Failure and bitterness.

mizzbiz

neas wrote: »

I dislike paying for someone else to have a shelter, food, multiple children... for indefinate periods of time so my point, albeit extreme would solve that :P.

While a system as we have at the moment should stay to help support people for short->medium periods of time.. I believe supporting people to have families, lives, food for long periods is taking the mick of me and every other taxpayer in the country.

Two solutions:

To claim benefit, person A has to maintain 15-20 hours of volunteering per week so as to 'pay' for their money... by doing this they will be guarnteed to get money and payment. In return soceity will get bad areas cleaned up, streets tidied, fundraising for charities.. all sorts of good things would come from this. 'Why?' you say we should force them to volunteer as its not volunteering? Because quite frankly so few people volunteer... in proportion to claimants its disgusting.

2nd Solution:

Extreme.... Assess a persons indivudal income to see if they can have children... Inject Coils into women who do not have the abilitiy to provide for their offspring. Im not talking about permanent sterilisatin... i'm talking about temporarily stoping them having children till they can afford to take care of it.

I'm sorry but back when we lived in caves... the man typically went on hunts killed things and brought food back for his family... he found a cave for his partner to live in... he provided for them shelter and support... there was no benefit.. no roof over your head for free, no free food, nothing at all.

Its been done before.. im sure people can survive on their own without having handouts from everyone. Because at the moment we are encouraging a sub-class of humans who do very little and live a reasonably ok life... warm, house, food, tv, bit of beer and fags money every now and again...plenty of free time to socialise...

I so agree with the charity/social service idea. I don't think you should get something for nothing at the expense of hard working people unless you are unable to support yourself.

If I ever did end up long term unemployed, it would be something I volunteered to do, unfortunately, the way to pick the lazy from the genuinly unemployed would be this. Bet they'd sharp find a job if they had to work anyway!

I was recently unemployed, lived off savings until I found a rubbish temp job that pays crap money (1/3rd of what I was earing a few months back), but I feel I have no choice. Why do some people feel they do have this choice?

Edited to add link:

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/environment/Hull-family-32-000-benefits-say-need-money/article-398641-detail/article.html

Are you happy supporting these people? (And Hull is full of them!)

neas

the question is

Would they have had 12 kids, if we as a soceity didnt support them?

Most likely not.... but because we give them 'support' they can produce more offspring and further the whole 'money grabbing system'...

Just scroungers totally...

geoffky

Does anyone on here consider someone who is a millionaire and claims child benefit a scrounger..or is it ok because they are entitled to it..

harryhound

Marcheline wrote: »

Hi Harryhound

Putting aside for the moment the issues of large families impacting on the rights of others to a decent living standard etc, I would be interested to know (in the context of this debate) how the current benefits system abuses the human rights of the ordinary taxpayer?

Hi Marcheline,
I think you I misread my posting - I said "creature" not person.
My thesis is that we need quality not quantity, we have more than enough of that already. A situation made worse by the increasing complexity of life that has made a significant number of our world's citizens "unemployable" NINJA people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_population

http://www.well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html

Do you and your kids really want to live in this - It must be paradise because the Chinese police have a major job stopping "unsuitable" citizens from crowding into the city:

http://www.reallyenglish.com/news/img/shanghai_view.JPG

geoffky

one day you will all wake up and realize we cant have total employment and the price we have to pay for peoples benefits is the price of law and order because imagine if we starved people ....they might fight back

lynzpower

neas wrote: »

I dislike paying for someone else to have a shelter, food, multiple children... for indefinate periods of time so my point, albeit extreme would solve that :P.

While a system as we have at the moment should stay to help support people for short->medium periods of time.. I believe supporting people to have families, lives, food for long periods is taking the mick of me and every other taxpayer in the country.

Two solutions:

To claim benefit, person A has to maintain 15-20 hours of volunteering per week so as to 'pay' for their money... by doing this they will be guarnteed to get money and payment. In return soceity will get bad areas cleaned up, streets tidied, fundraising for charities.. all sorts of good things would come from this. 'Why?' you say we should force them to volunteer as its not volunteering? Because quite frankly so few people volunteer... in proportion to claimants its disgusting.

2nd Solution:

Extreme.... Assess a persons indivudal income to see if they can have children... Inject Coils into women who do not have the abilitiy to provide for their offspring. Im not talking about permanent sterilisatin... i'm talking about temporarily stoping them having children till they can afford to take care of it.

I'm sorry but back when we lived in caves... the man typically went on hunts killed things and brought food back for his family... he found a cave for his partner to live in... he provided for them shelter and support... there was no benefit.. no roof over your head for free, no free food, nothing at all.

Its been done before.. im sure people can survive on their own without having handouts from everyone. Because at the moment we are encouraging a sub-class of humans who do very little and live a reasonably ok life... warm, house, food, tv, bit of beer and fags money every now and again...plenty of free time to socialise...

Out if interest, what volunteering do you do?

SingleSue

I would agree with the volunteering part - it is something I have been doing for the last year as my way of giving something back.

The only problem with that, is that some companies would see it as a cheap (free) way of employing someone, which could in effect, deny someone a paying job...I know that has happened at the place I volunteer, they prefer to keep me as a volunteer where they don't have to pay me than take me on, or anyone else for that matter, for the position.

JayScottGreenspan

Making people contribute to society through part time 'volunteering' type work in order to claim benefits is a very good idea. It can make the world a nicer, cleaner place and at the same time take away one of the incentives for people to wallow on benefits.

I've been on the dole, and I wouldn't have minded turning up somewhere to help out 20 hours a week or so. Would have left plenty of time for my job searching.

The only downside I can think of is that the civil service would employ a gazillion managers and supervisors at £100k a year and the whole thing would end up costing a fortune.

StevieJ

geoffky wrote: »

Does anyone on here consider someone who is a millionaire and claims child benefit a scrounger..or is it ok because they are entitled to it..

What about the ones over 60 that get winter fuel allowance :rotfl:

Marcheline

harryhound wrote: »

Hi Marcheline,
I think you I misread my posting - I said "creature" not person.
My thesis is that we need quality not quantity, we have more than enough of that already. A situation made worse by the increasing complexity of life that has made a significant number of our world's citizens "unemployable" NINJA people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_population

http://www.well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html

Do you and your kids really want to live in this - It must be paradise because the Chinese police have a major job stopping "unsuitable" citizens from crowding into the city:

http://www.reallyenglish.com/news/img/shanghai_view.JPG

I see what you're getting at, but I disagree with you. I personally believe that governments are hyping up overpopulation for their own ends (i.e. to gain state control of fertility etc) I also take note of your comment that "we need quality, not quantity" and I am interested to hear exactly WHO you think should be measuring the 'quality' and what exactly you think is the correct response for reducing 'quantity'?