should anyone who is on benefits that wins the lottery be forced to give 90% of

Graham_Devon

ILW wrote: »

Could part of the reason that we have MANY single parents be that benefits are too generous?

In some cases, yes, it will be.

But in all cases? No.

I honestly can't stress enough how hard it is to find a job that:
A) Fit's in with school hours, with the flexible employer giving you that chance.
Pays enough to forego the benefits.

Now, this is where the benefits system itself falls down. Many many of those on benefits would like to work more, but they can't as the cliff edge problem appears. Someone working 16 hours, offered (say) 23 hours, can't do that, as much as they'd like to. The extra 5 hours a week would see a much bigger drop in benefit levels, making the extra 5 hours impossible.

How would you honestly police a situation such as the single person on benefits buying a lottery ticket? Get Camelot to send tokens out to workers / the retired? Turn away the person who doesn't have a token as they are not allowed to enjoy what the rest of society enjoys?

Come on now.

grizzly1911

Percy1983 wrote: »

All very well if that was the case, but lets face it... its not.

This is a hypothetical discussion and it is quite possible they raided the penny jar. The question is just they reimburse their winnings.

In effect they are recycling their £1 of their benefit because the the lottery is taxation through the back door.

It may be dressed up as a lottery but it is just distributing money in place of the central allocation. Instead of paying tax collectors we pay the operator and the winnings are just part of the overhead.

Graham_Devon

ILW wrote: »

Guess it all depends on what you think state benefits should be for.
I believe that with certain exceptions they should be to get one through a temporary situation whilst keeping fed and housed. If you believe they should pay for a lifestyle that includes smoking, alcohol and gambling then I disagree.

I'd disagree with that too.

What I don't agree with is removing peoples dignity and having people on benefits treated as third class citizens, and in many cases in which your wishes would provide, shown up when interacting in public.

A lot needs to be done to combat the LONG TERM unemployed. But we need to aim that at the right people. Those with no excuse not to work. Not the single parent. Not the volunteer while out of work. Not those who have suffered an untoward life event.

Therefore, preventing people from joining in with society is the wrong way to achieve things.

I'd be all for simply removing benefits from someone who simply won't work though. I'd be all for making those who won't work attend, and sit in a hall doing nothing from 8.30am to 5pm (this gets round the community service thing stealing others jobs and costs nothing) in return for benefits.

If people have to do SOMETHING for their benefits after 12m if they have no reason not to return to work (I exclude the disabled, I exclude single parents up to child age of around 13 etc)....they'd likely choose to do something other than sit in a hall all day. Targetting those who simply WON'T work is a different matter altogther to targetting everyone on benefits.

The ultimate goal is for everyone to have jobs....but currently that simply isn't going to happen. You can't punish people for that. Secondly, we need to respect the lack of jobs for individuals circumstances. Honestly, have a look through jobs in your area, paying a living wage, that you could fit in with school runs. It doesn't exist, and if a school type job (admin etc) does come up they are absolutely flooded with applicants.

The_White_Horse

I don't care about these peoples dignity. they have no right to dignity. if they fall on hard times and need hand outs to eat, to house themselves, they should be grateful with every pore in their body that others are giving them charity to live on. the are NOT ENTITLED to anything, especially dignity. Just eat the food you are given and live where you are given. You want more GET A JOB. If you can't get a job, tough.

Funny, I went to the local comprehensive and have NEVER been out of work. It is purely an attitude thing.

None of my friends have been out of work, and when two lost their jobs, they found another within 2 weeks. Attitude.

Plenty of single parents work and you demean them with your bleating about how hard it is.

benefits are a safety net. not free cash to play the lottery. it is an affront to the hard pressed tax payers - many of whom probably can't afford to play the lottery.

POPPYOSCAR

The_White_Horse wrote: »

I don't care about these peoples dignity. they have no right to dignity. if they fall on hard times and need hand outs to eat, to house themselves, they should be grateful with every pore in their body that others are giving them charity to live on. the are NOT ENTITLED to anything, especially dignity. Just eat the food you are given and live where you are given. You want more GET A JOB. If you can't get a job, tough.

