There are too many people on benefits
Scroll to see replies
Original post by TSRFT8
They are spending the rich peoples money you seem to forget, the rich are the ones paying tax which is used for benefits so technically the money is not actually theirs. Also by your suggestion we should all stop saving money and just stand outside the job center and hand it out like candy.
I don't think you realise that everyone who earns over £10,000 a year pays tax it's not just the rich who are getting shafted. The rich have to pay more because they earn more and that's how it should be.
Original post by Tiger Rag
That means people like me are seriously ****ed. I've got numerous long term illnesses, one of which will end up leaving me blind and another which will kill me. I've also learnt this week I'm taking something which is giving me hearing problems.
Not all of us who go to the doctors go there for fun.
Make people pay for the services they use and you're penalising people with long term medical problems. People like my cousins child who is in and out of hospital because his lungs haven't developed properly and he gets chest infections constantly.
And no, we wouldn't be able to get health insurance either because of the conditions we have.
Not all of us who go to the doctors go there for fun.
Make people pay for the services they use and you're penalising people with long term medical problems. People like my cousins child who is in and out of hospital because his lungs haven't developed properly and he gets chest infections constantly.
And no, we wouldn't be able to get health insurance either because of the conditions we have.
You're an exception from the rule and I hope your treatment goes well.
The majority of people do not have life threatening illnesses. The majority of people go to their GP because they don't know that a bit of paracetamol can help their problem. Or old people who go to their GP because they are lonely and haven't spoken to anyone in a week.
If the NHS helped people with life threatening illnesses, or illnesses which needed full trained medical attention, the NHS would not be run off its feet like it is now with every Tom Dick and Harry sitting in the waiting room (a lot of which haven't even been in this country for more than 2 years).
Perhaps "free" medical treatment should be on a case by case basis?
Original post by Bourdain
a great way to reduce the barrier to health care is to reduce regulation and allow insurance companies and medical providers to compete. that will lower the cost and increase outcomes tremendously
Because in the US people are paying less whilst also getting better treatment?
Doctors will give a patient every possible test that may be applicable because they earn more money if patients have to pay for more tests. If you have no insurance or your insurance doesn't cover a certain treatment and you don't have thousands of dollars then you're abandoned. And if you get diagnosed with a chronic condition then you will really struggle to get any insurance.
Original post by bethwalker85
It's not the same thing, you're paying for health care and for the police and other vital services that run the country. You're saying you'd run off a pay as you go service but if you're dead you can't pay the bill that you run up when you're dying or murdered. That would be a stupid service and it's why there's so many sick people in America who won't go to the hospital because they can't afford it.
It's not the same thing, you're paying for health care and for the police and other vital services that run the country. You're saying you'd run off a pay as you go service but if you're dead you can't pay the bill that you run up when you're dying or murdered. That would be a stupid service and it's why there's so many sick people in America who won't go to the hospital because they can't afford it.
And yet people run off to America the first chance they get to live the "American Dream" ? Clearly America is doing something right.
Original post by stargirl63
And yet people run off to America the first chance they get to live the "American Dream" ? Clearly America is doing something right.
The syrian refugees didn't
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by stargirl63
And yet people run off to America the first chance they get to live the "American Dream" ? Clearly America is doing something right.
Ofcourse America is the dream compared to living in a poor third world country? How is that comparing it to the UK health system?
Original post by HucktheForde
Of course they didn't - because they know they don't get half the benefits in America than they do in the UK. They wouldn't go somewhere like Australia where boarder control is so tight. So instead, they go to the UK (a country much easier to get into) and put strain on our resources. And us, as tax payers HAVE to help out. We talk about those on jsa who don't work and get benefits, how about those who have contributed nothing to our country, those who don't even know how to speak English to be employed, who are here using the NHS night and day and will commit and go to jail because they know they will have a roof over their head and food.
Original post by bethwalker85
Ofcourse America is the dream compared to living in a poor third world country? How is that comparing it to the UK health system?
What I'm trying to say Beth is that it's mostly those from first world countries who want to go to America (or Australia ) - A number of my friends are making moves to live there. Third world country people tend to move to places which are easier to get into e.g. UK, and use our resources, at the detriment of the tax payer, Joe Bloggs who works 2 jobs on minimum wage, trying to keep his head above water.
Original post by stargirl63
Of course they didn't - because they know they don't get half the benefits in America than they do in the UK. They wouldn't go somewhere like Australia where boarder control is so tight. So instead, they go to the UK (a country much easier to get into) and put strain on our resources. And us, as tax payers HAVE to help out. We talk about those on jsa who don't work and get benefits, how about those who have contributed nothing to our country, those who don't even know how to speak English to be employed, who are here using the NHS night and day and will commit and go to jail because they know they will have a roof over their head and food.
