The Student Room Group

Does the welfare system cause you "huge resentment" ?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by badcheesecrispy
the ironic thing is, you say the only way a person can contribute to society is by working (you mean paying tax)

yet you as a wannabe future tax payer dont want to give any of your money away to taxes as its 'yours'

if your working and hoarding all your money to yourself you arnt contributing to society

this goes for anyone who doesnt pay tax, to you

you dont want to pay tax so if you got your way you wouldnt be contributing, from your point of view


I didn't say it was the only way.

I want my taxes to be spent on the right things.
Original post by madders94
Where am I complaining? I said I'm prepared for having to live in a shelter or whatever, since when has that equated to complaining?


From many comments you made to me.

I thought we were discussing people who have been brought up on disability benefits because their parents are disabled.


The OP wasn't focused on disability benefits but the whole welfare system.
Original post by im so academic
I didn't say it was the only way.

I want my taxes to be spent on the right things.


Please enlighten us as to what the right things are?
Original post by minimarshmallow
Well then what are you arguing against then? You don't want to give people any money and then anytime people directly confront you about any specific benefit you jump to 'oh, I'm not against that one'.


I'm not arguing against JSA specifically.
Original post by badcheesecrispy
moral of the story- imsoacademic, ironlady and co dont want to contribute but they like to complain that everyone else should, they are bitter that they have to pay taxes and some people dont

very hypocritical

if you dont want to contribute, and hate paying taxes, why dont you take the perfect solution?

give your job up and live on benefits, im sure you'll have fun living the 5* high life (that only exists in your stereotypical misinformed and bitter dreams)


People on benefits should not have 5* lifestyles.
Original post by madders94
Please enlighten us as to what the right things are?


Specifically regarding welfare (as this is what the discussion is about) - money to provide for the bare necessities. Nothing more, nothing less.
Original post by im so academic
I didn't say it was the only way.

I want my taxes to be spent on the right things.


Same here

As I said before, I despise my taxes going on blowing up muslim countries and gastric bypasses and health treatment for fatties who cannot diet

I will say though that my list doesnt include benefit claimants, except those who genuinely are work shy, false claimants and idle people who have many children with different partners and use it as some sort of career

i never begrudge anyone it who genuinely needs the help, and i dont begrudge my tax money going on a bit of entertainment and leisure for people (and i mean simple things not holidays, ipads etc) who have little in life already

its not fair to say people that already have barely anything should have what little they have taken away from them

maybe this is because I can see it from 2 sides of the coin, my dad was very poor when young yet now has several houses and is a business exec, yet we still dont begrudge people benefits who need them

the reason why this country is first world is because it has such a tax system

tax is a fact of life and yes a lot of people would rather not pay it but you have to, no one is ever going to agree on what it gets spent on but thats up to the government to decide, and many people at the moment do not think they are doing this properly.
Original post by im so academic
Specifically regarding welfare (as this is what the discussion is about) - money to provide for the bare necessities. Nothing more, nothing less.


But who decides what the necessities are?
Original post by im so academic
People on benefits should not have 5* lifestyles.


i didnt say nor think that, the sentence was ironic

to end it, they dont
Original post by madders94
But who decides what the necessities are?


Food, water clothes, shelter, toiletries... Have I missed anything out?
Original post by im so academic
Food, water clothes, shelter, toiletries... Have I missed anything out?


What about a phone? I need a phone because if my parents need me urgently for something to do with my dad, they need to be able to contact me (and they SHOULD be able to contact me through the college, but of the many times my parents have phoned up asking for a message to be relayed, not once has it gotten through).

EDIT - To be fair I pay for my phone with EMA because it's something I do need for college, so it's not coming out of the benefits but it's still taxpayer money.

