Trying to get my head around it

wigglebeena

PasturesNew wrote: »

It's not just the money - it's the TIME it takes to work full-time that really grinds you down.

Me & mates moan about paying for groceries, effectively, with our lives. It's not just the money or luxuries you go to work for, it's your life slipping through your fingers, handed over to pay for the means of survival.

Time is really the best luxury, the one that really matters.

treliac

wigglebeena wrote: »

Me & mates moan about paying for groceries, effectively, with our lives. It's not just the money or luxuries you go to work for, it's your life slipping through your fingers, handed over to pay for the means of survival.

Time is really the best luxury, the one that really matters.

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

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

.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

carolt wrote: »

It's naive in the extreme not to accept that if more children didn't also = more benefits, less (unwanted) children would be born in the first place, as people who view children just as a meal ticket would cease to have them.

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?

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And simply throwing money at the parents won't sort out poverty either.

So what will?

I'll give you a helping hand to formulate an answer. The following might help.

End Child Poverty

Child Poverty Action Group

Joseph Rowntree Foundation

If you need more links I can happily provide them.

Emy1501

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

So what will?

I'll give you a helping hand to formulate an answer. The following might help.

End Child Poverty

Child Poverty Action Group

Joseph Rowntree Foundation

If you need more links I can happily provide them.

Educating the poor especially the young a school to try and show them that they can break out of circle they are in. Every child in this country is entitled to an education that many poor people in 3rd world countries could only dream of.

How ever poor a child is with the right help there is no reason why they cannot get a reasonable education and attempt to bring themselves out of the poverty they are in.

We need to be channeling funds into inner city schools and paying over and above to the best teachers headmasters etc to turn these schools around.

I suspect many of the poor in the 1800's had no education. Whilst money should always be given to charties etc to help the poor its not going to solve the problem.

lemonjelly

lostinrates wrote: »

ETA the rpoblem with reporting people is two fold, firstly, one needs to know how much they do get, a pretty darn rare occurance, and secondly, one needs to know what they should get! I see to have passed the first on this case, but not the second! It also seems that it confusers some claimants, as we here underclaiming is not unheard of.

I don't think this is necessary lir.

I believe reasonable suspicion is enough. If you hold that, report it to relevant authorities. They can investigate. It may well be that the claim is completely legit. If so, they'll investiget, the claimant will be completely unaware, report there is no fraud, & end of matter.

If something is found, then procedures/processes will occur.

When fraud is reported, the LA/DWP don't straight away stop the claim, they investigate. The benefit claimant will be completely unaware. Indeed, the claimant will be given opportunities to confess prior to charges/prosecution.

Graham_Devon

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

So what will?

I'll give you a helping hand to formulate an answer. The following might help.

End Child Poverty

Child Poverty Action Group

Joseph Rowntree Foundation

If you need more links I can happily provide them.

Education, as Emy has already said.

But I'd add sanctions.

Personally, I see too much of it. 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.

If people want to use the benefit system, then personally as we have such a problem with "poverty" (I use the term loosely as I don't think we have poverty at all, just incapable parents), 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.

I don't know what these sanctions should be, I'm not a family or child expert in the slightest. But when problems are highlighted, I believe something should be done. We shouldn't just wring our hands and tell people we have poverty in this country. We don't. We have incapable parents and a generous benefits system encouraging those incapable parents to produce kids to provide an easy income.

We have many people using the benefits system on MSE. Many of them use it and are not in poverty. Many of them use it for what it's for and provide for their children etc. Therefore, it can be done and there is no excuse for poverty in a country that has an extremely generous benefits system.

SingleSue

I did type out an incredibly long post last night about (in my view) poverty not making a blind bit of difference to a childs long term life with regards to employment etc..only parenting does.

I was a coward and deleted it before hitting the reply button though.

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.

lemonjelly

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.

Pobby

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Resorting to insults is a sure way to prove that you have nothing of substance to back up your arguments.

No not an insult just stating the obvious.