the his is unfair on the young. The second problem is that I feel people should have saved during their lifetimes.I have no problem with the govt helping out these who were low-paid all their lives, so could not reasonably save.-Sick pay-self explanatory I'd reckon. -For the first time, your reckoning is accurate, it is self explanatory. However, your reckoning is misplaced. It’s paid by your employer, so it is not a form of state benefit. -MaternityOn the basis maternity leave pay is paid by the employer, it does not qualify as a state benefit. If you wnated to talk about the disadvantages, it allows women to become baby factories, and get paid 90% of their wage while they're at it. Where are the feminists. Shouldn't we be advocating equality?? Not so keen now are you.-Housing benefits-what, you want them in the streets?No, I don't want anyone on the streets, but of you're trying to prevent homelessness, this isn't the way to do so.If it were so, there would not be 185,000 homeless people.I feel that people should live within their budget. If you cannot afford to live in London(which everybody complains is too expensive) move out of the bloody city. This also allows employers to get away with paying ridiculously low wages.People know the govt will support them, so they accept low wages
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    I get that, but you can't punish the child for their parents wrongdoing
    Sterilise the parents, and if they ever make any money, tax them the cost of bring the children up.The people that do such are likely long term lazy ie unemployed.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rirjfbfn)
    Sterilise the parents, and if they ever make any money, tax them the cost of bring the children up.The people that do such are likely long term lazy ie unemployed.
    Yeah you can't do that because of the whole human rights thing. If you're going to complain about soemthing, at least come up with a reasonable alternative.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Yeah you can't do that because of the whole human rights thing. If you're going to complain about soemthing, at least come up with a reasonable alternative.
    There is nothing unreasonable about my suggestion. If you disagree with something, that state that.Do not hide behind pretences.If your concern is human rights, then we should withdraw from the ECHR.Simple
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rirjfbfn)
    There is nothing unreasonable about my suggestion. If you disagree with something, that state that.Do not hide behind pretences.If your concern is human rights, then we should withdraw from the ECHR.Simple
    It's not unreasonable to forcibly sterilise someone? oh ok
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    If people want money, they should get a job (disabled people are an exception here and they should continue to receive benefits). People shouldn't rely on the government to give them money. The government is better off spending money in something that generates jobs and more economics growth like developing infrastructure or improving education.

    Obviously there should be a small safety net for people who have become unemployed but this should be temporary and, right now, that's not the case. Too many people are relying on benefits and not on paid work.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    If people want money, they should get a job (disabled people are an exception here and they should continue to receive benefits). People shouldn't rely on the government to give them money. The government is better off spending money in something that generates jobs and more economics growth like developing infrastructure or improving education.
    The want for jobs isn't always sufficient in actually gaining one, can take months before one is actually landed so it would make sense that benefits are also extended to people in such a position


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jackieox)
    With the child one I don't think you should have kids unless you can afford to look after them (this is more aimed towards the bigger families who claim it's their "right" to have a big family. Well it's right that you pay for them then.
    Even if you are able to afford to look after your kids, some unfortunate events can happen in the future which would lead to parents being unemployment for a very long time.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rirjfbfn)
    -ESA-for disabled people still wanting to work. The problem is where?
    People pretending to be disabled, just to get benefits.Also, the ESA is discrominatory, thoae over 25 get more than those under. When one goes shopping, milk is not discounted because one is under 25, neither is the bread they buy, or the tea they drink.
    Those people pretending to be disabled are a minority.

    DLA-for disabled people again, and you can be very young claiming it or getting it claimed for you. Any issues with the disabled, anyone? No, no issues with the disabled, only issues with how they get paid. It is non means tested, and so is often paid to those not in financial need. Once again, people can pretend to be disabled.
    Have you seen the forms you have to fill in? Means testing would cost far too much. And equipment doesn't cost less just because you're lucky enough to have a working partner. For some people. DLA / PIP is the only way to get the car they really need or a blue badge, or to pay for the care they really need. And where on earth do you draw the line?

