Jump to content

Benefit Society


2ndLoser

Recommended Posts

My wife went to a meeting at the Jobcenter Plus today and found out some things that neither she nor I knew about current / future government policies:

 

There are thirty families nation wide whose members are fourth generation benefit claimers that benefit agencies are currently targetting, some of whom have 13 children. These people are visited, often in the early hours of the morning.

 

Single mothers who regularly have children by different fathers and refuse educational help when offered will be denied benefit for further children.

 

 

That's not unreasonable

 

 

:D

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some people are a bit confused about our benefit system..

 

The level and scope of the payments were changed several decades ago for one reason alone - to subsidise businesses!

 

Pay has fallen below a 'living wage' in real terms for the majority of jobs in this country. Even those on average wages find it hard to exist without some form of 'help'...Benefits in effect move money from us to business entities who often make obscene profits.

 

Therefore before moaning about benefits being too high, maybe people should moan about wages being too low....or the cost of goods/services being too high!

 

Sure there is abuse of the system, but if there are only 30* families nationwide being targetted, then that's hardly on the scale of the 10's of thousands of tax avoiders/evaders who cost the country £130bn a year!

 

 

As for not having kids unless you can 'afford them', then I guess it'll soon be only the rich that would be allowed to f*ck!

 

 

 

* Its unwise to take at face value anything the Job Centre lot utter - don't forget they were sending people on slave labour schemes and lying that they wouldn't lose benefits!

  • Thumbs Down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not saying that anything American is right but President Clinton introduced a scheme where the poorest areas were given clinics that provided free education, contraception and abortion in return for which only one child would be supported by the benefit system - this cut teenage pregnancies in some areas by 75%.

 

Then the republicans got in and shut them all down

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but that's still subsidising the companies that exploit people, and keeping people in poverty traps...

 

And if the indigenous population stop breeding guess what happens....immigration is encouraged to provide another source of cheap labour!

  • Thumbs Down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you should not be allowed to have kids unless you can afford to support them! trouble is in the UK the more kids you have the more benefit you can claim.
Sorry Jamer but i have to say i think that point of view is sick.

 

Sure I don't agree with people on the dole having half a dozen kids and expecting everyone to pay for them but what happens if a family have 4 kids and husband is earning 100k and has an accident at home doing some DIY and is so badly hurt he can no longer work, shoul his kids get nothing?

 

I agree you have we do have to stop this so called job of being a mum or dad with half a dozen kids and in some way i think 2ndLoser has a point about US system, maybe 2 kids to be supported but if you draw the line at 2 then what happens if she gets up the duff again and is on the pill what do we do with the 3rd kid? Do we drag her kicking and screaming to get rid of the kid? or do we let her have it and then punish the 3rd for 3rd in the line after all it's not the kids fault !!

 

Before you ask i don't have the answer (wish i did) I just think all your doing is punishing the unborn child, there is no easy fix otherwise i guess some govt would have come up with the idea.

 

All1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before you ask i don't have the answer (wish i did)

All1

I do... :Smiler:

 

Option 1...

 

Let UK plc go bankrupt and see what happens after the ensuing chaos.

 

Option 2...

 

Abolish VAT and all but the basic benefits for those truly in need.

Bring in rent/mortgage control, and enforce the collection of taxes.

Two flat rates of tax (25% and 55%), and abolish Nat Ins.

Renege on all PFI contracts and forcefully renationalise all services without penalty - water, gas, electricity, railways etc. - and control prices.

 

Removing VAT (essentially a tax aimed at the poor) would stimulate the economy enough imo to make work viable, and create enough jobs to take up the shortfall in the benefits system.

 

But of course since I believe the current capitalist model to be fundamentally flawed, my anarchist head says Option 1.... :Winky:

  • Thumbs Down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you reckon the Job Centre lot are as worried about these?

 

Fraud1

 

The RAF may be paying billions of pounds too much for its new, air-to-air refuelling Voyager aircraft, the BBC has discovered.

Contracts seen by Newsnight suggest the 14 planes could be purchased for £50m each instead of the £150m each paid as part of a £10bn leasing agreement.

 

Fraud2

 

Major UK-based firms cut secret tax deals with authorities in Luxembourg to avoid millions in corporation tax in Britain, the BBC's Panorama has found.

 

The programme obtained confidential tax agreements detailing plans to move profits off-shore to avoid what was a 28% corporate tax rate at the time.

 

Somehow those 30 families seem to pale into insignificance....

  • Thumbs Down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Jamer but i have to say i think that point of view is sick.

 

Sure I don't agree with people on the dole having half a dozen kids and expecting everyone to pay for them but what happens if a family have 4 kids and husband is earning 100k and has an accident at home doing some DIY and is so badly hurt he can no longer work, shoul his kids get nothing?

 

I agree you have we do have to stop this so called job of being a mum or dad with half a dozen kids and in some way i think 2ndLoser has a point about US system, maybe 2 kids to be supported but if you draw the line at 2 then what happens if she gets up the duff again and is on the pill what do we do with the 3rd kid? Do we drag her kicking and screaming to get rid of the kid? or do we let her have it and then punish the 3rd for 3rd in the line after all it's not the kids fault !!

 

Before you ask i don't have the answer (wish i did) I just think all your doing is punishing the unborn child, there is no easy fix otherwise i guess some govt would have come up with the idea.

 

All1

 

I was exaggerating obviously, but my point was referring to people on the dole with half a dozen kids!

 

Obviously genuine people fall on hard times from time to time and that in my opinion is where the social security comes into play! in this instance it's a great idea, I have no problem with that, just annoys me when I see how much I am paying in tax each month to then witness the same people in the pub week in and week out and yes these are parents with loads of kids! and this is how they can afford to be in the pub! because we are paying for the lazy sods!

 

Here are a few responses on FB

 

I agree Colin, social security should be a life saver for extreme circumstances, it should not be a life choice.

 

Many young mums look at knocking another kid out as more Stella tokens.

The problem is Col the example they are setting to the kids they bring into the world. Mum and dad (which dad) never worked why should I?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK maybe were not so far apart then, it does p1ss me off when i see some people on the dole having a better quality of life then joe bloggs who works 9-5 and can't afford things that people on the dole get, I know off a least one family who take having kids as a nice little earner but the trouble is i don't know how to fix it, but option one of sparks comment does appeal to me in a sick kind of way, after all they can't have what we haven't got.

 

 

All1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an idea then...

 

Why don't we sterilise (sp?) girls at birth and offer a reversal when a certain level of income is reached?

 

Of course, to give the proles a bit of hope, and keep them entertained a whole new range of TV shows could be aired....

 

'Who wants to be a mother'?..

'Britain's got Mothers'..

'Strictly come Mothering'..

And of course 'Big Mother'...

 

Then we could wheel out that old favourite, 'family fortunes'...Get over 200 and you get the car a baby!...

  • Thumbs Down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...