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

daz378

theres also consequences of previous governments who were happy to allow people to languish on sick to massage the unemployment figures, this led to an entrenched sense of entitlement . i know a few people who have hardly ever worked.... i joke that the job reaper is coming for them, they know benefit laws inside out,.......some one said the lottery is a tax on fools ,.. but i still play

Going4TheDream

Give up 90% of their lottery win?

No but they should give up their benefits....

Unfortunatley not all do - you only have to google lottery winners benefits fraud to see the number that dont.

These people are the real drain on the public purse, taking money that they are not entitled to, not the genuine claimants who frugally manage to find a £ a week to play.

Moby

grizzly1911 wrote: »

You are young and starting out. Alot of your items will be newish.

Believe it or not stuff packs up, wears out.

Stuff happens in peoples lives that they cannot foresee.

People my have to start over late in life from scratch.

Life isn't full of convenient boxes.

It is easy to throw stones from a position of relative comfort and normality.

Good points. Its always best not to judge others and their motives. Stuff happens to everybody and these things can change your world!

IveSeenTheLight

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Not at all. They get given money, it's up to them how they spend it, maybe they cooked from scratch instead of spending it on takeaways, leaving enough for a ticket.

Arguably, there is still excess benefits as in my opinion, it should be the minimum to support whilst unemployed.

There should not be sufficient for takeaways or gamboling on the lottery.

Arguably as well, forcing people to "cook from scratch" would provide a health benefit as well

Jennifer_Jane

grizzly1911 wrote: »

You are young and starting out. Alot of your items will be newish.

Believe it or not stuff packs up, wears out.

Stuff happens in peoples lives that they cannot foresee.

People my have to start over late in life from scratch.

Life isn't full of convenient boxes.

It is easy to throw stones from a position of relative comfort and normality.

Good post - and it's not a question of the dishwasher packing up, it's house insurance/maintenance etc. If you've got no savings (which obviously you should have), then what happens when water is pouring through your ceiling and so on. There has to be a margin of generosity to help people live a decent life, but not a luxurious one.

The welfare reforms will kick in, and let's see what happens. An acquaintance of mine has been on some disabled benefit or other, she's in her 50's and already been rejected by the new system, although she's on appeal. She's always worked in the UK, so my question to her is why aren't the years of saving for a pension now kicked in. Well, she spent it apparently!

Why should we taxpayers pay for someone who hasn't been prudent all their lives, and has been enjoying a life-style which they didn't deserve?

I feel for all the truly disabled (and especially for people in pain and difficulty) or anyone who has fallen on hard-times, but this woman does not have my sympathy.

Percy1983

grizzly1911 wrote: »

You are young and starting out. Alot of your items will be newish.

Believe it or not stuff packs up, wears out.

Stuff happens in peoples lives that they cannot foresee.

People my have to start over late in life from scratch.

Life isn't full of convenient boxes.

It is easy to throw stones from a position of relative comfort and normality.

I still can't see they point, I have a TV, I end up unemployed, the odds say I will get another job before said TV breaks. If I just sit around and don't bother getting another job the unemployed time will get longer and the odds on my TV breaking while unemployed will get higher.

Now here are my points, I work hard in life so unemployment wouldn't be long, if my TV did break in such a period I would accept I am not working so I have no right to a replacement until I find work.

I only want benefits to feed and shelter me, anything past that I should work for, to which I do.

I guess what I am saying is to the hard working amongst us lessor benefits isn't a problem, it will just eat into our TV upgrade cycle.

But to those who never lift a finger, sorry to say they shouldn't be able to afford a TV and should have to live with a 14" portable off freecycle until they get a job.

Yes I am using a TV as an example, but this can apply to many items.

chewmylegoff

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Arguably, there is still excess benefits as in my opinion, it should be the minimum to support whilst unemployed.

There should not be sufficient for takeaways or gamboling on the lottery.

