Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Personally I believe that if they are able to work they should not get benefits at all, What do you guys think?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    Personally I believe that if they are able to work they should not get benefits at all, What do you guys think?
    The term "people" is variable. from the outset a welfare system is a sensible and protective measure. It aides people
    in times of hardship, people for whom work and fiscal responsibility are seen as moral and social obligations.

    In terms of policy of entitlement, this is based on an individual or family related need. I do think working people should be
    encourgaed to continue as so without state assistance. However with wages rising slowly and prices generally surplusing wages it
    is hard for working famillies to provide the 'Bread'. This causes a lot of technical and policy problems for government.

    You say if they are "able" to work then they should not recieve benefits. I'm afraid of you ever making it into cabinet or senior
    civil service such as the Treasury Dep. I've always been "able" to work but at times have had difficulty finding employment (including
    cleaning jobs; something about being over qualified!) according to your "belief" I would not recieve assistance for trying
    endlessly to find work and for being turned down by employers themselves. Furthermore I have contributed to the welfare system through tax. Needless to say I've worked various types of jobs and
    have pretty good employment record.


    I urge you to express yourself concisely; I discern what you meant. ;-)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by honestly)
    The term "people" is variable. from the outset a welfare system is a sensible and protective measure. It aides people
    in times of hardship, people for whom work and fiscal responsibility are seen as moral and social obligations.

    In terms of policy of entitlement, this is based on an individual or family related need. I do think working people should be
    encourgaed to continue as so without state assistance. However with wages rising slowly and prices generally surplusing wages it
    is hard for working famillies to provide the 'Bread'. This causes a lot of technical and policy problems for government.

    You say if they are "able" to work then they should not recieve benefits. I'm afraid of you ever making it into cabinet or senior
    civil service such as the Treasury Dep. I've always been "able" to work but at times have had difficulty finding employment (including
    cleaning jobs; something about being over qualified!) according to your "belief" I would not recieve assistance for trying
    endlessly to find work and for being turned down by employers themselves. Furthermore I have contributed to the welfare system through tax. Needless to say I've worked various types of jobs and
    have pretty good employment record.


    I urge you to express yourself concisely; I discern what you meant. ;-)
    For example my sister is on benefits, she can work and dropped out of school herself. If people make poor life choices, should we have to pay for that? Furthermore, many that are on benefits deliberately cause themselves 'problems' just to get themselves more money. The government does offer a service to get these people jobs but the benefits money is easier
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    For example my sister is on benefits, she can work and dropped out of school herself. If people make poor life choices, should we have to pay for that? Furthermore, many that are on benefits deliberately cause themselves 'problems' just to get themselves more money. The government does offer a service to get these people jobs but the benefits money is easier
    Dropping out of school is one thing, but not working or putting in effort is to improve one's financial status is equally no good.
    Try and ascertain why she choses not to. There MAYBE a valid reason.
    If people make poor life choices, provided there is suitable material and reasonably understandable, one is responsible for one's
    position and the state should sanction such persons.
    When I attended the job centre I thought, by the behaviour of a sizeable minority, it was a bank which gave people free money.
    No motivation to work, no willingness to apply of "low" status jobs and even people's demeanor.
    Tbh job centre staff are rubbish, by majority. Only a hand few were good. And I wish they would become managers of their offices.
    Many of their front of house staff tend to be people who probably would struggle to find employment if ever they lost their current jobs.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    For example my sister is on benefits, she can work and dropped out of school herself. If people make poor life choices, should we have to pay for that? Furthermore, many that are on benefits deliberately cause themselves 'problems' just to get themselves more money. The government does offer a service to get these people jobs but the benefits money is easier
    If it's so ****ING EASY to be on benefits, why aren't you? If life is so good and benefits are enough to live on why doesn't everyone go on benefits?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Agreed if they are fit and capable i don't see the point. Welfare system has gone beyond any sensible reason.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmallTownGirl)
    If it's so ****ING EASY to be on benefits, why aren't you? If life is so good and benefits are enough to live on why doesn't everyone go on benefits?
    Bit touchy. I work and have had a job since 15, so I don't need to I earn more than benefits would give me as it is for many people
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    a tad naive; what about those who are able, but nobody is accepting them for a job?

    what about those who need to be topped up?

    yes, people milk the system, but there are people who genuinely need it

    (I'm not exactly sure of the intricacies of benefits, so I don't care if you quote me.)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by honestly)
    Dropping out of school is one thing, but not working or putting in effort is to improve one's financial status is equally no good.
    Try and ascertain why she choses not to. There MAYBE a valid reason.
    If people make poor life choices, provided there is suitable material and reasonably understandable, one is responsible for one's
    position and the state should sanction such persons.
    When I attended the job centre I thought, by the behaviour of a sizeable minority, it was a bank which gave people free money.
    No motivation to work, no willingness to apply of "low" status jobs and even people's demeanor.
    Tbh job centre staff are rubbish, by majority. Only a hand few were good. And I wish they would become managers of their offices.
    Many of their front of house staff tend to be people who probably would struggle to find employment if ever they lost their current jobs.
    I started with 'low status' jobs and now at only 18 have a good job, anyone can do it with motivation and effort, it may be hard but always possible
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmallTownGirl)
    If life is so good and benefits are enough to live on why doesn't everyone go on benefits?
    This !
    £ 72 a week Jobseeker's Allowance is hardly an over payment or too much of a luxury for anyone to be getting.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    Bit touchy. I work and have had a job since 15, so I don't need to I earn more than benefits would give me as it is for many people
    So since you accept that a job pays more than benefits, why would anyone CHOOSE benefits? I just don't understand how so many people think that it's so easy to be on benefits but instead choose to work? Surely that suggests they know it's not as easy as they claim it is and instead just want to feel superior about the fact they are employed whilst making those who cannot work for whatever reason feel inadequate?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    I started with 'low status' jobs and now at only 18 have a good job, anyone can do it with motivation and effort, it may be hard but always possible
    good for you fellow. It's good to work and you are an example of hard working achieving better pay and a better job :-)
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    Yes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    a tad naive; what about those who are able, but nobody is accepting them for a job?

