just stop all benefits.

A._Badger

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that genuine cases are very much in the minority and that most benefit cases are bogus and undeserving?

Or it the case that actually, the claimants that are undeserving are very much in the minority and only an imbecile would base policy on a single (or minority of) emotive undeserving case?

Are you seriously suggesting I said that?

And I dispute your second paragraph entirely. With 53% of households said to be in receipt of benefits, it is clear that a very considerable number of them should not be.

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

Aggh we have a New lot of Benefit Bashers joining the Forum.*sigh*
Evidently who see themselves as taking place of Medical Professionals, Lawyers etc.

dori2o

A._Badger wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting I said that?

And I dispute your second paragraph entirely. With 53% of households said to be in receipt of benefits, it is clear that a very considerable number of them should not be.

You realise that of those 53% included are those receiving the state pension and those receiving working tax credits? The 2 largest groups out of those receiving benefits.

So what do you suggest, stop working tax credits and state pensions?

What do you suggest those on the lowest salaries do? Is it their fault that the NMW is set at a level far below that which is considered to be a living wage?

The average salary in the UK is approx £24500.

Working 42 hours a week in the UK at NMW is £13500, thats over £10k less than the average, and people believe this is enough to live on. After tax and NI that leaves you with £11700 net salary.

Average rents outside of London are £450/£500 a month (thats a cost of between £5400 and £6000 a year), Band A CT is approx £1100 a year, there goes at least 55.5% of your salary just to keep a roof over your head. Then there's gas, electric, water, all essential requirements.

So what can you do with your salary you have left. For some, nothing. It can cost hundreds/thousands of pounds a year for commuting to and from work and thats not in a car, thats public transport.

There will always be those who say it tough, that people should get 2nd/3rd/4th jobs to survive, but there's only so many hours in a day and not enough jobs out there for everyone to have 2/3/4 jobs.

If those benefit bigotts feel it is such an easy life living on benefits, why not jack-in the job, give up the pension and try it out.

It's easy to give an opinion on something that doesn't and probably never will affect you. When you live that life it's a whole different ball game.

Trying to manage on £12k a year after being made redundant from a job where you were earning almost £30k a year makes you realise just how hard it is at the bottom end of the scale.

A._Badger

dori2o wrote: »

If those benefit bigotts

Bing! Devalued answer. Please try again.

Forever

A._Badger wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting I said that?

And I dispute your second paragraph entirely. With 53% of households said to be in receipt of benefits, it is clear that a very considerable number of them should not be.

With 64% of the total benefits bill being made up of the elderly (a growing band) and the low waged (another growing band), then quite frankly, I'm not surprised that 53% of households are in receipt of benefits. Although I am curious, where did you get your 53% figure from?

So are you suggesting that we cut benefits for pensioners and the low waged then and that they shouldn't be on benefits?

And you do realise that if we clamp down on tax loop holes, the foreign aid bill and mps no longer being allowed to fiddle their expenses, we would save billions?

A._Badger

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver wrote: »

Aggh we have a New lot of Benefit Bashers joining the Forum.*sigh*
Evidently who see themselves as taking place of Medical Professionals, Lawyers etc.

And a new lot of heart-on-a-sleeve emoters who never seem to consider whether a society where the majority receive benefits - not just at the expense of the net payers but of the poorest and genuinely needy too - is heading for really serious trouble.

dori2o

A._Badger wrote: »

Bing! Devalued answer. Please try again.

I take it then you have no answer to the points raised.

Feel free to call benefit claimants all the names under the sun, but once you have to take a bit, you disappear like the coward you are.

A._Badger

Forever wrote: »

With 64% of the total benefits bill being made up of the elderly (a growing band) and the low waged (another growing band), then quite frankly, I'm not surprised that 53% of households are in receipt of benefits. Although I am curious, where did you get your 53% figure from?

I have already quoted that source. Read back.

Forever wrote: »

So are you suggesting that we cut benefits for pensioners and the low waged then and that they shouldn't be on benefits?

Did I say that? No, it's what you wanted me to have said. A straw man.

What I said is that the last government attempted to buy votes by engineering the benefits system so that a far larger number of people became recipients. The result has been a swathe of society that has no genuine claim on benefits being on receipt of them.

Ironically, some of the prime sufferers turn out to be the poorest in society as quite well to do families soak-up benefits that could be more equitably distributed.

Forever wrote: »

And you do realise that if we clamp down on tax loop holes, the foreign aid bill and mps no longer being allowed to fiddle their expenses, we would save billions?

We have had the foreign aid and MPs debate already. You still have to countenance whether a society where more than half of its inhabitants live on benefits from the minority is healthy.

Forever

A._Badger wrote: »

And a new lot of heart-on-a-sleeve emoters who never seem to consider whether a society where the majority receive benefits - not just at the expense of the net payers but of the poorest and genuinely needy too - is heading for really serious trouble.

And again, here is the benefits bill:

- Total benefits for families with children 18.11%
- Total benefits for unemployed people 2.58%
- Total benefits for people on low incomes 22.08%
- Total benefits for elderly people 41.64%
- Total benefits for sick and disabled people 15.17%
- Total benefits for bereaved people 0.36%

In the context of this, we have 5 million unemployed and only 400,000 job vacancies.

DWP has said that the fraud level is 2% ie. not a lot.

So what can we do? Make the pensioners, the ill and the unemployment live in the streets and left to starve to death?

I have also mentioned various other ways we could save money such as tightening tax loop holes, stop foreign aid, stop using our tax money to pay people to work in supermarkets which is displacing jobs and forcing more people to claim benefits, stop MPs fiddling their expenses, stop MPs being able to retire on a full pension before state pension age and pull out of the EU. We would save billions and billions of pounds on what I have said already and I am sure when I walk away from here, I will think of a few more ways to save billions of pounds.

What would be even better is if Osbourne could actually look into creating growth. Now that really, really would help things.

A._Badger

dori2o wrote: »

I take it then you have no answer to the points raised.

Feel free to call benefit claimants all the names under the sun, but once you have to take a bit, you disappear like the coward you are.

Actually, it's just that when I read the phrase 'benefit bigots' (I corrected the spelling for you) applied to anyone who questions the current system, I lose the will to argue with what is, clearly, an ideologically closed mind.