How much State benefit do you pocket every month?

[tedebear]

Yes we should all go on strike like the Australian dockers in World War Two. Joking aside There are people who are better off on benefits, for example, if you have a job paying more that £20 a week you lose benefits. Most low wage jobs do not pay enough to pay for rent let alone food or fuel. Yes I agree that all people on benefits should be means tested. As far as unmarried mothers are concerned, what can you do ? Force them to have abortions ? It's not the fault of the Welfare State but what's the point in struggling to do a badly paid job when you are financially disadvantaged ? People declared war on the Poll tax but in fact a lot more homes wouldn't have satellite dishes if people paid a fair share in that manner.

All very easy but not as cut and dried as some people think. Also tedebear, if this country is such a mess how come some many of your countrymen flock here ? I would be more than happy if they went home as there would be a lot more jobs for people like me.

BUT THATS THE POINT - why create an economy where people can't afford to live? Why make it attractive for young single women to keep popping out children, when young married couples having children have to struggle like the blazes. Why can't the government pay small companies to enable them to pay more to people who want to work, rather than giving handouts to the people.

My countrymen flock here as its great fun for a while, generally they leave after a few years, there are quite a few people heading down under from here too?

 

[Da Man Clay]

None at all.

 

[Colossal Squid]

Sorry I am not sounding off but I really don't get that. Obviously if you pay taxes you work so why should you receive a benefit which should be exclusively for those affected by real poverty. I have not had not regular work for almost two years yes I took a career break for a year but can I claim even though I have 21 years of class 1 contributions, can I fcuk! Why? Because we do have savings so we are entitled to nothing. Just because you have paid in doesn't necessarily mean you should take out, that is the domain of those who really really need. I hope call me Dave overhauls the benefit system and fast.

Well what a surprise that NSC's resident class wanker has a problem with it.

You are suggesting that my claiming the money that I am entitled to is insulting to those who are in "real poverty" but the fact of the matter is that the way this country is made up there are millions upon millions of people who work hard and earn a wage BUT cannot actually get by on that alone.

It was a good move to introduce the minimum wage by the Labour government but this is not yet a living wage. If you live in the south of England, work full time for minimum wage and live on your own then it simply is not possible to support yourself financially.

We live in a very expensive country where the gap between rich and poor is incredibly high and thanks to Thatcher the social housing in this country is all but gone so we don't have anywhere to put all these low waged people who are working hard in important jobs but who can't afford to rent privately or buy.

As a result the benefits system has to pay out to these people in order that they can afford to pay their rent and bills, therefore keeping the country ticking over. If they all defaulted on their rent or electricity, gas and water bills you'd find the effect starting to trickle up the system as bigger and bigger companies feel the pinch of all the low waged being unable to pay their (perfectly legitimate) debts. These people don't own homes, don't have savings and have nothing to lose if the landlord or the electric company decides to issue a County Court Judgement against them. All that happens is the court rules that the money is owed but that the defendant has no means to pay it and it is simply written off. Now that is a system that doesn't benefit anyone.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out several times already on this thread, the benefits system currently ensures that those out of work or unable to work are able to pay their rent so they don't end up homeless HOWEVER if someone who is claiming support whilst unemployed then finds a low waged job to get themselves back into work BUT lost all their government assistance in doing so they'd be WORSE OFF than as a claimant which would leave NO incentive to actually go and find gainful employment.

Therefore the low waged worker gets help paying his rent so that his company can continue to afford to employ him on the low wage, thus keeping him off the dole and contributing to the economy.

On the one hand if you turn to the employer and demand they pay their staff enough so that they can afford to have a roof over their head with heat, light and food to eat you would soon find the smaller businesses in this country would be crippled and after mass redundancies there'd be a domino effect of company after company going bust. Suddenly there are even more people on the dole.

BUT on the other hand if you insist that Joe Worker makes do with his low wage without any assistance whatsoever he will eventually rack up too much debt and find himself in very serious financial trouble. He loses his home and has to sleep on the streets which in turn means he loses his job because he can't even wash his ragged clothes anymore. Meanwhile up the road A Local's Letting Agent goes bankrupt because none of the low waged on their books can afford to pay their rent anymore. And all of a sudden we have even MORE people out of work and the country is up shit creek again.

Now I know there are people that DO take advantage of the system and make it look to those on the outside that the British (not) working classes are taking the piss out of you and I who pay our taxes every month BUT that doesn't mean that every person who is claiming support is undeserving.

