just stop all benefits.

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

Eugenicist Thought. Better bring in a well known Philosopher who believes we are better euthanised and is a respected part of the academic Philosophy Community the nasty Mary Warnock.

SingleSue

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver wrote: »

I have noticed here that the economically successful and prosperous look down on their struggling counterparts.
What they should do is spreading the love and we should be discussing how to make a life under impossible circumstances.

I used to be just like that (in fact, I think I was ten times worse, I was incredibly vocal in my disdain of those on benefits)....until I was forced to give up work to become a carer.

retiredandskint

Hold on a cotton picking minute, I'm one of those pensioners that you speak of. Not all of us had the luxury of staying in education doing 'useless' degrees but started work at 15. Not for us maternity pay, generous family allowance (it wasn't paid for the first child), Sure Start or any of those other benefits. No credits for being a stay at home mum either and then needing 39 qualifying years to get a full pension. Working tax credits, minimum wage non existent and mortgage interest rate, at one point,going up to 15%. We have paid heavily into the system over a long period and I'm still paying tax.

Now let's deal with those who are on low wages why should we subsidise those employers like T*scos etc who make vast profits, pay low wages and therefore the taxpayers in effect subside them. Why should they get away with it. I don't hear anyone moaning about them.

Then we have the group who have never paid into the system and are hell bent on getting every penny they can.

mazza111

Retiredandskint - I do agree with you. Especially about the under paying staff.

What I think gets people's backs up is the pensioners who are sitting with private pensions who are relatively well off, who are still getting the heating allowance every year, free bus passes, free prescriptions.

I actually don't mind the latter 2. Pensioners may be on a lot of medication, so that helps, nor the bus passes, although I think to charge maybe half fare like they do with kids, I don't see however why pensioners get the heating allowance every year. I don't mean the majority of pensioners btw, I mean those who are well off. They are already means testing pensioners for PC, so there would be no extra expense to means test it that way.

And no I didn't get a lot of things related with having kids these days either.

But what we need to remember is that some people can't pay in. Especially due to ill health, my dd worked for approx 4 years before she was struck down with a horrible illness that has left her unable to work, virtually unable to walk. Now how can she pay into the system when she's unable to work, she'd like nothing better than be able to work, unfortunately that's just not in sight at the moment. So without doubt she's going to take out far more than she put in. But she and I would definitely rather have her health and a job than any sickness and disability benefits. I think these are the kind of people that are being hit by any cuts that happen.

retiredandskint

Mazza111 - like you I have no problems with those who are genuinely need and deserve sickness/disability benefits. I have a friend who, through no fault of her own, was struck down with a disability after working just a few months and she deserves every penny she gets. The same applies to those who become carers.

There are, unfortunately, many who think they are 'entitled' who are fit and able to work and choose not to or produce children instead and then reward them further by allowing them to move to bigger houses in more expensive areas. I don't see why I should subsidise someone to live in an expensive part of London when I couldn't afford to and when working there had a two hour commute, door to door.

ukcarper

mazza111 wrote: »

Retiredandskint - I do agree with you. Especially about the under paying staff.

What I think gets people's backs up is the pensioners who are sitting with private pensions who are relatively well off, who are still getting the heating allowance every year, free bus passes, free prescriptions.

I actually don't mind the latter 2. Pensioners may be on a lot of medication, so that helps, nor the bus passes, although I think to charge maybe half fare like they do with kids, I don't see however why pensioners get the heating allowance every year. I don't mean the majority of pensioners btw, I mean those who are well off. They are already means testing pensioners for PC, so there would be no extra expense to means test it that way.

And no I didn't get a lot of things related with having kids these days either.

But what we need to remember is that some people can't pay in. Especially due to ill health, my dd worked for approx 4 years before she was struck down with a horrible illness that has left her unable to work, virtually unable to walk. Now how can she pay into the system when she's unable to work, she'd like nothing better than be able to work, unfortunately that's just not in sight at the moment. So without doubt she's going to take out far more than she put in. But she and I would definitely rather have her health and a job than any sickness and disability benefits. I think these are the kind of people that are being hit by any cuts that happen.

Although I agree that well off pensioners should not get winter fuel allowance I don't think using PC credit cut off is the answer. Pensioners justabove PC cut off are already worse off than people claiming and to give someone on PC £200 a year and someone a few pounds above nothing is not a fair solution. I know it would be difficult to use another amount but if they made it taxable at least it would claw back some from better of pensioners.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

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 seemed to be saying that one genuine case for benefits should be dismissed, which implies you feel that genuine cases are in the minority. Your second paragraph shows that you do believe that genuine cases are in the minority with your 53% statistic and statement.