What I'm trying to say Beth is that it's mostly those from first world countries who want to go to America (or Australia ) - A number of my friends are making moves to live there. Third world country people tend to move to places which are easier to get into e.g. UK, and use our resources, at the detriment of the tax payer, Joe Bloggs who works 2 jobs on minimum wage, trying to keep his head above water.
What I'm trying to say Beth is that it's mostly those from first world countries who want to go to America (or Australia ) - A number of my friends are making moves to live there. Third world country people tend to move to places which are easier to get into e.g. UK, and use our resources, at the detriment of the tax payer, Joe Bloggs who works 2 jobs on minimum wage, trying to keep his head above water.
Proves the point America isnt that desirable.
Posted from TSR Mobile
tax provides common service. I was born in the NHS, as most of you will have been. I was educated by teachers trained with taxes - as you will have been, whatever school you went to. I drive on roads paid for by taxes. My rubbish is cleared by taxes. If I'm sick I get heath care from doctors trained by taxes. When I start work I SHOULD pay that forward.
Benefits are mainly paid to pensioners, who funded all of the above for you when they worked. Benefits to the unemployed are pretty small and since most of it goes on food or rent goes back into the economy. If a few have a drink or a fag sometimes so what, dont you have something to make your life bearable? Most people on benefits want to work, for the rest there are schemes to get them back to work.
Benefits are mainly paid to pensioners, who funded all of the above for you when they worked. Benefits to the unemployed are pretty small and since most of it goes on food or rent goes back into the economy. If a few have a drink or a fag sometimes so what, dont you have something to make your life bearable? Most people on benefits want to work, for the rest there are schemes to get them back to work.
Original post by mkap
i agree, it should be harder for people to get it or they should be encouraged more to find a job. fair enough some people really need benefits but people like my parents work hard and pay tax for people who spend the money on fags and beer.
Wow sorry dear no need for the holier than thou attitude. Most people want to find work but it is not always possible. There are at most 500k-700k jobs advertised at the moment and around 2m unemployed do the maths it is not possible to have full employment. That attitude is just so awful spending money on fags and beer yes some people do it but they are a minority fuelled by shows like Benefit Street I wonder why we never see shows like biggest tax avoiders? Well done for your parents for doing well but no need for that attitude to look down and stereotype others who knows one day both your parents might find themselves in a very difficult situation.
And yes I have a full time job before you ask
Original post by stargirl63
Of course they didn't - because they know they don't get half the benefits in America than they do in the UK. They wouldn't go somewhere like Australia where boarder control is so tight. So instead, they go to the UK (a country much easier to get into) and put strain on our resources. And us, as tax payers HAVE to help out. We talk about those on jsa who don't work and get benefits, how about those who have contributed nothing to our country, those who don't even know how to speak English to be employed, who are here using the NHS night and day and will commit and go to jail because they know they will have a roof over their head and food.
What I'm trying to say Beth is that it's mostly those from first world countries who want to go to America (or Australia ) - A number of my friends are making moves to live there. Third world country people tend to move to places which are easier to get into e.g. UK, and use our resources, at the detriment of the tax payer, Joe Bloggs who works 2 jobs on minimum wage, trying to keep his head above water.
What I'm trying to say Beth is that it's mostly those from first world countries who want to go to America (or Australia ) - A number of my friends are making moves to live there. Third world country people tend to move to places which are easier to get into e.g. UK, and use our resources, at the detriment of the tax payer, Joe Bloggs who works 2 jobs on minimum wage, trying to keep his head above water.
Because people always want to go somewhere other than where they live! There are a lot of Americans and Australians coming to the UK if that's your point.
People come to the UK to get away from war and death in their country? If you knew anything then you'd know that asylum seekers and people coming from other countries can wait years until they are granted a place in the UK meaning that they can't even apply for jobs or earn money meaning that they actually have to be on benefits because they are legally not allowed a job!
As if living on benefits is easy. Trust me people are put on Workfare programms up and down the country.
After graduating from uni I was signing on for a while I was then put on an unpaid workfare scheme. I couldn't stand it so I signed off. I'm so lucky because I lived with parents so really I told the JC+ to stick their 50 quid up their own **.
After graduating from uni I was signing on for a while I was then put on an unpaid workfare scheme. I couldn't stand it so I signed off. I'm so lucky because I lived with parents so really I told the JC+ to stick their 50 quid up their own **.
