Quantcast
  • We invite you to join UKWorkshop.
    Members can turn off viewing Ads!

Welfare reform bill.

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

flanajb

Established Member
Joined
11 Mar 2009
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
6
Not sure what others think on this, but I am fed up listening to stories of people who have not one, but 5 kids saying that capping the welfare cap to £26,000 is unfair. Makes my blood boil that people in this country think that they should have the right to a decent handout. Benfit should be a last resort and being on benefit should be tough and just provides enough for you to have a basic roof over your head and food in your mouth. In fact, I would go so far as to say that you should not receive cash and your benefits should be paid in food vouchers.

Just struggle to get my head around the fact that people who work can be on less than someone on welfare.

To hear that the bill has been defeated is a bloody joke.
 

Dibs-h

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2007
Messages
4,214
Reaction score
4
Location
West Yorkshire
Read somewhere that Ministers were saying that if it gets defeated and comes back to the commons, they will pass it. How long it takes or what compromises they have to make, I don't know.

I agree with your sentiments tho! I, for one would like to to how the taxpayers can continue with the system as it is? Now I'm hearing that some folk want the cap to exclude Child benefit, effectively taking it way past 26k. That's hardly going to discourage feckless pineapples from having large families, with no intention of working and the taxpayer picking up the tab.

Bloody annoying and bonkers!

Dibs
 

fluffflinger

Established Member
Joined
21 Oct 2009
Messages
334
Reaction score
4
Location
Northampton
I think we would like to see benefits capped at a reasonable level and a most definitely a far better system of allocation in the 1st place. However the pendulum has swung so far that to cap these benefits without a reasonable method of transition would cause unreasonable suffering and potentially anarchy.

I'm with you one hundred percent of the way and a cap of £26k seems reasonable to me (actually it sounds very generous) but I worry about the consequences of asking the "heroin addict" to just go cold turkey with no time to re-structure his life or to adjust to a reduction in income.

Isn't this yet another example of our society having travelled so far (the wrong way) down a road that it can't see away to retrace it's steps?

There are so many things that sadden me about this once great nation, so I say let's all be thankful that we have a hobby/pastime/career that can so absorb us as to make these irritations take a back seat for awhile.
 

Jacob

Established Member
Joined
7 Jul 2010
Messages
16,119
Reaction score
3
Location
Derbyshire
If benefits systems need reforming so be it, but a flat cap could be very bad news for some, especially if the are paying inflated rents. Not necessarily feckless pineapples either - could be just fallen on hard times.
If rents were also capped and means tested that could improve the balance.
I'm more worried about the bankers and directors with their grossly inflated salaries, bonus's, pensions. 40 times £25000 is £1 million. Many of the plutocrats pay themselves far more than that. Well we pay them actually, one way or another
 

cambournepete

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2004
Messages
2,710
Reaction score
0
Location
Rangiora, South Island, Aotearoa
flanajb":17blp368 said:
Benfit should be a last resort and being on benefit should be tough and just provides enough for you to have a basic roof over your head and food in your mouth. In fact, I would go so far as to say that you should not receive cash and your benefits should be paid in food vouchers.
Thanks, I'm now unemployed.
Nice to know you feel my life should be tough through no fault of my own.
I'm not necessarily against a limit, but individual circumstances vary so much it's very hard to generalise and define such a limit.
 

mailee

Established Member
Joined
26 Jun 2005
Messages
5,502
Reaction score
0
Location
grimsby Humberside
Well I have to say that I thought it was a lot of money considering when I was employed I was earning £15,000 per year! and that was a full time job! If they can't manage on £26,000 per year there is certainly something wrong. :roll:
 

Lons

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
7,408
Reaction score
165
Location
Northumberland
Am I missing something here?

It isn't £26000 pa it's all of that in their hands. No income tax, pension payments, national insurance, union dues or travelling expenses to work every day. It's - unearned income, and as a contributing taxpayer I resent it.