Apart from that I do agree with you, but I still can't see why you dislike the idea of charities such as Carers Trust etc taking young carers, disabled people etc on days out. Only a minority of the funding comes from taxpayers, the majority is from fundraising they do and donations given to them. Besides, I've already highlighted the amount carers save the government.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by madders94
What about a phone? I need a phone because if my parents need me urgently for something to do with my dad, they need to be able to contact me (and they SHOULD be able to contact me through the college, but of the many times my parents have phoned up asking for a message to be relayed, not once has it gotten through).

EDIT - To be fair I pay for my phone with EMA because it's something I do need for college, so it's not coming out of the benefits but it's still taxpayer money.

Apart from that I do agree with you, but I still can't see why you dislike the idea of charities such as Carers Trust etc taking young carers, disabled people etc on days out. Only a minority of the funding comes from taxpayers, the majority is from fundraising they do and donations given to them. Besides, I've already highlighted the amount carers save the government.


Cheap mobile phone. No EMA. Charities - fine.
Original post by im so academic
People on benefits should not have 5* lifestyles.


They don't.
Why are you still arguing?
Original post by minimarshmallow
They don't.
Why are you still arguing?


I've no idea then why that other user made that comment.
Original post by im so academic
I've no idea then why that other user made that comment.


Did you miss the
(that only exists in your stereotypical misinformed and bitter dreams)

that he wrote underneath the sarcastic comment about 5* lifestyles?
Read the whole post in future dear...
Yes beyond belief. I don't want to start complaining there is so much to complain about that once I start I might explode
Reply 596
yes, I feel that some people are not getting what they need (for example larger families where the parent is newly out of work) whilst others are getting a surplus.
Original post by Iron Lady
Are you qualified in mental health?


You are the person who things that you can cure yourself with a click of your fingers. Enough said.

Original post by Iron Lady

Although from your posts you often seem as though you're on the verge of a breakdown


lol.

Original post by Iron Lady

I gather you were spoiled as a child


Even more lol

Original post by Iron Lady

so that's why you love spending money unnecessarily?


Making sure those who cannot work have a decent quality of life is not "pending money unnecessarily".

Anyway this is not a thread concerning religion, just a response to your ridiculous suggestion about mental health problems from not experiencing leisure.

It is pretty obvious tbh. If someone does cannot relax and enjoy themselves, then it is likely they will develop some kind of mental issue. The whole "all work but no play makes jack a dull boy" thing.

Original post by Herr

No such thing as society


Gladly you are wrong.

Original post by Herr

Indeed, but it usually only extends to as far as other people who are in need not their wants.


And IMO you need leisure.

Original post by Herr

True not everyone on benefits is a scrounger


Then why suggest they are?

Original post by Herr

though plenty are and plenty who are on benefits are on there simply because it was the easiest way out.


So what about those who are not scroungers? Why should they suffer?

Original post by Herr

In case you haven't noticed, not everyone who works can afford fun.


Most can.

So essentially you are hoping for a system where the sky is the limit to how much benefit one could receive from the state?

Err no.

Original post by im so academic

If you fail to get a job (not necessarily straight out of graduation) that's because you chose the wrong course/university and/or made little effort to make yourself employable.


Or perhaps it is more to do with the fact the job market atm is down the crapper and there are not enough jobs out there?

Original post by im so academic
No, I will. Unlike other people, at least I wouldn't just give up on finding a job. It is my civil duty to do so.


And if you are looking for months upon months? Or even years?
No one is saying you shouldn't look. But what we are saying is that jobs are so rare at the moment, you cannot blame people if they are unemployed. It is not their fault there are not enough jobs.

Original post by marcusfox

* The cost of housing benefit is exponentially out of control.


Blame private landlords, not those who need help to pay the rent.

Original post by marcusfox

* Some not very well off working people, including those on minimum wages, are being asked to bear the burden of it.


So what about the not very well off working people, including those on minimum wages, who NEED things like housing benefit to survive?

Original post by marcusfox

* There's no money left.


So why are we wasting money on things like Libya, on things like free schools, on things like increasing tuition fees (which will likely cost the taxpayer MORE than the old system).

