Cash benefits or Food stamps?

[martyn20]

Jeez, why has looney been banned? Surely it can't be for anything on this thread?

Have you actually read this thread?

 

[SK1NT]

I'm sure it would but that would mean leaving my 2 boys at home while me and the mrs swanned off for a holiday.

Over the last 6 years I have earned between £24&£30k and to feed, clothe and house a family of 4 with all the overheads I cannot afford a holiday other than the odd long weekend away to Devon for example.

A holiday is not a necessity. I haven't had a holiday for 2 years and me and my misses work.. It's life and a sign of the times.

 

[SK1NT]

I'm not but I do know a friend of mine who earns £38k, his Mrs earns 18k and they have 4 kids who have just moved in to a 3 story town house provided by the housing association. They were given a flat years ago when she gave birth to her first and now as their family grows they keep getting upgraded to bigger and bigger houses. Dispute the fact that they can afford to do it themselves.
He says he will just save his money. Why give up on a good thing etc etc....

I cannot work out why they would be getting handouts if this is true.. it is wrong

 

[rouseytastic]

A holiday is not a necessity. I haven't had a holiday for 2 years and me and my misses work.. It's life and a sign of the times.

I never said it was did I??

I don't mind not going but if I could afford to I would. The fact that people who don't work can afford to is simply wrong

 

[Aadam]

So you want to control the way people spend the money they are entitled to. Should people on benefits stay in doors all the time, no days out to try and have a life of some sort, I save a little and go on a foreign holiday with my family once every 2 years, they help me physically and financially, I spend 90% of my life in bed, resting or asleep, once every 2 years I have time away with the people I love, those holidays help me fight my illness and help to keep me going. Would you prefer I spend that money on something else and spend 100% of my time in bed and in doors. Please tell me how I should live my life, well what I still have of a life.

I think the problem you will find is that people will see that and automatically think of themselves, not the situation of those in receipt of the benefits. If you're entitled to something, why am I not entitled to something? Too many people think the country owes them a living or a favour and should help them, rather than those that truly need our help, like yourself.

The problem with this country is that we've turned on those who need us most and too many people have this simplistic blanket view of how it should be. And rather than look at themselves and their own reasons for not bettering their own lives or careers to make more of their situation, they look to blame others, and the easy target is often the sick and disabled. A lot of people start with the same opportunities in life. We all go to public school, we all get an education and we all then have the chance to move onto a job, a career and to make a success of our lives, but when that doesn't happen, we chose to pick on those that didn't get a chance to chose their path or their life, because it was cruelly taken away from them by some disability or sickness. Rather than look at themselves, the government or the banks that caused the financial downturn they seek retribution by attacking the weakest of society.

Some people won't change their views.

 

[BigGully]

So you want to control the way people spend the money they are entitled to. Should people on benefits stay in doors all the time, no days out to try and have a life of some sort, I save a little and go on a foreign holiday with my family once every 2 years, they help me physically and financially, I spend 90% of my life in bed, resting or asleep, once every 2 years I have time away with the people I love, those holidays help me fight my illness and help to keep me going. Would you prefer I spend that money on something else and spend 100% of my time in bed and in doors. Please tell me how I should live my life, well what I still have of a life.

I am simply asking for the benefit system to simply fit essential financial outgoings and of course we would expect a modification of lifestyle compared to working people.

I understand that you are on invalidity benefit, but I do not know your personal circumstances so would not wish to comment.

But if you are in receipt of benefits then of course you have a responsibility to spend your time trying to find employment, how about spending the same time as those working spend working.

 

[Brovion]

Have you actually read this thread?

Of course.

 

[Aadam]

Was a tongue in cheek quote... I feel for you and know it is tough out there... but i do know people that just find it easier to claim and not work than to go out and look for a job..

My real solution would be make the minimum wage £10 an hour. Wages will then be considerably more enticing people off benefits. Whilst the social is not far off a few shifts at minimum wage people wont want to work. The incentive has to be there.

And put those small businesses that are currently struggling well and truly in the shit? £10 minimum wage is too much for a small business to afford.

 

[martyn20]

I am simply asking for the benefit system to simply fit essential financial outgoings and of course we would expect a modification of lifestyle compared to working people.

I understand that you are on invalidity benefit, but I do not know your personal circumstances so would not wish to comment.

But if you are in receipt of benefits then of course you have a responsibility to spend your time trying to find employment, how about spending the same time as those working spend working.

But that is the point I am trying to make, and the point I was trying to make to Looney last night, we do not know the individual circumstances of people on benefits but many people here are still willing to make sweeping statements about everyone on benefits like they can't drink, smoke or go on holiday. Or that they should live very near the poverty line by not getting a penny more than they need to survive.
I am a 42 year old divorced man who has lived back with his parents for the past decade in the bedroom he grew up in from the age of 5, I am having no picnic and would love to work and earn money, please everyone don't begrudge me a holiday I save up for from my benefits.
I am not defending the tossers who falsely claim thousands and live in palaces and drive fast cars just the people who are really needy and are trying to get through life the best way they can.

 

[martyn20]

Of course.

And you think what he said last night is ok

 

[Westdene Seagull]

My real solution would be make the minimum wage £10 an hour. Wages will then be considerably more enticing people off benefits. Whilst the social is not far off a few shifts at minimum wage people wont want to work. The incentive has to be there.

I think the problem is there are two groups of people ( and it's not necessarily an even split ).