Arguably as well, forcing people to "cook from scratch" would provide a health benefit as well

the lottery isn't particularly expensive though, just £1 innit, so it's pretty difficult to reduce benefits to a level which would stop people spending money on the lottery. i reckon if i was on benefits and they were £1 a week, i would probably think that i might as well spend that quid on the lottery as it wasn't going to get me very far elsewhere.

you could require people to pay back all the benefits they have previously received if they build up a certain amount of wealth through e.g. inheritance or lottery, but i doubt there are many benefits claimants who suddenly become wealthy so doing so probably wouldn't provide any real benefit to society, and would probably just act as another reason not to get off benefits and into work as wealth acquired through work might end up requiring you to pay back benefits previously received.

ALIBOBSY

wotsthat wrote: »

If whilst you've been on benefits the cooker has packed up followed by the vacuum, TV and washing machine then either you've been really unlucky or spent too long on benefits.

Attitudes are hardening. There's no way an argument that people on benefits don't have sufficient money because it's difficult to budget for the unexpected is going to be treated sympathetically.

Getting a job for some might not simple but sometimes the obvious stares us in the face.

Actually in our experience (and all my friends and family) when someone gets one "white goods" failure you seem to get a run of them. The general musings between us decided we think its because many people buy these sort of items together when they set up house, so they are all old together so they often seem to go in quick succession.
BTW when I used to work at the DWP (around 5 years ago) there was a big miss perception that most claimants were single parents when they were only around 10% of the total. The majority was (and I believe still is) single people under 40.

An idea I pondered was a set amount you can claim in a lifetime, say 100-200k. Thats all you can ever have in benefits of any kind and once used up thats it till pension age.

This discussion is perhaps 6 years to late (or maybe 10 years too early). When there are jobs to be had and we are down to the workshy (yes there are some) and the difficult to place then is the time to push and work at getting people off benefits. Currently highly skilled people who have worked for years are ending up stuck on benefits. Many are desparately trying to get work and this idea that there are jobs on every corner is simply pie in the sky.

TBH the biggest issue from a cost point of view is the huge amount paid to those IN WORK ie tax credits and that is definately being slashed back.

Ali x

MacMickster

ALIBOBSY wrote: »

This discussion is perhaps 6 years to late (or maybe 10 years too early). When there are jobs to be had and we are down to the workshy (yes there are some) and the difficult to place then is the time to push and work and getting people into benefits. Currently highly skilled people who have worked for years are ending up stuck on benefits. Many are desparately trying to get work and this idea that there are jobs on every corner is simply pie in the sky.

When I used to run my own business, I looked to employ staff primarily with a good work ethic. I didn't appreciate being forced to waste my valuable time dealing with job applications from those who clearly didn't want a job but had been forced to apply.

At a time when 2.5 million are unemployed and an employer can have their pick of people who they know actually WANT a job, I see little point in forcing the f£ckless and workshy to apply for jobs because employers won't want them, and even if someone is unlucky enough to employ the local chav by mistake, then this means that someone who wants to work won't be able to. Much better to pay this underclass a minimal amount to doss about in some sh!thole.

What is wrong is that currently the f£ckless and workshy (not genuine jobseekers or the disabled) can use the benefit system to live better lives than many of those who do work.

I don't particularly begrudge them the cost of a lottery ticket, but definitely do begrudge them a house in a decent area, a holiday, Sky tv, or to buy any electrical goods new when there are plenty of second-hand shops around selling other people's cast offs.

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

Now here are my points, I work hard in life so unemployment wouldn't be long, if my TV did break in such a period I would accept I am not working so I have no right to a replacement until I find work.

You think the worse thing that could possibly happen to you (because you're a hard worker) is that the TV might go on the blink whilst you are unemployed for the shortest of periods.

I can only imagine you've been blessed with such good fortune that you, naively, expect this to continue for the rest of your life.

Sh*t happens - even to the hardest of workers.