Trying to get my head around it

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I use the term loosely as I don't think we have poverty at all, just incapable parents

Do you not think that being an incapable parent often then causes poverty? If you aren't of the level to look after your kids, then your finances are unlikely to be in good condition.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's even been on mainstream TV programmes where a single mother has said she cannot afford food, poor me, boo hoo, then she lights up a fag to calm herself and opens the fridge to show the situation and theres 8 cans of fosters.

She can't afford the food because she's buying fags and fosters. This is because this person hasn't got any concept of priorities, managing money etc. etc.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't see any reason why we cannot impose sanctions on people who do not look after their kids properley with the money the state gives them.

To an extent, we do. If you don't look after your kids properly then the state will take them off you.

Looking at the situation logically, the reason some people are on benefits is due to lack of financial education, lack of common sense and then a load of other not so nice reasons such as laziness and stupidness. I'm talking here of the example person you give, not the majority of course. Why would these people change their habits when they are on benefits? Someone in my office the other day was saying "all these poor people near me always take taxis back from town. I have more money than them and I couldn't waste my money on taxis." Well, that's the reason you have more money than them: they don't get much, and what they do get they spend on taxis, beer and fags. You don't, therefore you have more money.

The only way to stop people spending money on silly things is to educate them, not impose sanctions. At the same time I do think that a small minority of people cannot be educated.

Pobby

lemonjelly wrote: »

Disagree Graham. We do have poverty, unfortunately. Problem is, those in poverty are usually the ones the system is there to help, but they aren't aware of the help, or for whatever reason, choose not to access it.

In my opinion, the notion of conditionality in respect of welfare benefits is a good one. Essentially the government/society is saying "yes, we'll give you support, but you'll have to contribute back, by doing voluntary work, or engaging in education, or another contribution to the local community". I think this is a good thing, as it will get people involved in stuff, get them out of the house, meeting people, doing things, learning skills - time management, responsibility, the benefits of completing a task, or of completing a course of study etc. There will be harder cases - addicts who have to comply with treatment orders. But as a result, they could overcome an addiction. What a bonus that would be! & think of the implications - the savings on healthcare, reduction in petty crime rates, etc etc.

I like the idea of being able to contribute by the means you have mentioned.

I am sceptical regarding treatments programs for addicts. In the main, an addict needs to want to quit all it be substance abuse, gambling or whatever.

wigglebeena

treliac wrote: »

So who should work and pay for someone to live, if not they themself?

We all want the luxury of doing what we choose, when we choose. Why should that be possible for some but not for others?

Uh, I think you're arguing against something I didn't say. I was just empathising about the daily grind in the post I responded to, not suggesting it's ok to put two fingers up to the working wo/man and live off the state if you're fit and able to work.

StevieJ

SingleSue wrote: »

Quick summation of what I put

I had a very limited budget early life upbringing due to an accident my father had, it didn't hold me back, my limited budget is not holding my children back.

I think with some families, increasing the money will not make a jot of difference to the children and their longterm future...only increased awareness of good parenting will do that.

Spot on, if the kids are brought up with discipline, respect and love, no better gift could you give them.

Graham_Devon

lemonjelly wrote: »

Disagree Graham. We do have poverty, unfortunately. Problem is, those in poverty are usually the ones the system is there to help, but they aren't aware of the help, or for whatever reason, choose not to access it.

In my opinion, the notion of conditionality in respect of welfare benefits is a good one. Essentially the government/society is saying "yes, we'll give you support, but you'll have to contribute back, by doing voluntary work, or engaging in education, or another contribution to the local community". I think this is a good thing, as it will get people involved in stuff, get them out of the house, meeting people, doing things, learning skills - time management, responsibility, the benefits of completing a task, or of completing a course of study etc. There will be harder cases - addicts who have to comply with treatment orders. But as a result, they could overcome an addiction. What a bonus that would be! & think of the implications - the savings on healthcare, reduction in petty crime rates, etc etc.

I agree.

However, have seen times (I work in the medical field) when a child is going without meals, so that the parent can get their alcohol. The parent was not alcoholic, not medically anyway, they just put alcohol above the child.

Nothing is done however, thats "just how it is". No amount of education is going to sort that out.

Surely if we are paying child benefits, other benefits, the child should be getting a meal. Though the adult is doing nothing illegal.

That's why I believe in those sorts of cases, sanctions should be bought in. I just don't know what those sanctions may be.

In the above case, social services WERE bought in, but not for the reasons above.

zygurat789

Quote:
Originally Posted by lemonjelly
In my opinion, the notion of conditionality in respect of welfare benefits is a good one. Essentially the government/society is saying "yes, we'll give you support, but you'll have to contribute back, by doing voluntary work, or engaging in education, or another contribution to the local community". I think this is a good thing, as it will get people involved in stuff, get them out of the house, meeting people, doing things, learning skills - time management, responsibility, the benefits of completing a task, or of completing a course of study etc. There will be harder cases - addicts who have to comply with treatment orders. But as a result, they could overcome an addiction. What a bonus that would be! & think of the implications - the savings on healthcare, reduction in petty crime rates, etc etc.

Pobby wrote: »

I like the idea of being able to contribute by the means you have mentioned.

I like the idea too but I am terrible frightened of the costs, the public sector is already far too large.

Pobby

Surely the costs would be covered to some degree by the contribution made by doing voluntary work?

zygurat789

What contribution?

Pobby

Unless it`s repairing the roads or felling trees or whatever, I take your point. However I think many people have a huge range of skills that could be passed on to others.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

4 million children - one in three - are currently living in poverty in the UK, one of the highest rates in the industrialised world. This is a shocking figure given the wealth of our nation.
Poverty can have a profound impact on the child, their family, and the rest of society. It often sets in motion a deepening spiral of social exclusion, creating problems in education, employment, mental and physical health and social interaction.

So what should we do?

I know lets cut their parents benefits!

Why?

Well I don't like the fact that "some" of these parents buy fags and cans of fosters....