Original post by TSRFT8
You are comparing people who pay roughly £500-£2000 to busineess owners paying in excess of £200,000 most people earning £150,000 are being taxed pretty much half of it £75,000 of their income is tax THEY WORKED for that why the **** should they have to give up half their income for you? If tax was more reasonable it would be understandable, im not saying tax is bad of course it is not, but taxing people almost half of their income is a joke, there is no wonder people open off shore accounts etc why should we not, we all use the same services why do we need to pay half of our wages whilst another pays £500.
Yes I do think that tax is unfair but it's still unfair to people who don't earn a lot. People get "emergency taxed" and other things but because they earn less it definitely hits them more than if someone lucky enough to earn £150,000 would. I was once earning £400 a month and was taxed half of it. I'd also like to see someones paycheck to shows that they're being taxed half of their wage.
Original post by redferry
Noone specified what kind of benefits. The housing benefit bill is far more out of control than out of work benefits and regardless of who caused the problem my point still stands.
No it doesn't still stand the problem is solely created by government from all angles
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by TSRFT8
1) Are you serious? How did you come to that conclusion, the majority of them do.
2) Back in the purse of who? The businesses whose tax they used in the first place?
3) Yes to improve their experience and employ-ability, it does not need any more workers so why should it pay them to get experience? Also its not forcing its a government initiative in order to get experience to strengthen your CV.
2) Back in the purse of who? The businesses whose tax they used in the first place?
3) Yes to improve their experience and employ-ability, it does not need any more workers so why should it pay them to get experience? Also its not forcing its a government initiative in order to get experience to strengthen your CV.
1) Yes i am serious - Nobody on £72 a week is sitting in the pub smoking a £9.50 pack of 20 ciggarettes and drinking £3.50 pints of beer. Sorry to break your ignorant little bubble amigo
2) The peoples purse. Business doesnt create tax. Working people do
3) Whilst it invariably will help many people... Big businesses should not be taking advantage of slave labour - Simple as that. They would not be paying them to get experience, they would be paying them to do a job that creates them profit
- Yes it is "forcing" because if you do not comply.. you lose your £72 a week benefit.
I wouldn't mind the workfare programme if it was selective (Aimed at a tiny minority whom were genuinely work shy through laziness) and only aimed at local small businesses . But to force anyone and everyone incuding previously working, tax paying, university educated people to go and work for multi million / profit companies for free because they didn't secure a job in 6 weeks... Nahh
(edited 8 years ago)
Yet another economically illiterate person going about how people who, for the most part, can't provide for themselves should be left to basically starve.
In most civilized countries, including the UK, the top 1% controls the overwhelming amount of country's wealth. Just to paint the picture, the top 10% controls over 45% of the country's monetary assets in the UK. The top 1% have an average yearly income in excess of 250.000£. It should be noted that that exact figure is from a conservative study, and the real number is likely higher.
So, instead of saying that the top is overly wealthy and that the wealth distribution is an issue which needs to be solved with higher taxes for the wealthy to aid the poor and those incapable of working/providing, you say that we should cut what support the bottom 10% or so have to get even richer? Doesn't the ludicrousness of that idea cause you feel sorry for our kind? People in the bottom 10% have an average yearly income of around 8.500£, not enough to sustain a decent life worthy of human dignity. The benefit system, although imperfect, is the only way for some of these people to survive and avoid homelessness and starvation. Cutting that aid would cause homelessness and homelessness-related issues to skyrocket, costing the government more and more money over time, to such an extent that it would actually be cheaper to keep the same people on benefits.
Instead of spouting your uneducated hatred for those in our society who have little, go and read an Economics textbook/journal and educate yourself. Just because you come from a relatively privileged background and have decent opportunities in life for education and employment, doesn't mean everyone does.
In most civilized countries, including the UK, the top 1% controls the overwhelming amount of country's wealth. Just to paint the picture, the top 10% controls over 45% of the country's monetary assets in the UK. The top 1% have an average yearly income in excess of 250.000£. It should be noted that that exact figure is from a conservative study, and the real number is likely higher.
So, instead of saying that the top is overly wealthy and that the wealth distribution is an issue which needs to be solved with higher taxes for the wealthy to aid the poor and those incapable of working/providing, you say that we should cut what support the bottom 10% or so have to get even richer? Doesn't the ludicrousness of that idea cause you feel sorry for our kind? People in the bottom 10% have an average yearly income of around 8.500£, not enough to sustain a decent life worthy of human dignity. The benefit system, although imperfect, is the only way for some of these people to survive and avoid homelessness and starvation. Cutting that aid would cause homelessness and homelessness-related issues to skyrocket, costing the government more and more money over time, to such an extent that it would actually be cheaper to keep the same people on benefits.