    what about those who need to be topped up?

    yes, people milk the system, but there are people who genuinely need it

    (I'm not exactly sure of the intricacies of benefits, so I don't care if you quote me.)


    Posted from TSR Mobile

    I did say those who are capable of getting jobs, but just decide that they can't bothered
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmallTownGirl)
    So since you accept that a job pays more than benefits, why would anyone CHOOSE benefits? I just don't understand how so many people think that it's so easy to be on benefits but instead choose to work? Surely that suggests they know it's not as easy as they claim it is and instead just want to feel superior about the fact they are employed whilst making those who cannot work for whatever reason feel inadequate?


    Posted from TSR Mobile

    Because they dont have to work, they have housing and bills paid for by the taxpayer and and thus they get as much as they like. Some have 14 kids, why? Because more money, it is that simple. I opened this thread for good debate, not passive aggressive attitudes so can we be a bit more civilised?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vlad83)
    This !
    £ 72 a week Jobseeker's Allowance is hardly an over payment or too much of a luxury for anyone to be getting.


    Posted from TSR Mobile

    £72 Is the bare minimum, they dont pay housing or bills either, £72 is enough to live on, they wouldnt make it that small otherwise. Why do so many have huge tvs and the latest tech, they get additional things too
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    Posted from TSR Mobile

    Because they dont have to work, they have housing and bills paid for by the taxpayer and and thus they get as much as they like. Some have 14 kids, why? Because more money, it is that simple. I opened this thread for good debate, not passive aggressive attitudes so can we be a bit more civilised?
    You know debate doesn't mean that only views you agree with get to be voiced, right?

    (Original post by sw651)
    Posted from TSR Mobile

    £72 Is the bare minimum, they dont pay housing or bills either, £72 is enough to live on, they wouldnt make it that small otherwise. Why do so many have huge tvs and the latest tech, they get additional things too
    People under 25 on JSA get less than £58 a week. There are maximum amounts of housing benefit that someone can get for their age and family circumstances which depend on the price a council thinks the average rent is in their area - this is below the rent a lot of people will have to pay for their accommodation and any extra comes out of their JSA. Council tax is reduced but some still needs paying. Bills have to come out of a person's JSA (I don't know why people think these are paid for you). I don't know about housing benefit rates within London but I can promise you that on JSA, housing benefit and council tax benefit anywhere else in the country you would still have nowhere near the amount you would earn (after tax) from a full-time minimum wage job.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmallTownGirl)
    You know debate doesn't mean that only views you agree with get to be voiced, right?



    People under 25 on JSA get less than £58 a week. There are maximum amounts of housing benefit that someone can get for their age and family circumstances which depend on the price a council thinks the average rent is in their area - this is below the rent a lot of people will have to pay for their accommodation and any extra comes out of their JSA. Council tax is reduced but some still needs paying. Bills have to come out of a person's JSA (I don't know why people think these are paid for you). I don't know about housing benefit rates within London but I can promise you that on JSA, housing benefit and council tax benefit anywhere else in the country you would still have nowhere near the amount you would earn (after tax) from a full-time minimum wage job.


    Posted from TSR Mobile

    First I didn't say that, you came in very aggressively and even beeped out a swear word :facepalm:

    And that isn't true, I happen to know a lot about the welfare system as members of family are on it. Do not try and dictate how much you know if you really don't know much at all.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    Posted from TSR Mobile

    £72 Is the bare minimum, they dont pay housing or bills either, £72 is enough to live on, they wouldnt make it that small otherwise. Why do so many have huge tvs and the latest tech, they get additional things too
    Large debts
    Involved in theft / fraud
    Other avenues making money

    Nobody on £72 a week that isnt defrauding the system and is legit broke is buying the latest iphone without having other nefarious ways of bringing in £££ unless they are racking up debt

    Its almost like you choose to ignore 1m + people eating from charity and the explosion of exploitation from payday loan companies because you saw some channel 4 government propaganda documentary where some dirty chav had a 50inch tv on his wall
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    Posted from TSR Mobile

    First I didn't say that, you came in very aggressively and even beeped out a swear word :facepalm:

    And that isn't true, I happen to know a lot about the welfare system as members of family are on it. Do not try and dictate how much you know if you really don't know much at all.
    Just so you know, I didn't want my swearing to be censored. TSR does that automatically.

    And I'm sure that my being on benefits means that I know more about the money I receive than you do.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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

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