The fact of the matter is that if you work FULL TIME and contribute to Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs then you SHOULD be entitled to expect a basic standard of living, namely somewhere to live that has water, electricity and heating. That the difference between a low wage and the cost of basic living is so substantial means the benefits system fills a great need.

It's not ideal, not by a long shot, and I'd rather my wage covered my cost of living but it doesn't, this country is very expensive and there are bigger issues behind this that need addressing than simply overhauling the system to ensure everyone has to jump through even more hoops to get their entitlement.

The government needs to take a look much higher up the ladder at the massive international corporations (like our own American Express) who are exploiting low waged workers whilst dishing out painfully disproportionate pay packets to those at the top when a fairer distribution of the wealth would mean welfare didn't have to come into the equation for anyone on their huge payroll.

The problem is I don't see any evidence of those in power willing to hold the super wealthy accountable and for as long as they refuse to do so we will have a massive number of people in this country claiming state benefits and even the most vehemently right wing government imaginable wouldn't be able to seize power and scrap benefit payments in the UK because the nation would grind to a halt in a manner that would likely set us back about 100 years.

Don't be so quick to blame those unfortunate enough to need financial assistance to pay their basic living costs for broken Britain. These people are not the problem. Society is

 

[clippedgull]

Well what a surprise that NSC's resident class wanker has a problem with it.

You are suggesting that my claiming the money that I am entitled to is insulting to those who are in "real poverty" but the fact of the matter is that the way this country is made up there are millions upon millions of people who work hard and earn a wage BUT cannot actually get by on that alone.

It was a good move to introduce the minimum wage by the Labour government but this is not yet a living wage. If you live in the south of England, work full time for minimum wage and live on your own then it simply is not possible to support yourself financially.

We live in a very expensive country where the gap between rich and poor is incredibly high and thanks to Thatcher the social housing in this country is all but gone so we don't have anywhere to put all these low waged people who are working hard in important jobs but who can't afford to rent privately or buy.

As a result the benefits system has to pay out to these people in order that they can afford to pay their rent and bills, therefore keeping the country ticking over. If they all defaulted on their rent or electricity, gas and water bills you'd find the effect starting to trickle up the system as bigger and bigger companies feel the pinch of all the low waged being unable to pay their (perfectly legitimate) debts. These people don't own homes, don't have savings and have nothing to lose if the landlord or the electric company decides to issue a County Court Judgement against them. All that happens is the court rules that the money is owed but that the defendant has no means to pay it and it is simply written off. Now that is a system that doesn't benefit anyone.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out several times already on this thread, the benefits system currently ensures that those out of work or unable to work are able to pay their rent so they don't end up homeless HOWEVER if someone who is claiming support whilst unemployed then finds a low waged job to get themselves back into work BUT lost all their government assistance in doing so they'd be WORSE OFF than as a claimant which would leave NO incentive to actually go and find gainful employment.

Therefore the low waged worker gets help paying his rent so that his company can continue to afford to employ him on the low wage, thus keeping him off the dole and contributing to the economy.

On the one hand if you turn to the employer and demand they pay their staff enough so that they can afford to have a roof over their head with heat, light and food to eat you would soon find the smaller businesses in this country would be crippled and after mass redundancies there'd be a domino effect of company after company going bust. Suddenly there are even more people on the dole.

BUT on the other hand if you insist that Joe Worker makes do with his low wage without any assistance whatsoever he will eventually rack up too much debt and find himself in very serious financial trouble. He loses his home and has to sleep on the streets which in turn means he loses his job because he can't even wash his ragged clothes anymore. Meanwhile up the road A Local's Letting Agent goes bankrupt because none of the low waged on their books can afford to pay their rent anymore. And all of a sudden we have even MORE people out of work and the country is up shit creek again.

Now I know there are people that DO take advantage of the system and make it look to those on the outside that the British (not) working classes are taking the piss out of you and I who pay our taxes every month BUT that doesn't mean that every person who is claiming support is undeserving.

The fact of the matter is that if you work FULL TIME and contribute to Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs then you SHOULD be entitled to expect a basic standard of living, namely somewhere to live that has water, electricity and heating. That the difference between a low wage and the cost of basic living is substantial means the benefits system fills a great need.

It's not ideal, not by a long shot, and I'd rather my wage covered my cost of living but it doesn't, this country is very expensive and there are bigger issues behind this that need addressing than simply overhauling the system to ensure everyone has to jump through even more hoops to get their entitlement.

The government needs to take a look much higher up the ladder at the massive international corporations (like our own American Express) who are exploiting low waged workers whilst dishing out painfully disproportionate pay packets to those at the top when a fairer distribution of the wealth would mean welfare didn't have to come into the equation for anyone on their huge payroll.

