What happens to state benefit in a recession

neas

benefits have been a way to control the underclass... it keeps them alive and not rioting... commiting crime (or more crime ifswim). When people have no food, nho money, no shelter on a mass scale.. people turn to looting, violence and survival of the fittest.. aka anarchy.

Benefits just control the minority of population who dont contribute to society and don't give back etc.

Ofc this is a wide generalisation.. but think about it.. these 'perma-benefits' people who are permanently living on benefits... getting their fags and beer courtesy of the rest of the economy and working people... wouldnt be happy if their booze fund was stopped and they were kicked out of their houses would they?

I know some are uneducated but it takes very little intelligence to start a mob/riot. While benefits will be reduced it wont be reduced by a large value... it may be reduced in real terms subtly.. that wouldnt cause a riot :P. I.e we have 10% inflation and benefits are only increased by 2% yoy.. this would be a reduction:P

nickmason

amcluesent wrote: »

Some fairness needs applied to restore balance between tax payers and benefits claimants (I mean non-contributory benefits, not pensions).

1) Declining child-benefits, 100%, 66%, 33% then nothing for 4th or greater child. Doing a 'Karen Mathews' isn't an acceptable option.
2) Non-contributory benefits paid in DSS vouchers than can only be used for food/clothes. Jetting off to Tenerife on benefits isn't acceptable.
3) A wee bit more radical, long term benefits claimants taken off electoral roll.

My two penn'orth
1) is a good option, albeit controversial. Would need courage as there will certainly be some innocent losers from such a policy
2) Again I think a good idea, although there will be a black market, and one would need to guard against simply increasing level of public sector spending to manage such a scheme, with no end benefit.
3) Removing the vote is - to my mind - a non-starter. It is interesting to note that the community charge was vilified as a "poll-tax", with the implicit - but false - suggestion that the vote was contingent on people paying the charge.

mrs_miser

Discussing earlier about the amount of bedrooms required, a friend of mine rents privately, totally payed for by HB, she has 2 boys age 6 and 10, she has a gorgeous 3 bed house down a private lane, rents over £900.00 a month, i wouldnt want to pay that on my mortgage repayments.
Shes a good friend, but it makes me so angry that my taxes pay for her to live where ever she wants to. Why is there not a ceiling amount on the amount she can have paid by HB?

amcluesent

>benefits have been a way to control the underclass<

Of course policing has traditionally focussed on the lower quartile, where policing has gone wrong in the last 15 years has been to 'give up' on controlling the underclasses and gone for nonsense 'crimes' where they can fine the compliant middle-classes. Britain needs at least 175,000 more prison places to restore order, with proper coppers who will lay into the sink-estate chav culture.

1echidna

I have lived through a number of recessions in the UK and to the best of my knowledge a point was never reached when drastic measures were taken to reduce benefits or otherwise penalise the weak and vulnerable (which the vast majority on benefits are). It may be that if the economic situation gets worse than other recessions since the war there may need to be economies made in all areas of public spending and some trimming of individual benefits which have probably grown somewhat. Don't imagine that life on benefits is easy. For those that say that they don't want a proportion of their taxes going on it, I say you don't belong in a civilised society, go and live somewhere else, the country would in all probability be better off without you.

The_White_Horse

i think the best way to deal with the problem is to just stop all benefits.

you'll soon find out who can and can't work.

The_White_Horse

mrs_miser wrote: »

Discussing earlier about the amount of bedrooms required, a friend of mine rents privately, totally payed for by HB, she has 2 boys age 6 and 10, she has a gorgeous 3 bed house down a private lane, rents over £900.00 a month, i wouldnt want to pay that on my mortgage repayments.
Shes a good friend, but it makes me so angry that my taxes pay for her to live where ever she wants to. Why is there not a ceiling amount on the amount she can have paid by HB?

there is no ceiling because of stupid bleeding heart liberals.

its unfair that someone who works hard has more than someone who doesn't. haven't you heard.

once i saw a lefty having a go about poll tax, and in all serious said:

"...and they wanted everyone to pay the same, for the same services. how unfair is that?"

hahahaha = it couldn't be any fairer you daft lefty.

[Deleted User]

amcluesent wrote: »

Some fairness needs applied to restore balance between tax payers and benefits claimants (I mean non-contributory benefits, not pensions).

1) Declining child-benefits, 100%, 66%, 33% then nothing for 4th or greater child. Doing a 'Karen Mathews' isn't an acceptable option.
2) Non-contributory benefits paid in DSS vouchers than can only be used for food/clothes. Jetting off to Tenerife on benefits isn't acceptable.
3) A wee bit more radical, long term benefits claimants taken off electoral roll.

1)so you think the children should suffer?
2)vouchers would be open to abuse,total non starter
3)so you think the long term sick/disabled should have the right to vote removed from them?....the mind really does boggle sometimes:mad:

The_White_Horse

woodbine wrote: »

1)so you think the children should suffer?
2)vouchers would be open to abuse,total non starter
3)so you think the long term sick/disabled should have the right to vote removed from them?....the mind really does boggle sometimes:mad:

1) of course they should suffer. that is the only way to stop !!!!less parents. they all have to suffer. I would love 4 kids, but as I work and I am sensible and pay for my house, I can't afford, and don't have room for 4 kids. the !!!!less scum that keep pumping them out must be stopped. if the only way is for some families to suffer, so be it. someone needs to take a hard line.

2) anyone found dealing black market in vouchers, should be imprisoned for 10 years. that would make people think twice. !!!!less scum that don't work should have no tv, no holidays, no booze and certainly no fags.

3) i'm sure he meant !!!!less scum, but at the end of the day, if that can't be controlled, then anyone on benefit except pensioners, could lose the right to vote. along with prisoners.

too many liberals like you have ruined this country. its in a mess and if the liberals have their idiotic way, where will it end? It utter ruin as 1m people work to support 80m on benefits.

[Deleted User]

mrs_miser wrote: »

Discussing earlier about the amount of bedrooms required, a friend of mine rents privately, totally payed for by HB, she has 2 boys age 6 and 10, she has a gorgeous 3 bed house down a private lane, rents over £900.00 a month, i wouldnt want to pay that on my mortgage repayments.
Shes a good friend, but it makes me so angry that my taxes pay for her to live where ever she wants to. Why is there not a ceiling amount on the amount she can have paid by HB?

There is,but if its a private landlord its now local housing allowance and varies from area to area(hence local),I doubt very much that the full £900 is being paid,more likely that she is contributing to that.