BBC Thursday: The Future State of Welfare

Butterfly_Brain

gallygirl wrote: »

Except a British worker with a family wouldn't be on a minimum wage, she/he would be on minimum wage plus WFTC, CTB, HB etc. It is pride that should send them out to work, but I don't see too much of that about. I know people in the recruitment business and the Poles and other Eastern Europeans hassle them to pick them up earlier as they don't want to risk being late - the Brits don't turn up if it's raining.

Temp work is a whole new argument - I can see why families on benefits can't take temp work as it plays havoc with their benefits - all very well saying they'll catch up eventually but that doesn't put food on the table now.

For your information the Europeans who come here are entitled to all benefits - just look at any claim form that has every European language on it :mad: Plus they can take up to £8,000 out of the country tax free plus free health care courtesy of the NHS

How can these people get something that they have never paid a penny into.

I have a friend who is a plasterer and he has been undercut by Eastern Europeans so badly that he is in real trouble and that goes for a lot of trades in the construction industry, brickies, plumbers, electricians etc.
Jobs should be given to British workers first.

nomoreboomandbust

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Governments are presumably nervous about introducing any sort of financial cap on family size that could be likened to China's policy. However, I think it merits serious discussion. I'm in my early 30s and most of my married friends have one child and are thinking about a second. However, this is a HUGE decision, as they have to factor in two sets of nursery fees or living on one salary, maternity leave pay, the possibility of moving to a slightly bigger house (which in London then has to be balanced by commuting costs and time from further out). I know of one couple who had twins, and have ruled out trying for another in case it happens again, as they could not afford 4 children. These are university educated, professional people on respectable salaries. Those on benefits don't have to worry about these issues; everything is paid for. I don't see how this can continue indefinitely.

But what is being suggested is nowhere near as draconian, parents can have twenty kids for all I care, so long as they are not lavished with all these benefits just for breeding. The only exception is multiple births, if you have one then twins come along there's not much you can do, so long as they haven't gone mad on the IVF treatment

cit_k

OptionARMAGEDDON wrote: »

Let em starve!

abaxas wrote: »

Farmed for internal organs and pig feed?

MacMickster wrote: »

Instead they have become a lifestyle choice for those who could provide for themselves but are too lazy to do so, and believe that they are entitled to take from a system into which they have never contributed.

The_White_Horse wrote: »

we have an underclass that believe it is ok to live on benefits and that is exactly what they do. until they realise it is not ok, they will continue to do so.
....
The welfare should last for a set time, and then you get nothing. perhaps it is harsh, but that is the only way.
...
Until we get harsher with these people - nothing will change.
....
Bring back work houses. Bring back debtor's prisons.

The_White_Horse wrote: »

.....snip.....
90% of this scum class wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the benefits they receive.

So much ignorance, hatred, and bias on MSE, they should regulate the internet to only allow people with more than a handful of brain cells to use it.

MacMickster

cit_k wrote: »

So much ignorance, hatred, and bias on MSE, they should regulate the internet to only allow people with more than a handful of brain cells to use it.

Perhaps you should read whole posts and threads before making idiotic and emotive comments such as this.

I am a great believer in the welfare state. It is one of the great indicators of a civilised society that provision is made for those unable to fend for themselves.

Unfortunately there are those in this country who could support themselves but prefer not to. Some feel that it is not worth working as the difference between what they would earn and the benefits to which they are "entitled" is too small. These scroungers reduce the amount of money available to support those who genuinely need assistance.

Look at the statistics that I gave in my post, from which you chose to quote a small part out of context. We do not have enough working taxpayers to support those currently claiming benefits. Would you prefer the level of benefits to be reduced across the board, or should those who merely choose not to work be weeded out from the genuine claimants?

cit_k

MacMickster wrote: »

Perhaps you should read whole posts and threads before making idiotic and emotive comments such as this.

I am a great believer in the welfare state. It is one of the great indicators of a civilised society that provision is made for those unable to fend for themselves.

Unfortunately there are those in this country who could support themselves but prefer not to. Some feel that it is not worth working as the difference between what they would earn and the benefits to which they are "entitled" is too small. These scroungers reduce the amount of money available to support those who genuinely need assistance.

Look at the statistics that I gave in my post, from which you chose to quote a small part out of context. We do not have enough working taxpayers to support those currently claiming benefits. Would you prefer the level of benefits to be reduced across the board, or should those who merely choose not to work be weeded out from the genuine claimants?

I did read your post.

It contained nothing of substance, apart from statistics that were used in some vain attempt to lend crediblility to a point that holds no water.

