Breeding for Benefits

dave4545454

why shouldn't they want the best for their kids? they have no chance of getting a job, there's 0.5 million job vacancies and over 8 million out of work.

the few people who are lucky enough to get fulltime work in this country (and it's under 50% of the adult population as there's another 8 million who are in part time work) do everything they can to maximise their salaries.

so why shouldn't the unemployed too maximise their incomes and get everything they are legally entitled to?

treliac

Of course there needs to be the jobs available but there needs to be the incentive to take them too.

How does the govt expect to keep 70 year olds and over, working? It must be a better option to aim for getting the younger unemployed into the workforce.

leveller2911

dave4545454 wrote: »

why shouldn't they want the best for their kids? they have no chance of getting a job, there's 0.5 million job vacancies and over 8 million out of work.

the few people who are lucky enough to get fulltime work in this country (and it's under 50% of the adult population as there's another 8 million who are in part time work) do everything they can to maximise their salaries.

so why shouldn't the unemployed too maximise their incomes and get everything they are legally entitled to?[/QUOTE]


Because they haven't contributed. We are not talking about people here who have been laid off work in the past 18 month. Something like 1.3 million people have not worked in the last 13 yrs...Why should the working population subsidise the workshy???..


They are only legally entitled because the system is fuc*ed up...

I have every sympathy for people who are genuinely struggling but to see workshy tos*ers rooking the system when the money they receive to be better spent makes a pretty poor society IMO.We all want the best for our children thats why the majority of us know when to stop having them ......

CFC

The mind boggles at the amount of money they get by simply not working and having kids. Makes me think that there is no hope for this country.

dave4545454

leveller2911 wrote: »

Because they haven't contributed. We are not talking about people here who have been laid off work in the past 18 month. Something like 1.3 million people have not worked in the last 13 yrs...Why should the working population subsidise the workshy???..


They are only legally entitled because the system is fuc*ed up...

I have every sympathy for people who are genuinely struggling but to see workshy tos*ers rooking the system when the money they receive to be better spent makes a pretty poor society IMO.

but no-one will give them a job. there's only 1/2million job vacancies and over 8 million unemployed. there isn't enough jobs for everyone by a long way.

you have to face it that there are going to be a lot of people who are unemployed and they will be for life because there aren't enough jobs in this country to employ everyone.

if a civilised country can't provide employment for all then it should provide money to live for those unlucky ones who are unable to find a job

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

dave4545454 wrote: »

there's only 1/2million job vacancies and over 8 million unemployed.

Rubbish.

There are 2.5 million unemployed.

The 8 million figure includes the "economically inactive", which includes an awful lot of people who don't want to work anymore but once might have, students, wives that don't need to work but do work occasionally, etc.....

CFC

dave4545454 wrote: »

but no-one will give them a job. there's only 1/2million job vacancies and over 8 million unemployed. there isn't enough jobs for everyone by a long way.

you have to face it that there are going to be a lot of people who are unemployed and they will be for life because there aren't enough jobs in this country to employ everyone.

if a civilised country can't provide employment for all then it should provide money to live for those unlucky ones who are unable to find a job

Many of the people on these kind of estates are not unemployed, they are a) unemployable and b) not interested. I am not saying all, but I am saying many, ie a large number.
There can be no justification for the benefits system being useless at helping normal working people who hit a bad patch (become unemployed with no kids and your own house and see how well you do) vs giving the long term unemployed/unemployable £35k a year tax free.

silvercar

dave4545454 wrote: »

but no-one will give them a job. there's only 1/2million job vacancies and over 8 million unemployed. there isn't enough jobs for everyone by a long way.

you have to face it that there are going to be a lot of people who are unemployed and they will be for life because there aren't enough jobs in this country to employ everyone.

if a civilised country can't provide employment for all then it should provide money to live for those unlucky ones who are unable to find a job

But they aren't interested in a job, benefit pays them to much to think about going out to work.

I understand that people unemployed need to live, but I expect them to get up and look for a job. There is 1/2 mill job vacancies out there, but they aren't even applying for jobs.

I would far rather provide benefits to people temporarily out of work and seeking new work than the professional benefit scroungers.

treliac

dave4545454 wrote: »

so why shouldn't the unemployed too maximise their incomes and get everything they are legally entitled to?

dave4545454 wrote: »

but no-one will give them a job. there's only 1/2million job vacancies and over 8 million unemployed. there isn't enough jobs for everyone by a long way.

you have to face it that there are going to be a lot of people who are unemployed and they will be for life because there aren't enough jobs in this country to employ everyone.

if a civilised country can't provide employment for all then it should provide money to live for those unlucky ones who are unable to find a job

No-one's expecting them to starve but when they boast of spending 2 grand on christmas presents for the kids and only the best brand names are good enough, something has to be wrong because, let's face it, very many working people can't aspire to such expenditure.


By the way, definition of 'income' ...........

in·come (nkm)
n. The amount of money or its equivalent received during a period of time in exchange for labor or services, from the sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial investments.

Doesn't quite fit in these scenarios, does it?

And if there aren't/won't ever be enough jobs, then why is the govt proposing people work into their 70's? But either way, there is plenty that needs doing within our communities. There should, imo, be an absolute expectation that something is given back 'in exchange' for monies received. (Disregarding people in the sort of position SingleSue is in, it mustn't be forgotten.)

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Is it just me, or does it seem utterly bizarre that a family in receipt of £45,000 a year in benefits from the state should not be expected, at the very least, to provide 40 hours of labour per week to the state in return for it....