There are too many people on benefits watch

bethwalker85 · 19-02-2016 09:18

(Original post by stargirl63)
I wasn't referring to eating habits, I was referring to people paying for each other.

Why rich people have a "duty" to look after the poor people is something I won't understand. I agree that it's the right thing to do, and that the world will be a better place etc, but when it's something FORCED upon you, and tax evasion is crime which could take you to jail, is something I don't agree with at all. Why don't we throw everyone in jail who doesn't volunteer and give to charity - that's basically the same thing.

I get that I do think there are too many people on benefits who don't want to get a job and would rather live off the tax payers hard earned money. Benefit fraud is also a crime and which you go to jail for. Law is law and paying your taxes is that law.

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.

bethwalker85 · 19-02-2016 09:21

(Original post by TSRFT8)
The rich dont OWE you their money, this is the problem with the working class, until this mindset that the rich OWE them something is removed nothing will change. The rich are being FORCED to hand over their money (yes its the moral thing etc) but they arent your slaves for them to be working 40 hour weeks and for you to be playing the xbox. Yes people have disabilities and im not saying people should not get benefits, but this whole thing that the rich have too much money and should share is the stupidest thing i have heard.

When did I say that the rich should share their money? I'm saying they should pay their tax like every other working person in the UK. Just because their rich doesn't mean they can take the law into their own hands. They are not being forced, if they don't want to live in the UK they can leave, they can definitely afford to.

I work 45 hours a week and pay my taxes so that I can survive, I take taxes on my chin because I live in the UK and that's how the system works.

bethwalker85 · 19-02-2016 09:22

(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.

stargirl63 · 19-02-2016 09:24

(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.

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 **** 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?

username457532 · 19-02-2016 09:25

(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.

stargirl63 · 19-02-2016 09:25

(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.

And yet people run off to America the first chance they get to live the "American Dream" ? Clearly America is doing something right.

HucktheForde · 19-02-2016 09:27

(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

bethwalker85 · 19-02-2016 09:28

(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?

stargirl63 · 19-02-2016 09:37

(Original post by HucktheForde)
The syrian refugees didn't

Posted from TSR Mobile

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.

HucktheForde · 19-02-2016 09:58

(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.

Proves the point America isnt that desirable.

Posted from TSR Mobile

suedonim · 19-02-2016 10:54

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.

ineedtorevise127 · 19-02-2016 11:00

(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 **** 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 **** 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

bethwalker85 · 19-02-2016 11:36

(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.

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!

_icecream · 19-02-2016 12:11

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 **.

bethwalker85 · 19-02-2016 13:33

(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.

paul514 · 19-02-2016 14:25

(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

Betelgeuse- · 19-02-2016 15:01

(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.

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

Withengar · 19-02-2016 15:15

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.

PQ · 19-02-2016 15:33

(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.

username457532 · 19-02-2016 15:46

(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.

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.

Revision home

Revision discussion

Help with your subject

Tools and resources

University rankings 2019

My teacher is fining me!

Selling a kidney to afford medical school

I caught my parents

I have imposter syndrome at Cambridge

See more of what you like on The Student Room

Articles:

Quick link:

Groups associated with this forum:

See more of what you like on The Student Room

Shortcuts

Get Started

Using TSR

Info

TSR Group

Connect with TSR

Revision home

Revision discussion

Help with your subject

Tools and resources

There are too many people on benefits watch

University rankings 2019

My teacher is fining me!

Selling a kidney to afford medical school

I caught my parents

I have imposter syndrome at Cambridge

See more of what you like on The Student Room

Articles:

Quick link:

Groups associated with this forum:

Spotlight

See more of what you like on The Student Room

Shortcuts

Get Started

Using TSR

Info

TSR Group

Connect with TSR