Funny, I went to the local comprehensive and have NEVER been out of work. It is purely an attitude thing.

None of my friends have been out of work, and when two lost their jobs, they found another within 2 weeks. Attitude.

Plenty of single parents work and you demean them with your bleating about how hard it is.

benefits are a safety net. not free cash to play the lottery. it is an affront to the hard pressed tax payers - many of whom probably can't afford to play the lottery.

It is not charity.

Anyone who has worked and paid their dues is entitled

Of course there are the work shy and they should be dealt with by the government but for the genuine claimants they should not be made to feel like second class citizens.

ILW

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'd disagree with that too.

What I don't agree with is removing peoples dignity and having people on benefits treated as third class citizens, and in many cases in which your wishes would provide, shown up when interacting in public.

A lot needs to be done to combat the LONG TERM unemployed. But we need to aim that at the right people. Those with no excuse not to work. Not the single parent. Not the volunteer while out of work. Not those who have suffered an untoward life event.

Therefore, preventing people from joining in with society is the wrong way to achieve things.

I'd be all for simply removing benefits from someone who simply won't work though. I'd be all for making those who won't work attend, and sit in a hall doing nothing from 8.30am to 5pm (this gets round the community service thing stealing others jobs and costs nothing) in return for benefits.

If people have to do SOMETHING for their benefits after 12m if they have no reason not to return to work (I exclude the disabled, I exclude single parents up to child age of around 13 etc)....they'd likely choose to do something other than sit in a hall all day. Targetting those who simply WON'T work is a different matter altogther to targetting everyone on benefits.

The ultimate goal is for everyone to have jobs....but currently that simply isn't going to happen. You can't punish people for that. Secondly, we need to respect the lack of jobs for individuals circumstances. Honestly, have a look through jobs in your area, paying a living wage, that you could fit in with school runs. It doesn't exist, and if a school type job (admin etc) does come up they are absolutely flooded with applicants.

Why all this banging on about single parents. Are there really armies of widows out there?

If they are not widows, the childrens father should be supporting them.

Graham_Devon

OK, life it seems, really is very simple according to what you are posting.

I really can't put an argument togeher to swing your thoughts when life is so extremely simple in your mind.

That's not me having a go, I'm just replying to what you post.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

....What I don't agree with is removing peoples dignity and having people on benefits treated as third class citizens,.....

.....I'd be all for making those who won't work attend, and sit in a hall doing nothing from 8.30am to 5pm

A bit contradictory wouldn't you say?

I happen to agree (and have previously suggested myself) a similar idea of making benefits payable only upon daily attendence somewhere.

I tend to think of 'dignity' as something generally within one's own control, rather than something "given" or "removed" by rules applied by the government.

Imagine you saw [just dreaming up a theoretical scenario] a multi-millionnaire get on his bike and expect a lowly paid, hard working, police officer to open a huge gate rather than a minor side-gate available for the purpose, and then accusing the lowly paid worker of being a f***ing pleb, which of the two people's dignity do you think has been compromised? Didn't this person remove his own 'dignity'?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

...... (I exclude the disabled, I exclude single parents up to child age of around 13 etc)....they'd likely choose to do something other than sit in a hall all day.....

Why single parents? Explain what benefits Vicky Price should have received when her affluent husband left her...

"No" I hear you saying. Means test it. Well OK, the CSA was supposed to get the scum of a husband to cough up maintenence, but look what happened to that idea.

What you will find is that the term 'disabled' includes an awful lot of people who are simple idle people who have taken to drugs over time, and/or, decided to be a bit violent now and again. Currently, many of these are 'labelled' disabled.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

.....I really can't put an argument togeher

__________

ILW

Graham_Devon wrote: »

OK, life it seems, really is very simple according to what you are posting.

I really can't put an argument togeher to swing your thoughts when life is so extremely simple in your mind.

That's not me having a go, I'm just replying to what you post.

It should be pretty simple. There were nothing like the number of single parents around before we decided it was OK to pop out kids one could not support and the state would just pay for everything. Cause and effect. Unless you know better.