Original post by im so academic
People on benefits should not have 5* lifestyles.


But they don't
Original post by im so academic
Evidence? What Carr did was legal.


Evidence for what?
And I didn't say it wasn't legal. But if the loopholes were closed and such people paid the "proper" amount of tax, then the treasury would have more money.

Original post by im so academic

Because the amount given in benefits is fine now. People are still complaining.


But in many cases it is NOT fine. Have you had to live on benefits? No.

Original post by im so academic

Fine, then keep it as it is if you cannot suggest a figure.


As I said, it depends on the situation.

Original post by im so academic

Yet interestingly a few comments down I did say "people on benefits should have a crap life" yet you replied "you implied it".


What???
The bit you quoted there was me replying to Iron Lady about holidays in Tuscany (which THEY brought up, not me).

Original post by im so academic

**** that, I'm not paying.


So you want those who cannot work because they are too ill or disabled to die horribly in the street? What a lovely human being you are.

Original post by im so academic

Oh really? Where exactly have I said anything about any of those things? Oh, I haven't!


Come on, you know exactly what you have been saying. That you want those on benefits to not being able to have any kind of fun at all. For them to be given the bare minimum and nothing else (and you are even whinging about them being given the bare minimum).

Original post by im so academic

How?


I am not a politician. But I have posted a couple of ideas earlier in the thread.

Original post by im so academic

Where exactly have I said anything about any of those things? Oh, I haven't!


Again, I am not talking about you here. I am talking about Herr and Iron Lady.

Original post by im so academic

Bull****.


Running? You need trainers.
Swimming? £2.70.
Board games? You need to buy them.
TV? Need to buy it.
Walk in the park? Possibly transport and entry cost (not all parks are free).
Cycle? Need to buy it.
Read a book? need to buy it.
Etc etc etc.

Original post by im so academic

So the majority living in absolute poverty have mental illnesses?


No, because they still manage to have a bit of leisure. No matter how simple it is. And please don't compare us to Africa, because we are not in Africa.

Original post by im so academic

It's her fault if she doesn't do anything about it.


But she is trying to! But she needs state support to be able to.

Original post by im so academic

:facepalm2: Always looking for excuses.


Nope. Just giving you a fact.

Original post by im so academic

So be it.


So then you are saying people on benefits should not have a decent life.

Original post by im so academic

1. That's life.
2. It's not worth it.


1 - That doesn't HAVE to be life.
2 - I, and most other people, disagree. Indeed, I thought you would have been supportive of someone who was trying to better themselves so they are able to work and contribute to society.
Original post by WelshBluebird
Blame private landlords, not those who need help to pay the rent.


Capping this will mean that private landlords can't overcharge in housing benefit, and will bring rents to a reasonable level. Up in a crappy area of Leeds, I saw a house to let, we're talking two bedrooms, a mile or so from city centre, £650 PCM. A working person wouldn't have touched it. Two bedroom penthouse flats in the city centre don't go for much more. Yet within one week the place was let to a single mother with three kids. And good luck to her for having gotten the house, but on the private rental market, that dump, a back to back terraced house with no garden, door opening directly onto the street wouldn't have been able to draw more than £350-400 on a good day.

Original post by WelshBluebird
So what about the not very well off working people, including those on minimum wages, who NEED things like housing benefit to survive?


You know very well that this resentment isn't about the not very well off working people who need housing benefit to survive. It's about the very well off non-working people who clear more in take home benefits than the working person with the same sized family can even dream about earning.

Yet they are expected to support those families at the expense of ther own.

Original post by WelshBluebird
So why are we wasting money on things like Libya, on things like free schools, on things like increasing tuition fees (which will likely cost the taxpayer MORE than the old system).


The government will spend money on things that they feel are necessary to keep Britain a world power, and also on things that the majority of the population support. There are things that they spend on that I don't care for them to spend them on, but I accept that as a matter of being in government, they are unable to cater to every single competing minority POV and self interest group.
(edited 11 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending