Should Millionaire Mick lead to the abolition of Tax Credits?

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

This made me smile

The_White_Horse

robin_banks wrote: »

The murders are down to Philpot alone and not the benefits system. He was a violent man in 1978 when he tried to murder a previous girlfriend.

Yet the media gave him a celebrity status via Jeremy Kyle etc.

i think the point is, that piece of trash of a man would not have had 17 kids if he actually had to pay for and look after them. therefore, he (a) wouldn't have had those 6 to kill and (b) wouldn't have wanted the rest back in his "care" for the extra child benefit - that has been so cruelly taken from my children so filth like him can benefit.

LauraW10

CLAPTON wrote: »

no child in the UK lives in poverty unless their parents are dysfunctional people.

the benefits system encourages dysfunctional people to have more children

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Evidence?????

To quote the Economist: "Though most of them seem to end up in newspapers, in 2011 there were just 130 families in the country with 10 children claiming at least one out-of-work benefit. Only 8% of benefit claimants have three or more children. What evidence there is suggests that, on average, unemployed people have similar numbers of children to employed people ... it is not clear at all that benefits are a significant incentive to have children."

LauraW10

CLAPTON wrote: »

The benefits system pays people not to work, to sit around all day bored and useless and engaging in minor crime, drugs and alcohol. Children learn from their parents. The children learn that working, struggling, achieving are not part of their agenda.

Sorry there is no evidence for this.



The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people. Under 1% of workless households might have two generations who have never worked – about 15,000 households in the UK. Families with three such generations will therefore be even fewer.

The graphic shows this broken down. Importantly, families experiencing long-term worklessness remained committed to the value of work and preferred to be in jobs rather than on benefits. There was no evidence of "a culture of worklessness" – values, attitudes and behaviours discouraging employment and encouraging welfare dependence – in the families being passed down the generations. The long-term worklessness of parents in these families was a result of complex problems (particularly related to ill-health) associated with living in long-term and deep poverty. In an already tight labour market, multiple problems combined to place people at the back of a long queue for jobs.

LauraW10

In truth what really lies behind the poor-bashing is this:-

Ukip only 10 points behind Tories, latest poll shows

Opinium/Observer poll has Nigel Farage's party on 17% while the Tories are down by the same amount to 27%, one of their lowest ratings of recent years.

But the findings on the economy will reverberate most at Westminster. Just 20% of all voters now believe the government's economic policies have been beneficial to the economy, against 58% who say they have been harmful.
Even among Tory supporters only just over half (55%) think they have been beneficial, with 17% saying they have harmed the economy, and 22% either saying they have been neither harmful nor beneficial, or having no view.
Among Lib Dems only 24% think coalition economic policies have had a positive effect, while 40% think they have been harmful.

So, The country lurches to the right - and now we have two nasty parties - things are starting to look ugly......:(

LauraW10

Just how ugly?.....

English Defence League backs Ukip in local elections

The UK Independence Party (Ukip) faced embarrassment last night after it received the unwanted endorsement of the far-Right English Defence League for next month’s local council elections.
Ukip, which is fielding up to 2,000 candidates in the contests and is currently third in most national opinion polls, rapidly distanced itself from the “abhorrent and stupid” anti-Islamic organisation.
In an ungrammatical posting on its Facebook page, the EDL leadership said: “All nationalist parties should stand aside in areas that Ukip have a good chance of winning.
“Let’s not split their vote. We might take a couple or a few hundred votes of them, we don’t come no where and we’ve cost UKIP the win because they come 50, 60 votes behind Labour.”
Its comments appear to be aimed at supporters tempted to vote for the British National Party or the National Front in the elections on May 2.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/english-defence-league-backs-ukip-in-local-elections-8562350.html

There is very little I agree with Cameron over but when he said that UKIP is the “BNP in suits” and a “bunch of fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists, mostly” he pretty much nailed it.

and this Labour source is right there too. "Last night a senior Labour source said: “Ukip should be ashamed that their rhetoric and policies have such appeal to those on the far-Right who want to stir up hatred.”

Oh joy.

CLAPTON

LauraW10 wrote: »

To quote the Economist: "Though most of them seem to end up in newspapers, in 2011 there were just 130 families in the country with 10 children claiming at least one out-of-work benefit. Only 8% of benefit claimants have three or more children. What evidence there is suggests that, on average, unemployed people have similar numbers of children to employed people ... it is not clear at all that benefits are a significant incentive to have children."

'dysfunctional families' do not equate to people claiming benefits.

I have signed on twice in my life and my family is not dysfunctional.

Benefits claimants is a rather confusing mix of people as it includes long term unemployed, short term unemployed and working people, disabled persons, people desperate for work and people who never intend to work

The issue was whether the benefits system encourage lifestyle choice of never working part of which can be related to how many children one has.
A single person having a baby to 'qualify' for a council house is dysfunctional.

PaulF81

LauraW10 wrote: »

Sorry there is no evidence for this.



The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people. Under 1% of workless households might have two generations who have never worked – about 15,000 households in the UK. Families with three such generations will therefore be even fewer.

The graphic shows this broken down. Importantly, families experiencing long-term worklessness remained committed to the value of work and preferred to be in jobs rather than on benefits. There was no evidence of "a culture of worklessness" – values, attitudes and behaviours discouraging employment and encouraging welfare dependence – in the families being passed down the generations. The long-term worklessness of parents in these families was a result of complex problems (particularly related to ill-health) associated with living in long-term and deep poverty. In an already tight labour market, multiple problems combined to place people at the back of a long queue for jobs.

There is, I believe, a genetic issue with these people. Problem is, which body will pay for such a politically charged study? Why not? the loony left would completely lambast such a study, no matter how independent or well executed.

The country should not be paying for those with this defect to breed and pull back the advancement of the state. The rowntree foundation is hardly a neutral organisation. I would love to see the use of statistics they used to put this survey together. Where was it taken? was the sample size appropriate? what was filtered from the results? Stats are one thing, but meaningless unless you put them in the context of how they were generated.

PaulF81

LauraW10 wrote: »

In truth what really lies behind the poor-bashing is this:-








So, The country lurches to the right - and now we have two nasty parties - things are starting to look ugly......:(

I think the party that wants to bankrupt all of us to support the hopeless are the nasty party personally.

CLAPTON

LauraW10 wrote: »

Sorry there is no evidence for this.



The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people. Under 1% of workless households might have two generations who have never worked – about 15,000 households in the UK. Families with three such generations will therefore be even fewer.

The graphic shows this broken down. Importantly, families experiencing long-term worklessness remained committed to the value of work and preferred to be in jobs rather than on benefits. There was no evidence of "a culture of worklessness" – values, attitudes and behaviours discouraging employment and encouraging welfare dependence – in the families being passed down the generations. The long-term worklessness of parents in these families was a result of complex problems (particularly related to ill-health) associated with living in long-term and deep poverty. In an already tight labour market, multiple problems combined to place people at the back of a long queue for jobs.

the issue here isn't whether people are in theory 'committed to the value of work' but whether the benefits system supports that aim or make unemployment a better option for them.

in truth I know few unemployed people but I know a lot of people who can't/won't work more than 16 hours because it isn't worth it in their circumstances.