Teen abortion girl pregnant again

[Sorrel]

As a high tax payer I know that my taxes go on: Defence (a certain war), roads, NHS, Education. The amount that goes on the "scroungers" is too little for me to be concerned about.

LC

While it's impossible to know who are "scroungers", the benefit system (or "social protection", as the government call it) is the largest part of the UK Budget expenditure.

Here's the figures from the government:
http://budget2004.treasury.gov.uk/page_09.html

 

[Easy 10]

This has developed into one of the most interesting debates I've seen on here recently.

For my money, I find myself siding with Caz and Lammy. People who conciously choose not to work, and instead decide to live on state handouts, are basically abusing the system. Anyone who is capable of working but simply can't be arsed because they want to do other things, are relying on the likes of the vast majority to afford them a living, whatever standard that living might be.

State benefits should be there for those who, for whatever reason, are incapable of earning a living. The elderly, the ill, the incapacitated. Has anyone given any thought to the theory that, were there not so many lazy spongers and teen mums getting their living off the state, there might be a little more in the pot for those living on benefits who GENUINELY have no other choice ? Maybe their standard of living could be improved if some of those who decide to "opt out" of earning a living like the rest of us actually got up off their arses and contributed something to society, instead of just letting everyone else do it for them.

 

[caz99]

This has developed into one of the most interesting debates I've seen on here recently.

For my money, I find myself siding with Caz and Lammy. People who conciously choose not to work, and instead decide to live on state handouts, are basically abusing the system. Anyone who is capable of working but simply can't be arsed because they want to do other things, are relying on the likes of the vast majority to afford them a living, whatever standard that living might be.

State benefits should be there for those who, for whatever reason, are incapable of earning a living. The elderly, the ill, the incapacitated. Has anyone given any thought to the theory that, were there not so many lazy spongers and teen mums getting their living off the state, there might be a little more in the pot for those living on benefits who GENUINELY have no other choice ? Maybe their standard of living could be improved if some of those who decide to "opt out" of earning a living like the rest of us actually got up off their arses and contributed something to society, instead of just letting everyone else do it for them.

well friggin said

 

[Lammy]

This has developed into one of the most interesting debates I've seen on here recently.

For my money, I find myself siding with Caz and Lammy. People who conciously choose not to work, and instead decide to live on state handouts, are basically abusing the system. Anyone who is capable of working but simply can't be arsed because they want to do other things, are relying on the likes of the vast majority to afford them a living, whatever standard that living might be.

State benefits should be there for those who, for whatever reason, are incapable of earning a living. The elderly, the ill, the incapacitated. Has anyone given any thought to the theory that, were there not so many lazy spongers and teen mums getting their living off the state, there might be a little more in the pot for those living on benefits who GENUINELY have no other choice ? Maybe their standard of living could be improved if some of those who decide to "opt out" of earning a living like the rest of us actually got up off their arses and contributed something to society, instead of just letting everyone else do it for them.

 

[fatboy]

Living on benefit is not benefit fraud.

Benefit fraud is something like claiming disability allowance while not disabled (and probably working.)

Benefits are there for those who cannot, or choose not to, work.

 

[caz99]

Living on benefit is not benefit fraud.

Benefit fraud is something like claiming disability allowance while not disabled (and probably working.)

Benefits are there for those who cannot, or choose not to, work.

no benefits are for people who cannot or who are unable to work, not choose not to work.

 

[Lammy]

Living on benefit is not benefit fraud.

Benefit fraud is something like claiming disability allowance while not disabled (and probably working.)

Benefits are there for those who cannot, or choose not to, work.

If you choose not to work then that is fine. But the state is not there to support you.

The dole is actually called "job seeker allowance" It is there to help fund you get a new job. It is not there to keep you in beer. If you are not looking for a job but claiming dole then you ARE commiting benefit fraud.

In fact I don't know of any benefit that you can claim when you choose not to work?

 

[Meade's Ball]

This has developed into one of the most interesting debates I've seen on here recently.

For my money, I find myself siding with Caz and Lammy. People who conciously choose not to work, and instead decide to live on state handouts, are basically abusing the system. Anyone who is capable of working but simply can't be arsed because they want to do other things, are relying on the likes of the vast majority to afford them a living, whatever standard that living might be.

State benefits should be there for those who, for whatever reason, are incapable of earning a living. The elderly, the ill, the incapacitated. Has anyone given any thought to the theory that, were there not so many lazy spongers and teen mums getting their living off the state, there might be a little more in the pot for those living on benefits who GENUINELY have no other choice ? Maybe their standard of living could be improved if some of those who decide to "opt out" of earning a living like the rest of us actually got up off their arses and contributed something to society, instead of just letting everyone else do it for them.

I wish it worked like that.
Income Support is worked out as the minimum you can effectively live on. Not healthily live on. No mention of happiness. Just the bare minimum to keep you alive. So, they consider £55 per week enough. And you're supposed to take any job offered to you.
Well i don't want people to have to take ANY job and sit miserably for the rest of their lives shuffling unimportant pieces of paper.
I know i live in a fantasy-land, but i have hope for people to have more than that.

