Breeding for Benefits

margaretclare

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Bit judgemental aren't you? I thought religious people are supposed to like all for what they are?

I live in jeans, does that mean I am scum too?

I didn't say you were scum - in fact I didn't say that anyone is scum! Not a word I commonly use. However, I still think the black top that woman was wearing was a 'crime against fashion' although even that remark was slightly tongue-in-cheek.

I have often wondered what people would wear if those ubiquitous blue trousers suddenly became unavailable. They're not particularly cheap either, are they? And while they undoubtedly look good on the young and slim, they look anything but good on many other people!!

misskool

I just managed to watch this but £686 a week for not working. That's £2744 TAX-FREE a month, EVERY month, for not working.

wow.

lostinrates

Mozette wrote: »

Mind you my postie once said, ooh I nearly didn't recognise you with your clothes on. I generally slob about in my 'jamas at home.
.

I like to think of this as saving my ''proper clothes'' to extend their wear. Its a truth universally known to women that the good, smart flattering clothes get soiled. stained or misshapen fastest. By not ''slobbing'' in these good clothes ...which are expensive, we get more value from them, and the ''slobbing'' clothes seem to last forever, and it doesn't matter when they get a little baggy over joints, or saggy in the behind, or bleach stained when you've reached over the bench you are cleaning

Pobby

One problem, and it is often discussed here, is the large amount of benefits that goes on housing and ct. I think in the case of the family discussed it was £90 a week. I guess in comparison to many areas that is quite cheap. After that they are bringing up 7 kids on about the same amount of money that after tax last year my wife and I netted. I`m not saying that is a big challenge however I don`t think it would be a life of luxury.

Without a mortgage we aim to put away about £700 a month, savings and pensions and we certainly do not have a fancy life style.

However I agree. This family will get their cash week in and week out. How many people like myself, self employed, who are now struggling. I have no chance of saying to the government, please make my money up.

I have a beef regarding JSA. I think it is a very poor benefit when some poor soul losses their work and is then offered a pittance whilst the benefit culture get their money week in and week out.

silvercar

So what about the 'benefits scoungers'? Actually, very few of them are scroungers. Most are just people with zero career prospects. If you put people in kennels, they will behave like dogs.

But we don't put people in kennels, we give them enough benefit to live in 4 bed detached houses, and some still behave like scroungers.

silvercar

Mozette wrote: »

When my milk had gone off, early morning desparate for coffee I popped over the road to my local shop for milk, in my nightie - I put a coat on over it, and to be honest I was more covered up than when 'dressed'.
Mind you my postie once said, ooh I nearly didn't recognise you with your clothes on. I generally slob about in my 'jamas at home.

lostinrates wrote: »

I like to think of this as saving my ''proper clothes'' to extend their wear. Its a truth universally known to women that the good, smart flattering clothes get soiled. stained or misshapen fastest. By not ''slobbing'' in these good clothes ...which are expensive, we get more value from them, and the ''slobbing'' clothes seem to last forever, and it doesn't matter when they get a little baggy over joints, or saggy in the behind, or bleach stained when you've reached over the bench you are cleaning

Years ago there was some sort of playground rota at my kids primary school, where parents would give it in turns to watch the kids coming into the play ground before morning school. One mother, when reminded it was her turn on duty, yelled at the top of her voice, "But you can't expect me to stay today, I've got no knickers on."

treliac

SingleSue wrote: »

eldest was over the moon about half an hour ago because he had received a phone call in response to his CV dropping/asking around for part time work, he has got a job and starts in just over half an hour!

Fabulous news! Good on him for getting out there and landing himself a job. Congratulate him from me will you please Sue?

SingleSue

Will do, have posted an update on how he felt after his first full day on the Nice People thread.

I am so very very proud of him and relieved that he has listened and wants to work rather than taking the easy option but he wants to take driving lessons once he is of an age and working through the summer holidays until 6th form starts is the only way he is going to be able to build up enough money for lessons. Ok the job is seasonal and may not be everyones cup of tea (working on sea front) but it was the way I started all those years ago at the age of 15......I loved those days, the work was hard but the friendship and contacts built up, amazing. It also plugged a gap for me when I left school and until I got into 'decent' employment, so it meant I could avoid the YTS crap money thing.

macaque_2

silvercar wrote: »

But we don't put people in kennels, we give them enough benefit to live in 4 bed detached houses, and some still behave like scroungers.

This wins the 'I'm all right jack' post of the month. The reference to kennels is a metaphore and is not about housing.

Given a decent job and something to lose, most people give up the 'scrounging' habit. I accept that some people remain congenital scroungers despite privelidge and opportunity. Examples include MPs fiddling expenses, overcharging lawyers and bankers helping themselves large bonuses when when the tax payer is underwiting the risk.

Too many young people leave school with zero social skills and barely able to read and write. As a currency in the employment market, a rising proportion of degrees have no more value than a Lego Land Driving license.

Bad parents are the long term consequence of poor life prospects and bad education. A few are lucky enough to have a second chance through employment. New Labour has destroyed the economic landscape with high taxes red tape and bungled attempts at social engineering.

You have a job, a pension and income from rented property. Do you think that puts you in a good position to criticise people who have been reduced to living off charity from the state?

ILW

macaque wrote: »

.

You have a job, a pension and income from rented property. Do you think that puts you in a good position to criticise people who have been reduced to living off charity from the state?

I would suggest that there is a difference between living off charity (where the donors have some choice as to whether and where to donate) and living off the state where the donors are forced by law to contribute.
From the recipients point of view, if you can see no prospect of being able to support a child by your own efforts, I would consider it immoral to then have 4 or 5.