Benefits Street

sniperpenguin

Glen_Clark wrote: »

That doesn't surprise me.
But let me tell you the majority of people in the civilised world don't find it acceptable.

The majority of people in the civilised world rapidly have a change of opinion when presented with the bill to cover the rent of said woman + child, nor would they be willing to take said "woman and child" into their spare room to live from that point forward...... often replying with "the government should help" without asking how they got behind the rent in the first place.

Glen_Clark

sniperpenguin wrote: »

The majority of people in the civilised world rapidly have a change of opinion when presented with the bill to cover the rent of said woman + child, nor would they be willing to take said "woman and child" into their spare room to live from that point forward...... often replying with "the government should help" without asking how they got behind the rent in the first place.

Someone else turned it around to taking people into their home, but this is a thread about benefits, and the point I was making is that if you take away their benefits you would find women and children living on the streets which most people would find unacceptable.
So as the residents said 'Whatever you do they can't take away your child benefits' and 'they breed to get money from the Government. Soon the Government won't have enough money to pay them all'
The last sentence is particularly appropriate with Osborne throwing taxpayers borrowed money at interest free loans on sub prime mortgages to pump up housing costs - the biggest expense to people on benefits, including working people whose wages don't cover the rent.
To raise the incentive to work you need to have an income differential between living off benefits and working. But as long as basic living costs (housing) remain so high that is impossible.

princeofpounds

To raise the incentive to work you need to have an income differential between living off benefits and working. But as long as basic living costs (housing) remain so high that is impossible.

This is quite profound actually. It's at the root of many of the economic distortions we have in our economy and I think you are right to point out it is a big problem re welfare. Certainly in a cash sense being on benefits is not wealthy, but in terms of the accommodation vs. leisure time payoff it is massive for people who would otherwise be stacking shelves or something.

Many working people found it particularly hard to compete vs local housing allowances here in the south-east, given as they were at the median rental value for the property type.

gadgetmind

I'd work even if it meant earning less than benefits would bring in. Worst case, I get to feel better about myself, but far more likely is that I'd gain in skills and confidence so I could get a better job that paid far better.

Glen_Clark

gadgetmind wrote: »

I'd work even if it meant earning less than benefits would bring in. Worst case, I get to feel better about myself, but far more likely is that I'd gain in skills and confidence so I could get a better job that paid far better.

You are still turning this around to a personal thing and its irrelevant because you aren't on benefits. We are talking about those people on benefits who couldn't get the sort of job you've got. One man did try, but the only job he could get was trudging round door to door trying to persuade people to donate to some dubious charity that gives '100% commission' (whatever that means) to its sales reps. He earned nothing, then was reliant on a food bank because he had signed off benefits to gety a job and had to go through a lengthy process to get back on again.Would you really be so keen to work to sign off benefitys and get a jobif that was the only job you could get, and you would still need to claim benefits to make enough to pay the rent?

gadgetmind

Glen_Clark wrote: »

You are still turning this around to a personal thing and its irrelevant because you aren't on benefits.

I'm not on benefits because I've always worked and this was initially in minimum wage service jobs. If I hadn't started there, I would now be no-where.

We are talking about those people on benefits who couldn't get the sort of job you've got.

They'll never had any sort of job if they don't start somewhere.

Would you really be so keen to work to sign off benefitys and get a jobif that was the only job you could get, and you would still need to claim benefits to make enough to pay the rent?

Yes, because you need to start somewhere, but I'd then bounce off the safety net of benefits as quickly as I could.

Sorry, but to someone who's worked continuously since the age of 13 (yes, really) people bleating about work being hard to find, or too much effort, is something that I find deeply annoying.

RAS

Glen_Clark wrote: »

To raise the incentive to work you need to have an income differential between living off benefits and working. But as long as basic living costs (housing) remain so high that is impossible.

It also means that we need to target the other big recipients of Government subsidy; employers pay minimum wages or less than minimum wages. It is not as if their profits are even taxed by the UK Government half the time.

johnny_storm

The problem is we have financially encouraged the wrong sort of people to have children, while simultaneously making it harder for the right sort.

Benefits street is the result of this policy.

Personally I would make implantable contraception a condition of any benefit claim. We dont need people who cant feed themselves making more useless mouths to feed.

Glen_Clark

gadgetmind wrote: »

I'm not on benefits because I've always worked and this was initially in minimum wage service jobs. If I hadn't started there, I would now be no-where.



They'll never had any sort of job if they don't start somewhere.



Yes, because you need to start somewhere, but I'd then bounce off the safety net of benefits as quickly as I could.

Sorry, but to someone who's worked continuously since the age of 13 (yes, really) people bleating about work being hard to find, or too much effort, is something that I find deeply annoying.

But some of them tried. Look at the young woman who used to be a model before she had 2 kids, an abusive relationship, crap diet etc etc. You and I would know well enough that if someone is offering a real proper job they won't charge you to attend the interview!!!! But she was naive enough to scrape together £20 (after excitedly saying she had bought enough food to last them the week) to apply to a crap agency for a so called modelling job. Needless to say she didn't get one. But she was still trying, and eventually got a job serving in a fast food outlet (where some a**hole was wrongly berating her for overcharging him) - a job that would never pay the rent so she would still have rely on benefits. She could have said I've already got a full time job looking after 2 kids and got herself pregnant again to keep the child benefit coming in. Nevertheless she was doing the right thing by trying to get a job. But was thwarted at every turn.

Glen_Clark

RAS wrote: »

employers pay minimum wages or less than minimum wages. .

'minimum wages' is usually irrelevant as it obviously isn't being enforced. The Romanian immigrants said they got £10 for a 12 hour day. The job of enforcement was foisted on to HMRC. I understand there have only ever been 2 prosecutions, and none in the last 4 years?