And are teen mums naturally an awful thing? I worry about language like that being used as if it's a crime to be teenaged and pregnant.

 

[fatboy]

If you choose not to work then that is fine. But the state is not there to support you.

The dole is actually called "job seeker allowance" It is there to help fund you get a new job. It is not there to keep you in beer. If you are not looking for a job but claiming dole then you ARE commiting benefit fraud.

In fact I don't know of any benefit that you can claim when you choose not to work?

Child benfit obviously.

All you have to do to claim JSA is show you are actively seeking work.

Which effectively means turning up to the odd interview.

People can be picky about the type of job they accept if they like.

 

[Lammy]

Child benfit obviously.

All you have to do to claim JSA is show you are actively seeking work.

Which effectively means turning up to the odd interview.

People can be picky about the type of job they accept if they like.

You qualify for child benefit even if you are working.

If you have no intention of ever getting a job and yet claim job seekers allowance then you are commiting benefit fraud. Just because it is difficult if not impossible to prove does not mean it is right.

You said that benefits are there for people who choose not to work. That is simply not the case.

 

[caz99]

I wish it worked like that.
Income Support is worked out as the minimum you can effectively live on. Not healthily live on. No mention of happiness. Just the bare minimum to keep you alive. So, they consider £55 per week enough. And you're supposed to take any job offered to you.
Well i don't want people to have to take ANY job and sit miserably for the rest of their lives shuffling unimportant pieces of paper.
I know i live in a fantasy-land, but i have hope for people to have more than that.

And are teen mums naturally an awful thing? I worry about language like that being used as if it's a crime to be teenaged and pregnant.

yes it is an awful thing cos they are missing out on their young lives doing things that young people do. they are barely grown up enough to look after themselves let alone another human being

 

[Lammy]

I wish it worked like that.
Income Support is worked out as the minimum you can effectively live on. Not healthily live on. No mention of happiness. Just the bare minimum to keep you alive. So, they consider £55 per week enough. And you're supposed to take any job offered to you.
Well i don't want people to have to take ANY job and sit miserably for the rest of their lives shuffling unimportant pieces of paper.
I know i live in a fantasy-land, but i have hope for people to have more than that.

And are teen mums naturally an awful thing? I worry about language like that being used as if it's a crime to be teenaged and pregnant.

No it isn't there are loads of fantasitic teenage mums. Becoming a Mum in your teens is not a bad thing in itself. Doing it for the wrong reasons, i.e. to jump the queue for a house or to get a larger house IS wrong.

 

[Easy 10]

I wish it worked like that.
Income Support is worked out as the minimum you can effectively live on. Not healthily live on. No mention of happiness. Just the bare minimum to keep you alive. So, they consider £55 per week enough. And you're supposed to take any job offered to you.
Well i don't want people to have to take ANY job and sit miserably for the rest of their lives shuffling unimportant pieces of paper.
I know i live in a fantasy-land, but i have hope for people to have more than that.

And are teen mums naturally an awful thing? I worry about language like that being used as if it's a crime to be teenaged and pregnant.

Income Support HAS to be worked out as the minimum you can effectively live on because of the abuses of the system...if less people abused it, perhaps there would be more to go round for those who really need it. Getting someone OFF benefits and INTO work is actually a double-positive - they are no longer draining the system, they are actively contributing to it.

Do you not find it obscene that, after paying into the system for decades, many OAP's find themselves living in abject poverty on the state pension ? Literally on the breadline and barely able to afford to heat their houses ? Meantime, Sharon down at number 30 gets herself another kid, tops up on the housing benefit and child allowance, and spends her "hard earnt" on ciggies and cider whilst watching Trisha with her slapper mates ? Oh, but thats ok, because thats how she chooses to live her life. Fine, ok then.

Sorry M B, but that reeks.

 

[caz99]

Income Support HAS to be worked out as the minimum you can effectively live on because of the abuses of the system...if less people abused it, perhaps there would be more to go round for those who really need it. Getting someone OFF benefits and INTO work is actually a double-positive - they are no longer draining the system, they are actively contributing to it.

Do you not find it obscene that, after paying into the system for decades, many OAP's find themselves living in abject poverty on the state pension ? Literally on the breadline and barely able to afford to heat their houses ? Meantime, Sharon down at number 30 gets herself another kid, tops up on the housing benefit and child allowance, and spends her "hard earnt" on ciggies and cider whilst watching Trisha with her slapper mates ? Oh, but thats ok, because thats how she chooses to live her life. Fine, ok then.

Sorry M B, but that reeks.

everything he said. the man is on a roll

 

[Meade's Ball]

Income Support HAS to be worked out as the minimum you can effectively live on because of the abuses of the system...if less people abused it, perhaps there would be more to go round for those who really need it. Getting someone OFF benefits and INTO work is actually a double-positive - they are no longer draining the system, they are actively contributing to it.

