Trying to get my head around it

lemonjelly

Pobby wrote: »

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.

To an extent I agree Pobby.

At the same time, I think with some an element of carrot & stick is required. A bit of being cruel to be kind if you will?

I quite like Cleavers post as well.

Reflecting on these made me think of another thing. When I'm shopping, for example a new pair of shoes, I may look at a price tag. Now, when looking at that price tag, I reflect on how hard I've had to work for that money. That helps me to decide whether the shoes are worth that price or not.

If money is just given to you, how can that affect your concept of value.

This isn't a strictly fair view - I know of many benefit claimants who are very careful in their budgeting, prioritising etc. I have friends who have gone without food whilst their children have eaten, or had a new jumper for school. So the above isn't a huge generalisation, but perhaps a part solution for some, or an indicator of the importance of the educational needs.

Emy1501

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

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....

No why not take some of this money and make sure its channeled into getting the kids out of poverty. Ideas have already been put forward on here. Clearly the fact that this country is in such a bad state when it comes to child poverty suggests that the system of just throwing money at the parents is not working?

Do any of other country in the developed world have such a generous benefit system as ours? If we are near the bottom for child welfare what are the countries at the top doing? Whats their welfare system like?

lemonjelly

Pobby wrote: »

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.

The Nu-Labour government has had the public sector working on the cheap, despite their spun headlines.

he voluntary sector fills such a void that so many statutory bodies fail to meet.

You look at the cab service. Yes it has its faults, & can be difficult to access. But that highlights the need for it imo! & the majority of its staff give their time & skills to it for f all. Over 80% of the UK's personal debt is dealt with by cabx. I know of one city which alone dealt with £64million of personal debt in a 12 month period. FOR FREE! If that isn't a bargain, then I don't know what is.

I've worked with volunteers. The way they develop, learn, become skilled & share those skills is phenomenal. I've had volunteers work with me who at the beginning struggled to read & write. A few years later, they were doing NVQ's.

Blimey, what it costs is nothing compared to the incomes it would generate, combined with the other savings which could be realised.

zygurat789

Quote:
Originally Posted by BACKFRMTHEEDGE
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....

Emy1501 wrote: »

No why not take some of this money and make sure its channeled into getting the kids out of poverty. Ideas have already been put forward on here. Clearly the fact that this country is in such a bad state when it comes to child poverty suggests that the system of just throwing money at the parents is not working?
Do any of other country in the developed world have such a generous benefit system as ours? If we are near the bottom what are the countries at the top doing? Whats their welfare system like?

The problem is that there are too many of us and all these benefits do encourage people to have children. Global warming is not a problem it is a symptom of overpopulation which is where we are. We need to discourage
parents from having children they can ill afford, if the world populationcarries on increasing at the present rate the result will have to be a partial (hopefully not mass) extinction.
Everyone needs to cooperate from religious organisations with their outdated philosophies to governments paying parents to have more children

pie81

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

I don't think it's naive at all. Poor people have always had kids. In the 1800s they had massive families and there was no benefits system.

Errrr.... in the 1800s there was no effective contraception, and many kids died at an early age from childhood diseases so families had more to compensate. Now there is free, reliable contraception and most kids tend to survive to adulthood.

So people having lots of kids now, is a bit different from people having lots of kids in the 1800s.

wolvoman

inspector_monkfish wrote: »

well, i guess if its there for a genuine reason, he might as well use it for other purposes as well

How come no-one says the same about MP's second home allowance?

It's getting paid already, so why worry about them making a capital gain from it?

carolt

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

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....

Personally, I would force the parents to work for their benefit, the same as I do.

Anyone who failed to get a job within an allotted timespan (say 3 months?) would either have all benefits cut off or be made to work at minimum wage level in a job that was imposed on them. Not full-time - their befits wouldn't cover that, and it wouldn't allow them to look for a longer-term job. But if they get £60/week, then 10 hours a week cleaning the streets, say. They'd learn some transferable soft skills in the meantime, our streets would look better (or whatever), they'd get some self-respect as they were actually earning' their pay, and it might discourage those who wre just too damn lazy, to look for work.

The kids would be no better or worse off financially. But their parents would now have something to put on their CV, someone to give them a reference, and some work experience.

They'd know that if they were to work more, they could get more money.

And I'd scrap any rule that made it financially advantageous to be on benefits over getting a job, as it is now.

carolt

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

I don't think it's naive at all. Poor people have always had kids. In the 1800s they had massive families and there was no benefits system.

Why do you believe that poor people have children because of the benefits system? Because it said so in the Sun?

Not all poor people who have children do so for financial reasons, obviously. I'm sure most don't.

But the cold hard reality is that for working parents, we are incentivised NOT to have more children. Because we can't afford them - the time off work, the need for a bigger house you can't afford, etc etc.

Whereas if you're on benefits and don't work, the incentives work the other way - bigger house - automatic. More money - automatic. No need to work till you're youngest is 7 - automatic.

To imagine that huge incentives like that will have no impact at all is just daft.

zygurat789

The minimum wage for 21+ is £5.80ph
The minimum wage for an 18yr old is £4.83.
For people to want to work either increase their pay or reduce their benefit.
I propose reducing benefits gradually for new claims so that it will be seen to be less beneficial in future.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

carolt wrote: »

Personally, I would force the parents to work for their benefit, the same as I do.

You're on benefits?