Instead of spouting your uneducated hatred for those in our society who have little, go and read an Economics textbook/journal and educate yourself. Just because you come from a relatively privileged background and have decent opportunities in life for education and employment, doesn't mean everyone does.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by TSRFT8
You are comparing people who pay roughly £500-£2000 to busineess owners paying in excess of £200,000 most people earning £150,000 are being taxed pretty much half of it £75,000 of their income is tax THEY WORKED for that why the **** should they have to give up half their income for you? If tax was more reasonable it would be understandable, im not saying tax is bad of course it is not, but taxing people almost half of their income is a joke, there is no wonder people open off shore accounts etc why should we not, we all use the same services why do we need to pay half of our wages whilst another pays £500.
Your sums and/or understanding of tax is off
Someone earning £150,000 would pay £53,643 in income tax and £6,271 in national insurance. That leaves a take home pay over £90k (nearly £2k per week).
And if you're in business the business rates are taxed at 20% IIRR - so much much lower than income tax.
Original post by TSRFT8
1) Are you serious? How did you come to that conclusion, the majority of them do.
2) Back in the purse of who? The businesses whose tax they used in the first place?
3) Yes to improve their experience and employ-ability, it does not need any more workers so why should it pay them to get experience? Also its not forcing its a government initiative in order to get experience to strengthen your CV.
2) Back in the purse of who? The businesses whose tax they used in the first place?
3) Yes to improve their experience and employ-ability, it does not need any more workers so why should it pay them to get experience? Also its not forcing its a government initiative in order to get experience to strengthen your CV.
When it's 'work 40 hours a week for your benefits or be sanctioned', that is forcing. Also, if a business knows they will always have X number of people doing workfare with them then they can employ X less people because the company will have enough 'staff' just some of them will be on workfare not employees. This means that there are LESS jobs available and so more people unemployed.
Original post by SmallTownGirl
When it's 'work 40 hours a week for your benefits or be sanctioned', that is forcing. Also, if a business knows they will always have X number of people doing workfare with them then they can employ X less people because the company will have enough 'staff' just some of them will be on workfare not employees. This means that there are LESS jobs available and so more people unemployed.
You do realise these are private businesses dont you? Who are you to dictate to the CEO`s who they should and should not employ. Its comical how working class people think everyone should do as they say etc.. it is a business it is their to make money not to satisfy your moral beliefs.
Original post by SmallTownGirl
When it's 'work 40 hours a week for your benefits or be sanctioned', that is forcing. Also, if a business knows they will always have X number of people doing workfare with them then they can employ X less people because the company will have enough 'staff' just some of them will be on workfare not employees. This means that there are LESS jobs available and so more people unemployed.
Correct
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- My son was expelled from uni
- Are romantic relationships too difficult?
- how to be single and happy
- Psychology Graduate
- Why are rents so high
- Should I pick History or Geography for my GCSEs?
- Nobody cares about 'changing' the world
- national diploma for dental nursing exams
- Are you willing to offer yourself up for a medical/clinical trial?
- Footballers aren't overpaid
- Common colds
- UCL or imperial?
- Student in the City: Benefits of City-Living
- I feel so doomed right now.
- LNAT essay feedback please
- taking a levels I don't like?
- Pharmacy work experience/application :)
- Will you feel British without the monarchy?
- Eo1 nics
- Uni and gap year uncertainty
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Home Office: Immigration Enforcement Casework Support AO 2024Last reply 3 minutes ago
Astrazeneca/pharmaceutical degree apprenticeships 2024Last reply 5 minutes ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 8 minutes ago
ATAS (Academic, Technology, Approval Scheme) Certificate 2023/2024Last reply 9 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2908
Last reply 9 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 11 minutes ago
Which of these A-Level combinations would be the best to study a law degree?A-levels
10
Last reply 11 minutes ago
Border Force National Campaign September 2023Last reply 15 minutes ago
lloyds bank 2024 apprenticeshipLast reply 16 minutes ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 22 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 23 minutes ago
Can a law graduate at SOAS apply to MSc Politics and International Relations at soas?Posted 26 minutes ago
SQA Higher Computing Studies - 20th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 27 minutes ago
A-level English Literature Study Group 2023-2024Trending
Last reply 5 minutes ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 9 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 minutes ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 9 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