My wife earns £26k works extremely hard and has a great deal of responsibility. After offtakes excluding her travel costs she brings home little more than £19k. If we can't afford our house we would have to move as we did many years ago when the company I worked for went to the wall. Why shouldn't people cut their cloth accordingly? The genuine claiments do their utmost to find employment because they usually have some pride, we have allowed the others to become "comfortable" as they know that they can get more on benefits than in work. They abuse the lack of discipline in the system and know that if caught the penalties are light :roll:

Unfortunately, the vast number of leeches, many of whom are deliberate single mothers (of their own choosing to get a house and benefits) and the hard core who have no intention of ever finding employment, have spoiled it for those genuine claiments who have fallen on hard times.

My understanding of the benefit system is that it was intended as a short term safety net to help those in need until they can get back on their feet. it's become a monster "cash cow" for those who milk the system and the country, i'e. us - cannot afford it.

Citing bankers and fat cats doesn't change anything as two wrongs don't make a right. That's a seperate issue which also needs addressing. I would much rather deflect some of those benefit payments to poor pensioners who I think get around £200 a week (10500 pa) per couple?

Bob
 

Benchwayze

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2007
Messages
9,294
Reaction score
50
Location
West Muddylands
Yes Lons.

And the way I see it, that was precisely what Cameron was getting at. More power to his elbow on this one.

I have no issue with persons who are disabled having a hand-up, but I do not agree with giving the skivers a hand-out!
There was one on a news clip yesterday, moaning about the fact she'd have to move house, or cut her food to the bone. She certainly didn't look underfed that's for sure. Then another overweight couple began to bleat about it, between draws on their ciggies and making a fuss of their dog and cat.
Lunacy!


It's time they had their wings clipped for sure.

John :evil:
 

RogerM

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2006
Messages
1,274
Reaction score
2
Location
Devon
As a health visitor my wife had to deal with these people on a daily basis. These are true anecdotes!

On one occasion the father announced that he was going out to get a job. The mother told him that if he got a job, don't bother coming back! She wanted him at home helping with the children.

Countless fathers said they saw helping their partners look after the children as "their job".

When going through a weekly budget to help with a claim she suggested listing all their essential outgoings. This included Sky TV with all the extras (Sports etc) plus £50 per week on bingo "as a treat".

Running a 4x4 to do the 3/4 mile school run was an essential expense.

A 19 year old announced on getting a 2 bed flat from social housing "I'm set up for life now"!

Somehow we need to stuff the genie back into the bottle. £26,000 per annum net equates to about £35,000 per annum before stoppages. My guess is that there are countless families who can only dream of taking home £26,00 per year (£2,166 per month).
 

cambournepete

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2004
Messages
2,710
Reaction score
0
Location
Rangiora, South Island, Aotearoa
RogerS":t1phlcif said:
Yup...for those in true need, support them.
I think I agree with the sentiment, but how to define "in true need"?
That will vary from case to case and I'm sure you're not advocating putting people and children on the street, however undeserving of benefit you may think they are...
 

Benchwayze

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2007
Messages
9,294
Reaction score
50
Location
West Muddylands
RogerS":xhjl8nxm said:
Yup...for those in true need, support them. The rest...nothing.
Yeah! I would love to get me a German Shepherd Dog, but I can't even afford to nourish a toy poodle. After all, I have a woodworking addiction to feed!

It's a good job I have a pension. 8) But then, I paid in since I was 15 years old!

Having said that, I don't get anywhere near £26,000 PA tax free. 8)

Who was the fool?
I watched 'Coppers' last night, (For old time's sake), and i got so angry at what out taxes go towards, I gave m'self indigestion!
 

Dibs-h

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2007
Messages
4,214
Reaction score
4
Location
West Yorkshire
cambournepete":29a62ugd said:
RogerS":29a62ugd said:
Yup...for those in true need, support them.
I think I agree with the sentiment, but how to define "in true need"?
Perhaps a look at their employment history in the last 5 yrs might be a start? No jobs in the last 5yrs (or ever) might be indicative of a "lifestyle choice".