1. People who have lost their job / looking for their first job and are really looking for work ( much like my partner ). My biggest bug bear for this group is that the government tax at an individual level but then hand out benefits based on household income. So my partner gets the absolute minimum because I earn money but no account is taken of maintenance I pay for my children. They won't even allow me to claim her tax free allowance - it's completely contradictory. This group of people normally get no additional help at all ( unless of course you count the rather pathetic workshops they insist on you going to ).

2. People who don't want to work and ensure they play the system to get the maximum. This usually means neither partner works yet they get cheap / free housing, no council tax to pay, all the benefits under the sun etc etc etc.

In effect, those that have paid thousands in tax and have tried to make good of themselves get close to bugger all but those that ensure they are unemployable get the world. The whole system is arse about face.

 

[Nibble]

Congrats on being possibly the biggest prick I've ever encountered.

Then you clearly have misunderstood my post.

 

[Butch Willykins]

I think the problem is there are two groups of people ( and it's not necessarily an even split ).

1. People who have lost their job / looking for their first job and are really looking for work ( much like my partner ). My biggest bug bear for this group is that the government tax at an individual level but then hand out benefits based on household income. So my partner gets the absolute minimum because I earn money but no account is taken of maintenance I pay for my children. They won't even allow me to claim her tax free allowance - it's completely contradictory. This group of people normally get no additional help at all ( unless of course you count the rather pathetic workshops they insist on you going to ).

2. People who don't want to work and ensure they play the system to get the maximum. This usually means neither partner works yet they get cheap / free housing, no council tax to pay, all the benefits under the sun etc etc etc.

In effect, those that have paid thousands in tax and have tried to make good of themselves get close to bugger all but those that ensure they are unemployable get the world. The whole system is arse about face.

Nail on the head. Ive never understood how those in group two get away with it, whilst those in group one are left in financial ruin. Hugely unfair.

 

[Brovion]

And you think what he said last night is ok

Well obviously, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it. However I don't want to get in a row about it as I notice from your join date that you're a new user. (That is not in any way a dig, just an observation. Welcome, btw) In the 'old days' discussions used to be a lot more robust! Especially with looney!

 

[martyn20]

Well obviously, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it. However I don't want to get in a row about it as I notice from your join date that you're a new user. (That is not in any way a dig, just an observation. Welcome, btw) In the 'old days' discussions used to be a lot more robust! Especially with looney!

Well I am sorry clearly insulting each other is fine, I will just leave it you older and wiser forum members

 

[Camicus]

£71 a week is hardly dangerously generous – and that’s the maximum. It’s £56.25 if you’re under 25, while couples are entitled to just £111.45 in Jobseeker’s Allowance. That’s not pocket money; people are paying for food, clothes, heating, their TV licenses, their phone bills… Life on benefits is far from easy.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Mh

Well obviously, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it. However I don't want to get in a row about it as I notice from your join date that you're a new user. (That is not in any way a dig, just an observation. Welcome, btw) In the 'old days' discussions used to be a lot more robust! Especially with looney!

What's a new user got to do with a discussion about benefits? Seems he has a good as an opinion as anyone else

 

[LamieRobertson]

£71 a week is hardly dangerously generous – and that’s the maximum. It’s £56.25 if you’re under 25, while couples are entitled to just £111.45 in Jobseeker’s Allowance. That’s not pocket money; people are paying for food, clothes, heating, their TV licenses, their phone bills… Life on benefits is far from easy.

Perception is that they r..the dramatic headlines of the tabloids the odd person someone knows etc ...reality is far different ..would people prefer we go back to the age of the poor house? Probably not..no matter what system there is always fault particularly wen it's one built on one size fits all...I am do glad that for the majority of my working life I've had a job ...I am dreading old age ..probably work until I drop

 

[Aadam]

I think the problem is there are two groups of people ( and it's not necessarily an even split ).

1. People who have lost their job / looking for their first job and are really looking for work ( much like my partner ). My biggest bug bear for this group is that the government tax at an individual level but then hand out benefits based on household income. So my partner gets the absolute minimum because I earn money but no account is taken of maintenance I pay for my children. They won't even allow me to claim her tax free allowance - it's completely contradictory. This group of people normally get no additional help at all ( unless of course you count the rather pathetic workshops they insist on you going to ).

2. People who don't want to work and ensure they play the system to get the maximum. This usually means neither partner works yet they get cheap / free housing, no council tax to pay, all the benefits under the sun etc etc etc.

In effect, those that have paid thousands in tax and have tried to make good of themselves get close to bugger all but those that ensure they are unemployable get the world. The whole system is arse about face.

This is interesting. With respect to your first point. What would you propose, being taxed together or benefits based on individuals? The problem with the former is that if you're a higher rate taxpayer then your partner should by definition be a higher rate tax payer. The problem with the latter is you could have a sole earner making £100k a year, whilst the partner that doesn't need to work can claim full benefits. I think this is where the means tested child tax credits have come in, to prevent this sort of thing.

I'm not sure what the right answer is?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

This is interesting. With respect to your first point. What would you propose, being taxed together or benefits based on individuals? The problem with the former is that if you're a higher rate taxpayer then your partner should by definition be a higher rate tax payer. The problem with the latter is you could have a sole earner making £100k a year, whilst the partner that doesn't need to work can claim full benefits. I think this is where the means tested child tax credits have come in, to prevent this sort of thing.

I'm not sure what the right answer is?

I agree it's not clear cut either way but I'd suggest that if the government tax you as an individual then you should be assessed for benefits as an individual. To be frank, I'd go for either method - it just needs to be consistent.

Likewise, if it's done at household level ( as benefits currently are ) then a household would have tax free allowance. So a couple earning £100k and £15k respectively might get the "standard (?)" £20k allowance for a household and the following £95k would be taxed at the appropriate rate(s).