What happens to state benefit in a recession

ad9898_3

milliemonster wrote: »

Whilst at first glance I agree with this, I even think No1 is too radical, in the fact that it only ends up punishing the children who did not ask to be born

Although I agree to a certain extent, if someone is using their womb as a cash cow, it may help jog their memory to use a contraceptive if they realise that child number 4 will actually cost them to feed and clothe, rather than me and all the other taxpayers.

SingleSue

I would love to know who 'they' are...am I part of the 'they' by the fact that I claim benefits?

If so, can someone book my holiday to Tenerife, never been and could never afford it!

Plus, I have always ensured I have made my vote.

moggies

kennyboy66 wrote: »

"They" don't vote anyway.

Too true,they really do not votetrust me I have canvassed for local elections,and the ammount of people not on the voting list ,or say they never vote is very high:mad: use it or lose it.

Also in my area there is a high epidemic of bad back cases mostly young men in their 30`s early 40`s,who are on Disability living allowance,it seems its spreading like wildfire around here ,highly contagious:rolleyes:

ad9898_3

SingleSue wrote: »

I would love to know who 'they' are...am I part of the 'they' by the fact that I claim benefits?

If so, can someone book my holiday to Tenerife, never been and could never afford it!

Plus, I have always ensured I have made my vote.

To me 'they' are the people who's main priority when they decide to have a child or children is to milk the system, and to look after and be a good parent to is a 'distant second', I know of 2 people who have done this very thing, heard it from their own lips. People may say it doesn't happen, it most certainly does. Those people know who they are, I'm certainly not saying that every single parent on benefits are 'they'.

Kez100

Kez100 wrote: »

They'd sell the food vouchers on ebay for 10%less and spend the cash on a holiday to Tenerife.

By they, I mean those who would have used benefits paid in cash to go to Tenerife in the first place. If they had enough income from benefits to go to Tenerife before then I am sure they will find a way around it if given vouchers.

There is a line to be drawn here between those on benefits due to necessity and those where they know no other form of existance. I've had this argument elsewhere and firmly believe that the latter are something we have to live with, if we are to protect the former.

It is not just some benefit claimants that are fraudulant in life. Look at Madoff. Where there is money, there will be attempts at fraud. Although we must do our best to try and stop it, we have to accept there will be some and it is a cost of protecting the innocent. There are many genuine benefit claimants.

SingleSue

ad9898 wrote: »

To me 'they' are the people who's main priority when they decide to have a child or children is to milk the system, and to look after and be a good parent to is a 'distant second', I know of 2 people who have done this very thing, heard it from their own lips. People may say it doesn't happen, it most certainly does. Those people know who they are, I'm certainly not saying that every single parent on benefits are 'they'.

Thankyou for the explanation and for what it is worth (although it is slightly off topic), I do agree with you.

I also know of a few too.........

milliemonster

ad9898 wrote: »

Although I agree to a certain extent, if someone is using their womb as a cash cow, it may help jog their memory to use a contraceptive if they realise that child number 4 will actually cost them to feed and clothe, rather than me and all the other taxpayers.

I agree totally, as another taxpayer who has had 2 children and never had to claim benefits (fortunately), but maybe we should be even more radical and look at sterilisation after 2 children instead. I don't think many of these people keep having children just for the extra £20 a month in child benefit they would get, its all the other 'perks' I guess. Or perhaps once pregnant with baby number 3, given 'free' childcare places to get back into work (as this is the conitunal excuse they use not to work, that childcare costs are too high) which they can't refuse or would have benefits cut, said childcare funding would be deducted at source from earnings.

I just think we are supposed to be a forward thinking innovative society in the UK, as much as it angers me paying my taxes to keep scroungers sat on their ar5es breeding and watching Jeremy Kyle all day with a can of skol in their hand while little Johnny plays in the street harassing the poor old dear down the road, you have to think further than just 'cutting benefits' full stop, ok so we do that, what happens then? at the end of the day people have to have a minimum amount of money to live on, there's no way around that unless we want to degenerate into a society where we have people living on the streets robbing and stealing.

I don't have the answers, I just think we need to start looking at somehow making people who are scrounging off the state work for what they get and make living on benefits not an option beyond the short term

PasturesNew

Stop WTC, make all jobs half -time... let's all work, but half the time. I'm sure all workers would like more free time.

Get high housing costs to be a thing of the past. It's paying for housing/council tax that's the real winner for benefits.

And that stupid rule where kids can't share bedrooms so they all need huuge houses - and equally large LHA payments. This encourages new claimants to go for gold.

I'd actually explore a flat-rate tax system, where everybody's "paid" a basic amount to exist on, then you work and pay flat rate tax on everything but there's no clawing back, no top ups. It's far too complex now, with people paying back X, but claiming Y, earning S, but having T clawed back, filling in big forms for L/M/N and ending up being awarded M, but losing some of their Y for it.

SingleSue

islandannie wrote: »

Get a job you lazy [EMAIL="T@RT."]T@RT.[/EMAIL]

In the absence of a smiley, I can only assume that was a serious abusive comment.

I can assure you that I am neither lazy or the horrible word you have accused me of being, rather I am extremely hard working, dedicated and I always went that extra bit when I was in employment.

I am, by circumstance, not working but that is not by design, nor is it my want and I am trying my hardest not to be in this situation despite being advised that I should only be concentrating on the needs of two fairly severely disabled children (plus one 'normal' one) and not to worry about being 'selfish' and trying to combine the two.

This has extended to putting myself through courses to widen my qualification base to the current qualifications required, applying for employment on a weekly basis (and not just one a week but several) and volunteering for a local special needs playgroup to gain the relevant experience required for working in the sector which will accomodate the childrens care needs.

My children were all born during marriage, my first after nearly 4 years of marriage, I have never slept around, I was never unfaithful to my husband and I met all the obligations of my marriage vows plus more over a total of almost 16 years...I believe this puts me as far away from being the word you called me than you can get.

If it was a joke comment, then please ignore the above.

beingjdc

PasturesNew wrote: »

And that stupid rule where kids can't share bedrooms so they all need huuge houses

That's not a rule! The rule (as far as I recall) is that kids over 13 of opposite sexes can't share bedrooms. A 14 year old boy can be expected to share with his 16 year old brother, and a 10 year old girl with her 3 year old brother.