The problem is I don't see any evidence of those in power willing to hold the super wealthy accountable and for as long as they refuse to do so we will have a massive number of people in this country claiming state benefits and even the most vehemently right wing government imaginable wouldn't be able to seize power and scrap benefit payments in the UK because the nation would grind to a halt in a manner that would likely set us back about 100 years.

Don't be so quick to blame those unfortunate enough to need financial assistance to pay their basic living costs for broken Britain. These people are not the problem. Society is

Excellent post.

 

[El Presidente]

I am not in education - why should I susidise all of those families with kids
I am not sick - why should I pay for all the sick, infirm and greedy
I do not drive - why should I subsidise all of this tarmac
I I am not old - why should my taxes support some pensioner - get back to work
I am not disabled - why should I pay for diability allowances
I am not in the army - why should I have to pay for dumb fucker to jaunt of sunny places, ffsthe Greeks and Romans used to pay for their army uniforms and weapns and they were the best ever soldiers.

Stop cutting and pasting from the Tory manifesto

 

[Uncle C]

Don't be so quick to blame those unfortunate enough to need financial assistance to pay their basic living costs for broken Britain. These people are not the problem. Society is

I take it you dont drink, smoke, have Sky TV or a car then.

 

[Colossal Squid]

I take it you dont drink, smoke, have Sky TV or a car then.

Well I don't smoke, have SKY or own a car, no.

Not entirely sure what that has to do with it though?

 

[bhaexpress]

BUT THATS THE POINT - why create an economy where people can't afford to live? Why make it attractive for young single women to keep popping out children, when young married couples having children have to struggle like the blazes. Why can't the government pay small companies to enable them to pay more to people who want to work, rather than giving handouts to the people.

My countrymen flock here as its great fun for a while, generally they leave after a few years, there are quite a few people heading down under from here too?

Sure, your countrymen leave when their Visas expire, how come we cannot go there under the same circumstances ? As I keep saying, why are they allowed to come here to work when they are taking jobs not just from the British but in fact all EEC workers, could a Frenchman get a working Visa for Australia or New Zealand without a sponsor ? As far as it goes once again it's a myth that girls have children to get a council flat. There may be some that do but it's not just a case of getting up the duff and you automatically get a home, you have to be in a situation where you have no home at all. It's also not just a simple matter of the government subsiding small companies to bolster the unemployed. You might ask why are there so many people getting degree that the country has no use for while you're at it.

People have these great ideas without realising what is involved to actually make it happen. Small companies stay small as they cannot generate enough business to expand for the reason that the market isn't there.

 

[Uncle C]

Well I don't smoke, have SKY or own a car, no.

Not entirely sure what that has to do with it though?

Cause most people that cant afford to live are willing to give up the non essentials to get by. I guess you see drinking as essential.

 

[bhaexpress]

Well I don't smoke, have SKY or own a car, no.

Not entirely sure what that has to do with it though?

Frankly neither do I. Oh dear, I do own a car but I seldom use it as it's cheaper by public transport, must make me PC I think.

 

[El Presidente]

Frankly neither do I. Oh dear, I do own a car but I seldom use it as it's cheaper by public transport, must make me PC I think.

I'm in a similar position, and cycling to work makes me considerably more PC than yow

[yt]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AHo2pXO_XAI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AHo2pXO_XAI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/yt]

 

[Colossal Squid]

Cause most people that cant afford to live are willing to give up the non essentials to get by. I guess you see drinking as essential.

Well I AM British.

But as it goes I don't drink an awful lot at the moment because I can't afford to so yes actually I HAVE given up the non essentials. The assistance I get from the government goes on my rent and not on nights out.

However that doesn't mean I'm NOT a drinker as I still enjoy it and if the boss is buying I'm not gonna say no

 

[El Presidente]

if the boss is buying I'm not gonna say no

You let your WIFE get the beers in?

 

[Colossal Squid]

Wife? Do me a lemon.

Colossal Squids NEED NOT wives

 

[sir danny cullip]

I dread to think what that costs each year. yet another good reason to not have any religion in schools. Surprisingly America is one country that does not allow religion is schools, something they have got right. Kids going to St Pauls end up travelling for 3-4 hours a day which is just too much. I don't know what it's like now but most of the decent teachers were non Catholic, a lot of the Catholic ones must have got the job for the sole reason they were Catholics, a lot couldn't have got it on ability.

