What happens to state benefit in a recession

Cleaver

Cleaver wrote: »

I'm going out for a curry now. If someone takes the post above seriously could someone else step in and point it out as sarcasm please?

Ta.

I had a chicken jalfrezi, peshwari naan, pilau rice and a couple of pints of Kingfisher.

What have I missed? Are we still debating the idea of killing poor people?

PasturesNew

Cleaver wrote: »

I had a chicken jalfrezi, peshwari naan, pilau rice and a couple of pints of Kingfisher.

What have I missed? Are we still debating the idea of killing poor people?

You missed inviting me out for that. But I don't want Kingfisher, just plain water's my tipple with an injun!

We can discuss killing poor people over dinner. Draw up a list on the tablecloth then fold that up neatly and bring it away with us.

Zelie

PasturesNew wrote: »

You missed inviting me out for that. But I don't want Kingfisher, just plain water's my tipple with an injun!

We can discuss killing poor people over dinner. Draw up a list on the tablecloth then fold that up neatly and bring it away with us.

Are we still casseroling Dopester first?

Cleaver

PasturesNew wrote: »

We can discuss killing poor people over dinner. Draw up a list on the tablecloth then fold that up neatly and bring it away with us.

I think that's how Pol Pot and Hitler started.

Although I believe Hitler was a veggie, so presumably didn't have a chicken jalfrezi.

neverdespairgirl

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,

The trouble I have with this idea is that bringing up a child or children is bloody hard work, not an easy route to loadsa money, surely?

huntersc

ad9898 wrote: »

I think that's a weak argument hunter, the more you have the more you will generally spend, I think that goes for most people. Take a look around your nearest new build estate for instance, plenty of new cars and nice gardens. All that is money that has been spent in the economy.

To take an extreme example, look at footballers, they blow huge amounts of money. I don't buy Brown's argument, I think it depends on your nature whether you spend or save, I don't think it has a lot to do with whether you're rich or poor.

No, it's not a weak argument, it's been tested and has examples throughout history. Anyone that has studied political economics will understand the correlation between wealth, class and spend.

Of course you're right, in general terms, that the more you have the more you spend but that's not the issue. It's the proportion of what you have that you spend that's critical.

Take a basic example. If I give you £500 in your next pay packet, you're most likely to spend some and keep a good proportion saved.

If I take the average person on benefits and give them £500 what do you think will happen? Do you think they will save the same proportion? One only needs to look at the distribution of savings accounts to those defined as E, D and C2. B and C1 are far more likely to save a higher proportion of disposable which is demonstrated by their use of the banking system for savings.

So if you want to stimulate the economy you rebate money to those that are most likely to spend it, the poor and lower classes. You reduce interest rates so that the rich feel less inclined to save.

This really is very basic stuff, I'm sure we have our wires crossed and that you agree with me?

[Deleted User]

The_White_Horse wrote: »

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.

And facist like you only serve to prove that care in the community really doesn`t work !!!!!

PasturesNew

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

The trouble I have with this idea is that bringing up a child or children is bloody hard work, not an easy route to loadsa money, surely?

It's a fashion accessory.

mvengemvenge

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

The trouble I have with this idea is that bringing up a child or children is bloody hard work, not an easy route to loadsa money, surely?

This is true, but I think many girls would still rather do that and sit at home than have to get up and be at a boss's bec and call. There are already many jokes flying around about single mum's going out and getting pregnant every time they get near the stage of having to look for work. Naturally, I've offered my services in the classified section of the local paper

Seriously, though, as many girls in this position are not terribly well educated (in my experience), I think they know they're never likely to earn much anyway.

bubblesmoney

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

The trouble I have with this idea is that bringing up a child or children is bloody hard work, not an easy route to loadsa money, surely?

but surely it looks like it is easy for a few atleast who dont care about the welfare of their children aka karen mathews and loads like her who are just baby factories milking the system and every other hardworking person pays for jerks like these to have more babies. not that this problem is unique to the uk.

What the “the oh it is their right for social housing brigade” and the other cheerleaders should be doing is studying US experience. There, the teenage pregnancy rate fell by over a third in a decade. And a key driver was the Clinton welfare reforms which cut support for impecunious mums.” Ref: http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2007/09/problem-mums.html

many of us have already discussed some of these issues on other threads like this one by me here and i give special refernce to alison & the likes of alison and her ilk of which i am sure there are many. it is hard working tax payers who pay for the upkeep of these idiots instead of having it spent on their own family. a system that encourages only benefits and no responsibilty is bound to end up encouraging more such alisons and all hard working people suffer in the bargain. people who genuinely need state support suffer in the bargain as the frauds know how to milk the system to the detriment of genuine claimants.

edit: looks like there has been some success in wisconsin where they forced benefit seekers to work if they wanted to keep getting welfare cheques. this looks like it has halved claims in teenage pregnancies etc. see link time to end the free lunch for the !!!!less i think but that shouldnt cut support for the genuinely needy.

edit 2: cut welfare cheques dependent on truancy rates of their children from school and problems created in school by their children, asbos children get, police call outs due to the problems started by them, stop extra payments which are given in some places for smokers and alcoholics to cope with their addictions, cut welfare cheques for those who commit crime. make welfare time limitted over ones life time. bet that would improve things or at worst decrease the welfare bills at the very least and concentrate the funds on the people who really need welfare.