Food Vouchers - I wouldn't be too keen on those. It can be belittling to have to pay with those & I would not want to watch someone's dignity affected like that. For every genuine person in need, there could be more than 1 "lifestyler" or less than one, but either way - a genuine person's dignity is worth something.

Dibs
 

Benchwayze

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2007
Messages
9,294
Reaction score
50
Location
West Muddylands
Dibs-h":4yadxzyt said:
cambournepete":4yadxzyt said:
RogerS":4yadxzyt said:
Yup...for those in true need, support them.
I think I agree with the sentiment, but how to define "in true need"?
Perhaps a look at their employment history in the last 5 yrs might be a start? No jobs in the last 5yrs (or ever) might be indicative of a "lifestyle choice".

Food Vouchers - I wouldn't be too keen on those. It can be belittling to have to pay with those & I would not want to watch someone's dignity affected like that. For every genuine person in need, there could be more than 1 "lifestyler" or less than one, but either way - a genuine person's dignity is worth something.

Dibs
Plus the fact there would be a nice line in forged and/or black-market vouchers. As there was with 'coupons' issued during rationing in the 40s & 50s. 8)
 

chipmunk

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2011
Messages
1,100
Reaction score
0
Location
Windermere Cumbria
Trouble is I can see both sides of the argument.

As someone who chose to only have one child so that as a couple we could provide well for them, it's tough to see parents having kids as a means to obtain more benefit - and being effectively rewarded for it.

But for the kids who are born into households with irresponsible and feckless parents, is it fair on them to make them carry the burden? They didn't choose the lifestyle and yet they are being condemmed to the pain.

Jon
 

Dibs-h

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2007
Messages
4,214
Reaction score
4
Location
West Yorkshire
Unfortunately there will always be irresponsible and feckless parents - from all sorts of socio-economic classes. It's just that the type of damage inflicted on the children will be different.

What I do know - is that the present system is unsustainable. You can not seriously expect to be housed, fed, etc. and yet not be willing to get of your @rse and contribute to society, no matter large or small contribution.

Dibs
 

Digit

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2007
Messages
10,222
Reaction score
0
Location
Wales
The inflated rent argument is a non-sequitur Jacob. If the landlord is faced with the same reality as the person who has their rent paid for them he will either, a, sell up, or b, reduce the rent.
It's Maggies 'Market Forces' old son. I do not expect to see London et al, over flowing with empty properties, do you?

Roy.
 

Max Power

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2007
Messages
1,759
Reaction score
11
Location
County Durham
I can't be pineappled with politicians normally , but Three Cheers for David Cameron for having the balls to stand up and be counted =D>

Should have been sorted out long ago. There should be NO career layabouts, if you want to live a good lifestyle get a job, benefits should be to meet your basic essentials while you seek work and if you want to produce a tribe of children then bloody well be prepared to work to keep them, don't expect the country to undertake your responsibility.
I also saw an immigrant woman on the tv complaining that she might have to move house and it was unfair :shock: well lifes a puppy isn't it :roll:
 

Digit

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2007
Messages
10,222
Reaction score
0
Location
Wales
Should have been sorted out long ago. There should be NO career layabouts, if you want to live a good lifestyle get a job, benefits should be to meet your basic essentials while you seek work and if you want to produce a tribe of children then bloody well be prepared to work to keep them, don't expect the country to undertake your responsibility.
That strikes me as a pretty reasonable attitude, doubtless others will disagree.

Roy.
 

Dibs-h

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2007
Messages
4,214
Reaction score
4
Location
West Yorkshire
Digit":2b6xplsv said:
Should have been sorted out long ago. There should be NO career layabouts, if you want to live a good lifestyle get a job, benefits should be to meet your basic essentials while you seek work and if you want to produce a tribe of children then bloody well be prepared to work to keep them, don't expect the country to undertake your responsibility.
That strikes me as a pretty reasonable attitude, ...

Roy.
+1
 
Top