We all pay your benefits

antenna

Benefit money is not to buy cigarettes,beer,plasma tv's,sky subscriptions,mobile phones or ipads for children,expensive trainers or designer clothes,so lets deduct around £50 per week from anybody that pays for any two of the above.

Conrad

Anyone catch the show about London pick pockets this week?
Romanian guy apprehended - turns out he was a thief in Spain. Copper asked why he's in the UK. Guy replies "I can't get nothing without papers and you can't get papers in Spain, and I need an operation".

Just about sums up soft touch Britian.

quantic

This is what annoys me about the benefit system, say someone is made redundant having worked the last 25 years of their life, 5 days a week, grafted his/her backside off.

They are unemployed for 6 months lets say, the amount they will receive while desperately seeking employment is pitiful. Hard working people fall on hard times for a very temporary period and the system does not support them properly as it does in other countries.

Instead you have many many people who feed off the system for years and years, decades... yet when the people who fund the system fall on hard times, its tough luck. I know people in this situation do get help but its so poor that it may as well be nothing.

I don't see why it shouldn't even be proportional to the amount paid in by the individual. Put more in, take more out when in dire need. Obviously this wouldn't apply to people genuinely ill or unable to work, but you get the idea.

elantan

N1AK wrote: »

Welcome to capitalism. You get paid based on the demand their is for the service you provide and the availability (supply) of other people who can provide it.

The point he is making, and it is a fair one, is that banking isn't some easy cushy job. You have to be able to do something most people can't and it is demanding as well. Sure there are other jobs that are demanding and pay far lower wages but that isn't their fault.

yep my job is something most people cant do either, and it is demanding, it isnt a bankers fault that i earn as little as i do and i understand this, but to use the excuse look i work hard and lots of hours in a job that isnt easy so therefor i am worth paying x amount of money doesnt wash with me, and i am sure it wont wash with many who like me earn very little for what they do

SGE1

Conrad wrote: »

Anyone catch the show about London pick pockets this week?
Romanian guy apprehended - turns out he was a thief in Spain. Copper asked why he's in the UK. Guy replies "I can't get nothing without papers and you can't get papers in Spain, and I need an operation".

Just about sums up soft touch Britian.

Funny how people interpret situations differently. I've not see that show, but the first thing that came to my mind was, what a sh*te life having to live on the street (or similar), steal off people, so you can survive and then eventually hope to get medical treatment for something that's obviously serious enough to drive you to that sh*te life in the first place.

Britain vs sick man who needs to steal for a living - unless the operation he needs is a boob job, I know who I feel more sorry for.

burnleymik

Was an interesting show, but there were so many things that annoyed me.

One of them was that despite having no jobs, too small a property and very little ambition to rectify any of those things they still proceed to breed and have children they can;t afford to support.

It's clearly not a safety net, but an easy way of life for people who either feel they don;t have to work or flatly refuse to work.

A suggestion, but admittedly I am not sure how feasible it is, but could'nt the state just provide these people with some kind of vouchers that only allow them to buy the essentials?

Anything over and above the essentials such as alcohol, smoking, takeaways, large screen tv's, games consoles etc etc are all luxuries and to have those luxuries you should be in a position to pay for them yourself.

Either way it's clear what is happening right now is not working when people on benefits 'seem' to have more disposable income and a better quality of life than people who work full time.

Soubrette

quantic wrote: »

This is what annoys me about the benefit system, say someone is made redundant having worked the last 25 years of their life, 5 days a week, grafted his/her backside off.

They are unemployed for 6 months lets say, the amount they will receive while desperately seeking employment is pitiful. Hard working people fall on hard times for a very temporary period and the system does not support them properly as it does in other countries.

Instead you have many many people who feed off the system for years and years, decades... yet when the people who fund the system fall on hard times, its tough luck. I know people in this situation do get help but its so poor that it may as well be nothing.

I don't see why it shouldn't even be proportional to the amount paid in by the individual. Put more in, take more out when in dire need. Obviously this wouldn't apply to people genuinely ill or unable to work, but you get the idea.

Quantic, I genuinely don't understand what you are saying so perhaps you could clarify

It seems to me that you are saying that on the one hand, if you lose your job then benefits aren't enough to support you but on the other hand that some people choose benefits over work as a lifestyle choice. This seems contradictory to me so I assume you actually mean something else?

Thanks

PS In some countries they pay something like 6 months benefits as a proportion of your old salary but I think it also stops after a certain amount of time so if not job after a few months then you get very little. Perhaps someone knows more about this than me?

Fella

Conrad wrote: »

The real tragedy comes in the shape of naïve apologists such as the child-like Owen Jones. He considers his role a moral crusade as he has no idea of what the world of welfare is really all about.

I took a !!!! earlier & it had a higher IQ than Owen Jones. Truly someone so thick they need to invent new words to describe his level of moronic cretin-like drivel.

grizzly1911

Soubrette wrote: »

Quantic, I genuinely don't understand what you are saying so perhaps you could clarify

It seems to me that you are saying that on the one hand, if you lose your job then benefits aren't enough to support you but on the other hand that some people choose benefits over work as a lifestyle choice. This seems contradictory to me so I assume you actually mean something else?

Thanks

PS In some countries they pay something like 6 months benefits as a proportion of your old salary but I think it also stops after a certain amount of time so if not job after a few months then you get very little. Perhaps someone knows more about this than me?

I took it as if you are a career claimant and know which elements to work, regular child bearing perhaps, you can pulls in a decent amount long term. If you happen to crash out of job for a relatively short period it can be difficult to get all the necessary elements together.

Should a long term employed person get more instant access to benefits like your P.S. suggestion.

quantic

Soubrette wrote: »

Quantic, I genuinely don't understand what you are saying so perhaps you could clarify

It seems to me that you are saying that on the one hand, if you lose your job then benefits aren't enough to support you but on the other hand that some people choose benefits over work as a lifestyle choice. This seems contradictory to me so I assume you actually mean something else?

Thanks

PS In some countries they pay something like 6 months benefits as a proportion of your old salary but I think it also stops after a certain amount of time so if not job after a few months then you get very little. Perhaps someone knows more about this than me?

People who have never worked should get less so that people who have always worked, but have been made unemployed, can get more.