This is exactly the problem. Benefits were meant to provide a safety net for those who had either temporarily fallen on hard times, or who, due to incapacity were unable to provide for themselves.
Instead they have become a lifestyle choice for those who could provide for themselves but are too lazy to do so, and believe that they are entitled to take from a system into which they have never contributed.

Thats still the case for the majority of benefits.

You have to prove illness or disability (on a regular basis) in order to receive benefits based on illness or disability.

You have to prove you are job searching in order to receive jobseekers.

Other benefits, are paid out to those on low incomes who are unable to survive without extra money.

There are some, like benefits for children, that are a lifestyle choice (for the majority of claimaints), however, the vast majority of benefits are not as you say.

Your statistics are meaningless, as you dont demonstrate any link between what you state and what you posted stat wise.

The working population is simply unable to support all of those currently in receipt of benefits, and we consequently need to find better ways of identifying those most in need of support.

Untrue. Completely.

If that were true, they would not be able to a) continue to pay out, and b) shell out multiple loads of 2 billion pounds (and not seem to have much clue about where the money is going) for universal credit - which plans to increase payments.

The 'better' ways of identifying people, are not the ways being implemented, or discussed in welfare reforms, as they are proven unfit for purpose, proven to add nearly a 100 million a year in appeal costs, never mind nhs costs, and suffering (not to mention the 100 million a year going to atos to do assessments).

So your post, is little more than benefit bashing with some statistics thrown in to try to lend credibility to your attack calling people on benefits lazy, and stating its a lifestyle choice, and lying about the current benefits system.

MacMickster

cit_k wrote: »

Untrue. Completely.

If that were true, they would not be able to a) continue to pay out, and b) shell out multiple loads of 2 billion pounds (and not seem to have much clue about where the money is going) for universal credit - which plans to increase payments.

You may not be aware but the government is trying to deal with a budget deficit. In other words, we are paying out more than we are taking in through taxes.

If you genuinely believe that the new universal credit will result in an increase in the benefits bill then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

So your post, is little more than benefit bashing with some statistics thrown in to try to lend credibility to your attack calling people on benefits lazy, and stating its a lifestyle choice, and lying about the current benefits system.

I am not suggesting for one second that claiming benefits is a lifestyle choice for the majority of claimants, but if you watch the programme that this thread is about on television tonight you will see that, for some, it is indeed unashamedly a lifestyle choice.

The benefits system is there to support those in need of help - not those who can't be bothered to get off their backsides.

Jimmy_31

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

For your information the Europeans who come here are entitled to all benefits - just look at any claim form that has every European language on it :mad: Plus they can take up to £8,000 out of the country tax free plus free health care courtesy of the NHS

How can these people get something that they have never paid a penny into.

I have a friend who is a plasterer and he has been undercut by Eastern Europeans so badly that he is in real trouble and that goes for a lot of trades in the construction industry, brickies, plumbers, electricians etc.
Jobs should be given to British workers first.

True, nobody on site who has a mortgage to pay can compete with the eastern europeans prices.

The government are putting the british worker on to benefits (if they are lucky) or just putting them out of work by allowing the EEs to work in jobs that we need.

Ive been laid off plenty of times and i have never managed to get a penny in benefits after paying in thousands, The EEs do ok though because when they get laid off they get the lot.

All the health and safety stuff we have to sign also has every european language on it.

StevieJ

MacMickster wrote: »

I am not suggesting for one second that claiming benefits is a lifestyle choice for the majority of claimants, but if you watch the programme that this thread is about on television tonight you will see that, for some, it is indeed unashamedly a lifestyle choice.

The benefits system is there to support those in need of help - not those who can't be bothered to get off their backsides.

So the programme is one of those decide what we want to say and then find the people to interview to prove it

Wookster

Just watching this now and heard some single mother of 7 kids saying it isn't worth working for minimum wages.

I can tell I'm going to get quite angry watching this!

As far as I'm concerned cut all those benefits!

olly300

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

For your information the Europeans who come here are entitled to all benefits - just look at any claim form that has every European language on it :mad: Plus they can take up to £8,000 out of the country tax free plus free health care courtesy of the NHS

How can these people get something that they have never paid a penny into.

If you go and work in another EU country you are entitled to their benefits as well. However most other EU countries are sensible and do proper checks, and make it harder to claim benefits than in the UK.

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

I have a friend who is a plasterer and he has been undercut by Eastern Europeans so badly that he is in real trouble and that goes for a lot of trades in the construction industry, brickies, plumbers, electricians etc.
Jobs should be given to British workers first.

One of the big issues in construction is the state of the housing market.

BTW not everyone from abroad who works in construction is from Eastern Europe. I've met and know construction workers from a lot of countries including commonwealth ones.