Do you not find it obscene that, after paying into the system for decades, many OAP's find themselves living in abject poverty on the state pension ? Literally on the breadline and barely able to afford to heat their houses ? Meantime, Sharon down at number 30 gets herself another kid, tops up on the housing benefit and child allowance, and spends her "hard earnt" on ciggies and cider whilst watching Trisha with her slapper mates ? Oh, but thats ok, because thats how she chooses to live her life. Fine, ok then.

Sorry M B, but that reeks.

hehe
I don't remember merrily advocating the freezing of the elderly so that another of your tabloid stereotypes can drink cider.

What a Littlejohn of a post.
You think that is the problem here, and that's up to you. As i've said again and again in this thread, what we need to be doing is encouraging people through life-long education. The messages oughtn't be about the tiny minority who might defraud the system and go through the agony of child-birth to claim more benefits. They are a distraction from the things that really matter (to me at least), such as the ever-widening poverty trap.
If people think that is their only or best option, who is at fault?

 

[bigc]

but this money to educate these people against pregnancies is being cut back because its more of your hard earned cash. PSE doesnt matter...lets cut it back

I agree with both sides...meades_ball and caz99

for example..I go to college. some people get this thing called EMA, and my friend gets it. he doesnt deserve it...its just cos his parents are seperated, so despite having more than enough money...he still gets £30 a week for doing nothing. simply for turning up to college. I turn up, do my h/w and work hard and I get nothing, and he just cruises thru the lessons and gets £30 a week. that pisses me off, and thats a form of benefit I guess. I am all for benefits tho, its just a very hard system to get working properly.

 

[Easy 10]

hehe
I don't remember merrily advocating the freezing of the elderly so that another of your tabloid stereotypes can drink cider.

You may not be MERRILY advocating it, but you are indulging it by turning a blind eye to those who are deliberately milking the system because they can, and dressing it up as nothing more than a "lifestyle choice" as if this is in some way justifiable and ok.

What a Littlejohn of a post.
You think that is the problem here, and that's up to you. As i've said again and again in this thread, what we need to be doing is encouraging people through life-long education. The messages oughtn't be about the tiny minority who might defraud the system and go through the agony of child-birth to claim more benefits. They are a distraction from the things that really matter (to me at least), such as the ever-widening poverty trap.
If people think that is their only or best option, who is at fault?

Life-long education and encouragement is all well and good, and I would agree to that as a way of addressing this issue in the long term. But this problem still exists here and now. And it still exists here and now because the state CONTINUES to fund this handouts lifestyle that some people simply choose to fall into, because, quite honestly, it ain't that bad. That "tiny minority" that you speak of is costing us billions of pounds a year.

And I just don't understand your point about the ever-widening poverty trap. You're right to be concerned about it, but surely its the spongers who are an intrinsic part of this very problem. Their lack of motivation and drive is the very thing which drags the whole system down, and leads to a downwards spiral of boredom, desperation, poverty and crime.

I simply cannot get my head around your way of thinking on this one.

 

[Meade's Ball]

but this money to educate these people against pregnancies is being cut back because its more of your hard earned cash. PSE doesnt matter...lets cut it back

It's not because of benefit fraud that these cutbacks happen though, i hope you would agree.

I agree that it's a hugely difficult system to run and there'll always be flaws.
But what is your problem with your mate receiving the money? And would you turn it down if it were offered to you?

 

[Gwylan]

While I've been having a couple of fillings (and trying to ignore the dentist's tits in my face) I tried to work out how much of my tax goes to people who 'choose' not to work.

Obviously, it's hard to work out exact amounts, as Voroshilov and Duncan H have pointed out, it's very hard to separate the people who want to work and people who don't, but my guess was about 5% of claimants didn't want to work. That's probably a bit high but I'll play conservative, Given that, I estimated that about 5p a month of my taxes is spent on what the Littlejohns of this world would call the workshy. I'm really not going to get worked up about that and those of you who are angry about so little an amount really should examine your priorities.

But the question I'd like answering is what should happen to these teenage mothers if they shouldn't get a flat and benefits. Should they be thrown out on the streets to beg? Should we do what they do in Burma and other countries and introduce child labour? Should the babies be taken away from their mothers and taken into care (a much more expensive option incidentally)? Should the mothers be forced to work, and if so, who should pay for childcare? That would probably end up as a more expensive option as well.

I've heard all these arguments before and no-one who fulminates against teenage mothers (or single mothers generally) has got a rational answer for this. Or one that doesn't cost the state more money, which rather destroys their argument about looking after taxpayers' interests.

Oh and Easy, saying that supporting teenage mothers is akin to wanting pensioners to freeze is a shameful argument. It's not a zero-sum game, wanting to protect children does not mean neglecting pensioners.

 

[Brovion]

Keep going MB, keep these Daily Mail readers on their toes!