Frankly if we have State Catholic Schools why can't we have State Schools for Muslims and Hindus only ? Then you get those poor unfortunates who are bought up as Jehovahs Witnesses who are excluded from a lot of school activities at the behest of their parents.

I think parents pay for the buses. None of my friends used to moan about the travelling, think it was longest from seaford (about an hour max each way).

 

[beorhthelm]

Oh, I might add that this assumption that 'British' people won't do certain jobs is a myth.

no it really is very real. Get an early morning bus into the City and you'll find it full of non-Brits (all sorts, southern europeans, east europeans, africans, asians) all going in to do the menial jobs such as cleaning and working in sandwich shops. go home early afternoon and the streets are full of young men (and women, probably with baby, different issue) who i know from the pub cry about the fact there's no jobs for them. this was the way of Bermonsey for the years i was working shifts. I see similar story in Sutton, european immigrants working the checkouts and shops while locally brought up youth kick their heals. in the counrtyside its well documented that east European workers will do more work for the same pay (pretty decent money at that) and more importantly just get on with it.

interesting point about the dust though, i think thats dominated by those who have grown up with a decent work ethic and clocked the fact its good money. however other areas like road maintainence i note often have east europeans, or older Brits, rarely young local lads. i get the feeling many of the youth today wont take the entry level jobs, expecting 25k at 18 or they wont bother. 10 years later they are unemployable.

IT industry is also odd, i've noticed alot of colonial immigrants working in the industry too. in fact probably half my current department is SA/AU/NZ, then a quater asian. im not really sure why or how, it not like the old "work for pitance" arguement for manual work washes as the money offered is market rate. we've recently recruited for a junior IT post and i dont think we had a single CV from anyone multi-genration British. odd.

 

[El Presidente]

no it really is very real. Get an early morning bus into the City and you'll find it full of non-Brits (all sorts, southern europeans, east europeans, africans, asians) all going in to do the menial jobs such as cleaning and working in sandwich shops. go home early afternoon and the streets are full of young men (and women, probably with baby, different issue) who i know from the pub cry about the fact there's no jobs for them. this was the way of Bermonsey for the years i was working shifts. I see similar story in Sutton, european immigrants working the checkouts and shops while locally brought up youth kick their heals. in the counrtyside its well documented that east European workers will do more work for the same pay (pretty decent money at that) and more importantly just get on with it.

interesting point about the dust though, i think thats dominated by those who have grown up with a decent work ethic and clocked the fact its good money. however other areas like road maintainence i note often have east europeans, or older Brits, rarely young local lads. i get the feeling many of the youth today wont take the entry level jobs, expecting 25k at 18 or they wont bother. 10 years later they are unemployable.

IT industry is also odd, i've noticed alot of colonial immigrants working in the industry too. in fact probably half my current department is SA/AU/NZ, then a quater asian. im not really sure why or how, it not like the old "work for pitance" arguement for manual work washes as the money offered is market rate. we've recently recruited for a junior IT post and i dont think we had a single CV from anyone multi-genration British. odd.

The overseas workers often have a far better command of written English than locals too.

 

[bhaexpress]

I'm in a similar position, and cycling to work makes me considerably more PC than yow

[yt]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AHo2pXO_XAI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AHo2pXO_XAI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/yt]

I'll be honest, I don't really like driving. I can drive okay but it's other drivers that worry me. However for just me it makes no sense to use a car unless I was doing a job where it saves me money to use it but these days I tend to avoid those anyway. Also, I would be the first to admit I need the exercise and the dogs is up for that.

 

[upthealbion1970]

i was critising the dependency culture created by the last governement. though frankly anyone happy to take the hand outs is basically agreeing with and supporting Browns grand plan, making yourself need state intervention to get by. but you keep blaming "foreign labour" bogeyman if it makes you feel better.

firstly do not generalise about those of us in a position where benefits are our only income. my (25 year old) partner was diagnosed with ms aged 21, however last year i left my full time job (25k+ perks) to be her full time carer, which the dwp have taken from august until march to sort out our payments, but the long and short of it is that the state would happily pay someone to care for my mrs for 3 to 4 hours a day (normally through an agency at a cost of around £20 to £25 an hour) - however i could not let anybody else do it so i get a whopping £31.70 a week as her carer.

"happy" to take "handouts", i think not - i hope you are never in a simiar situation. in short wind your f***ing neck in until you actually have a clue what you are talking about

 

[bhaexpress]

I think parents pay for the buses. None of my friends used to moan about the travelling, think it was longest from seaford (about an hour max each way).

Still that's more than a lot of people to getting to work. However I still think that having separate Catholic schools is very out dated now.