So yes, I am suggesting that you seem to be suggesting that you feel that genuine benefit claimants are in the minority.

You know what, let's stop all the 'suggestions' and why don't you just confirm or deny it outright. Do you feel that genuine benefit claimants are in the minority?

**sparkles**

dori2o wrote: »

I have a problem with bigots who refuse to accept that not everyone on benefits is on the take and won't 'discuss' in a reasonable manner the subject of benefits but instead keeps up the rhetoric that every claimant is a cheat, that the money they get is too generous, that they are scummers, that every child of a benefit cklaimant will amount to nothing and be a scummer, that all benefit claimants are obese or all smoke (I don't) or they are all alcoholics (I can't remember the last time I has a drink), that they are 2nd class citizens as should bow down to their masters who pay taxes for their benefits (or in the case of civil servants bow down to those who pay their wages).

QUOTE]

i dont think the "benefit bashers" are saying everyone is a "scummer"

no one can deny that there are many deserving people for claiming and who by all means should be receiving more help - if you have a problem with these people receiving help then you are an extremely cold hearted person.

however there seems to be a few "benefit lovers" who deny that there is a problem with lazy, work shy types claiming when they shouldnt be.

what about drug addicts for example, why should they receive DLA??? they are not ILL and any illness they have developed due to their drug use well, tough sh*t

dori2o

**sparkles** wrote: »

dori2o wrote: »

I have a problem with bigots who refuse to accept that not everyone on benefits is on the take and won't 'discuss' in a reasonable manner the subject of benefits but instead keeps up the rhetoric that every claimant is a cheat, that the money they get is too generous, that they are scummers, that every child of a benefit cklaimant will amount to nothing and be a scummer, that all benefit claimants are obese or all smoke (I don't) or they are all alcoholics (I can't remember the last time I has a drink), that they are 2nd class citizens as should bow down to their masters who pay taxes for their benefits (or in the case of civil servants bow down to those who pay their wages).

QUOTE]

i dont think the "benefit bashers" are saying everyone is a "scummer"

no one can deny that there are many deserving people for claiming and who by all means should be receiving more help - if you have a problem with these people receiving help then you are an extremely cold hearted person.

however there seems to be a few "benefit lovers" who deny that there is a problem with lazy, work shy types claiming when they shouldnt be.

what about drug addicts for example, why should they receive DLA??? they are not ILL and any illness they have developed due to their drug use well, tough sh*t

Who says they do get DLA for their drug use? The Daily Mail? The benefit bashers on here? Please show me actual proof that drug addicts are entitled to and are claiming DLA on the basis of their drug addiction.

Nobody on here has denied that there are people playing the system. I can guarantee you will not find anyone on this forum who believes that, and the majority are happy to be tested, BUT only if those tests are carried out fairly and that those who meet the criteria continue to receive them.

That is not happening. the tests/assessments are unfair and are being carried out by a company who is being paid for each person it removes from the benefits bill, whether they legally meet the criteria or not.

Tribunals are costing the Government almost as much as the actual benefits people receive, and that is down to a) incompetence at the DWP, b) underhand processes used by ATOS and it's employees, and c) a WCA that even it's designer says is unfit for purpose and is not being used according to the brief he was given when designing it.

If the reform measures were weeding out those who are swinging the lead and leaving those genuine claimants in peace everyone would be happy. Unfortunately as I see it, the majority of those being kicked off benefits are the ones who need them the most, those who are honest and don't know how to use the system to their advantage, whilst those who know how to play the system are continuing to do so.

grizzly1911

ukcarper wrote: »

Although I agree that well off pensioners should not get winter fuel allowance I don't think using PC credit cut off is the answer. Pensioners jus tabove PC cut off are already worse off than people claiming and to give someone on PC £200 a year and someone a few pounds above nothing is not a fair solution. I know it would be difficult to use another amount but if they made it taxable at least it would claw back some from better of pensioners.

Winter Fuel Benefit was brought in to acknowledge the disproportionate increase in energy costs for those on limited incomes well above that covered by RPI increases in basic pension and benefits. It was not politically acceptable to simply increase pensions to reflect this. Reducing this benefit would cause just as many problems as leaving it in place or increasing it.

I do think that this particular universal benefit should be taxed though.

These universal benefits are not index linked and are not cast in stone.

Bus passes are a godsend for many with no other way of getting out for shopping and hospital visits. They also help keep insurance costs down for us all bey keeping less safe people off the road.

One thing we must not forget is that "rich" pensioners do continue to contribute to taxes both via income tax and consumption tax through VAT and like my neighbour through their biennial car purchase and exotic holidays..