    And how do you know it's often paid to those not in financial need? Have you seen the cost of disability equipment? And it's not just equipment. If I want to do things like go away, I've got to pay to have someone with me or if I want to see a show, I've got to pay extra to ensure I've got a seat so that I can see.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely nothing. It's a privilege our country gets to give due to it's wealth and is only really antagonized because of a minority who perhaps should be given restrictions, and further social support/intervention. The negative interpretation of it is entirely down to the media and individuals such as Margaret Thatcher. I have no problem paying money in tax to give to people who need support, which is the majority of those claiming benefits
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    Those people pretending to be disabled are a minority.



    Have you seen the forms you have to fill in? Means testing would cost far too much. And equipment doesn't cost less just because you're lucky enough to have a working partner. For some people. DLA / PIP is the only way to get the car they really need or a blue badge, or to pay for the care they really need. And where on earth do you draw the line?

    And how do you know it's often paid to those not in financial need? Have you seen the cost of disability equipment? And it's not just equipment. If I want to do things like go away, I've got to pay to have someone with me or if I want to see a show, I've got to pay extra to ensure I've got a seat so that I can see.
    You can say that all you like, but you knly need e d a minority to bring down the world towers.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The real scroungers are the corporations that don't pay tax.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's mostly the fact that working class people work very hard for barely subsistence pay (minimum wage or effectively less), and it feels awfully unfair to them that if they claimed a lot of benefits (ESA/PIP/HB/Child Tax Credits/etc) it's possible to "game" the system into giving you more money than if you work hard.

    A good case in point would be Rirjfbfn's use of language, note that he calls it "subsidising their life choices". The feeling is that taxpayers are paying lazy people instead of them, because they work themselves to death for peanuts.

    That spits in the face of the "work hard and you will be successful" message sent to them their whole life, so public anger gets intensified when they watch benefit street.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The animosity people have towards those on benefits is due to the popular image peddled by the right-wing media of people living a life of luxury funded by the state. Programs like Benefits Street which aren't representative of the vast majority of claimants only adds to this.

    In reality it's a hand to mouth existence and people "faking it" to get disability payments are virtually non-existent, it's hard enough for people who are genuinely disabled to get the benefits they're entitled too. Genuine jobseekers are also sanctioned for trivial reasons which is why people are often forced to use food banks or payday loans just to survive.

    (Original post by _icecream)
    The real scroungers are the corporations that don't pay tax.
    ^^This.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I hate middle class children/youth.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Another thing:

    never would condone or encourage anyone to aspire to be on benefits
    and this thread isn't about concerns I don't even have with anyone's personal attitudes towards people on benefits
    My issue is anyone taking issue with the concept of benefits. It's not just the right wing media playing to people's already twisted views of the entire benefits system and its purpose.

    Like would you go up to a middle classed pensioner and say "benefits scrounger, **** off!"

    ...no.

    Would you go up to a disabled person (not just immobile but in cancer remission and out of work, or, mental issues but can "lift boxes just fine.") Would you taunt them for being on benefits? Not a rhetorical question either. Would you seriously do that?

    You don't know people's issue and why they claim, and the typical comments I see here from the few people disagreeing proves they have no idea what they're even insulting.

    People could have started off just fine and fell ill, couldn't work anymore, and needed benefits;
    their loved one fell ill and they lost their job to care for them, and needed benefits;
    they were fine but lost their well paying job because of the economy or the business, the industry, etc, and needed benefits;
    they had a decent job/career but lost their home/apt, and needed benefits;

    other reasons, you never know. So the generalisation of "you're on benefits" is just disgusting and quite frankly hilariously ignorant.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    The animosity people have towards those on benefits is due to the popular image peddled by the right-wing media of people living a life of luxury funded by the state. Programs like Benefits Street which aren't representative of the vast majority of claimants only adds to this.

    In reality it's a hand to mouth existence and people "faking it" to get disability payments are virtually non-existent, it's hard enough for people who are genuinely disabled to get the benefits they're entitled too. Genuine jobseekers are also sanctioned for trivial reasons which is why people are often forced to use food banks or payday loans just to survive.



    ^^This.
    Ok so your issue is the ultra conservatism of some aspects of the benefits system, such as exploitation. Sound.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    Ok so your issue is the ultra conservatism of some aspects of the benefits system, such as exploitation. Sound.
    I'm not an SJW by any stretch.

    But the way the Tories have gone after disabled people is a ****ing disgrace IMO.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: November 19, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Which is the best season?
Useful resources

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.