***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 3 *****
Continued debate on the changes to the benefits systems.
Click here for Volume 1
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 31 Jan 12 at 10:20
|
How to drive a coach and horses through the proposed £26,000 annual limit.
Imagine you are a couple who have children and receive £17K benefits and £30K rent per annum. The limit of £26K would not cover the rent far less food and other essentials
Need to move? - No
Need for both to find full time employment ?- No.
How? - Either one gets a part-time job paying say £6.50 / hr for say 20 hrs = £130.00 per week=£6760 per year (No NI payable as less than NI lower limit) but TAXABLE
The £26K limit does not apply - WHY?
Your Income would increase from £47K
New Income would be £30K rent + £17K Subsistence +£6760 less sliding scale deduction so probably £50K+ per year.
The loophole is caused by Govt Insistence on rewarding work with a sliding scale of deductions so that any work over 19 hrs is rewarded with more cash for the claimant's pocket
Joe Public working:-
£50K Clear per year = £75K before NI, TAX, etc etc.................
and only 1 person doing 20 hrs per week = nigh on £50 / hour
|
FB, enlightening though that post was its done nothing for my mental state or blood pressure..so no thanks for that..;)
I won't be champing at the bit when i go to work at 5am this Sat and Sun...bah.
|
|
Is there a source for that 'gen' FB?
|
...Is there a source for that 'gen' FB?...
All FB is pointing out is what we all know - the benefits system, as unreformed, is a viable lifestyle choice for many.
It shouldn't be, it should be a safety net.
|
Watching Question Time just now, this issue came up as you would expect.
Seems there are more apologists than not for people living entirely on the state and at great expense.
This is kinda amusing really, but if these people really want to pay me to sit at home while they go to work, im ok with early retirement, just send me a cheque.
I feel a bad back coming on, not to mention the deep psychological desire to live in a million quid house, human right you know.... you think I can get a butler?
Last edited by: FoR on Fri 27 Jan 12 at 00:02
|
>> This is kinda amusing really, but if these people really want to pay me to
>> sit at home while they go to work, im ok with early retirement, just send
>> me a cheque.
Stu, you DO sit at home being paid by the state whilst other people go to work. We've watched you fritter away tens of thousands of pounds on cars over the last year or three. Meanwhile you have "downsized" your business so you're not working too hard.
And now you admit - in the time of great economic crisis - to be claiming benefits. Moreover you are getting more benefits than you need so you are SAVING them up.
Yet you write: "Benefits are generally spent in the local economy, so they are a way of stimulating the economy - its like direct quantitive easing and perhaps preferrable to funding the banks who dont seem to filter the money down so quickly."
Yours are certainly not being spent in the local economy, are they?
>>I feel intensely privileged to live in such a bountiful age, the lesson
>>isnt lost on me. www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=9217&m=204973
Presumably the lesson that isn't lost on you is that everybody else can go out to work whilst you sit at home not working, being subsidised by the rest of us.
Nobody else has been brave enough to say it - though Pat did mention it. Your sort makes Daily Mail readers sick. TWO THOUSAND POUNDS A YEAR we give you, for what? Being an idle good-for-nothing benefits scrounger. Get off your lazy backside and go out to work like the rest of us do.
I thought you despise those who scrounge off the state? Certainly your other posts suggest you do.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Fri 27 Jan 12 at 10:02
|
Mapmaker's post is harsh in some respects, but it shows the benefit of clear thinking coupled with the ability to add up.
|
>>Stu, you DO sit at home being paid by the state whilst other people go to work. We've watched you fritter away tens of thousands of pounds on cars over the last year or three. Meanwhile you have "downsized" your business so you're not working too hard<<
I dont sit at home. Im a part-time carer for my nan who now has dementia and needs constant supervision of which I do a share.
>>And now you admit - in the time of great economic crisis - to be claiming benefits. Moreover you are getting more benefits than you need so you are SAVING them up.<<
Saving for rainy days yes. If the house needs urgent repairs, or a utility bill is higher than expected, of course its prudent to put some aside in order to cover those eventualities, what idiot wouldnt do that ( well a large percentage of the population but I dont think they should be congratulated ).
I live a frugal lifestyle in the main, far more so than most people seem to be happy with - I enjoy the challenge of it, but its not a choice either.
>>Presumably the lesson that isn't lost on you is that everybody else can go out to work whilst you sit at home not working, being subsidised by the rest of us.<<
I do go to work, 25 hour week self employment. I spend another 16 hours a week as a carer. It feels like enough to me. You may not consider being a carer a valid role and thats fine, but the State disagrees with you.
|
>>I do go to work, 25 hour week self employment. I spend another 16 hours a week as a
>>carer. It feels like enough to me. You may not consider being a carer a valid role and thats
>>fine, but the State disagrees with you.
Is this what you're on?
www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Caringforsomeone/DG_10012525
You cannot get Carer's Allowance if you earn more than £100 a week after money has been taken off to allow for your expenses.
Expenses that are allowed are for things like:
some National Insurance (NI) contributions
Income Tax
half of any money you pay towards personal or occupational pension schemes
other expenses you have to pay because they are a necessary part of your job
With the minimum wage at £6.08, 25 hours per week = £152 per week, i.e. £7,904 per annum. Tax on that is £100 p.a.; NI a similar amount. That would leave
you more than £100 per week, so you would not be entitled to carer's allowance. Obviously as self employed you are not entitled to the NMW so:
Either (a) your business model is flawed, or (b) your 25 hours a week "work" is rather less than enthusiastic. I feel somewhat certain that the Eastern Europeans whom you despise so - who wash cars - make more than that.
Peculiarly this link says you are only entitled if you are caring for more than 35 hours per week. www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Caringforsomeone/DG_10018705
Can I get Carer's Allowance?
You may be able to get Carer's Allowance if you:
are aged 16 or over
spend at least 35 hours a week caring for a person
|
|
No, I dont get any carers allowance. I said im a carer.
|
>> No, I dont get any carers allowance. I said im a carer.
>>
So are you on benefits or not?
|
>>So are you on benefits or not?<<
No offence, but read the thread.
|
Some Benefit anomalies here. This lady, who suffers from MS, has been officially told that she would be better off if her husband gave up work.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-16714439
However, a situation with a different outcome was reported last week. A Roma lady with 4 children, one of them disabled, who has been here for several years and speaks no English(!) receives £26,000 a year benefits. She got a self-employed job paying £100 a week, selling the Big Issue (good for her) and she got another £2000 a year in Benefits. Can't link to that one or understand it!
|
I have the feeling that there are only a few who have commented on this thread, actually know what life is like on benefits for the vast majority who get them.
WdeB (from another thread), DeeW and a couple of others see the side I so often see.
The Mail is despised on here for its sensationalism, yet we see here on the forum almost the same thing.
The overwhelming majority of people on benefits are on them because they can’t work through ill health or because there are no jobs available and would give anything to just be ‘normal’.
The benefits system is flawed, of that there is no doubt but there will always be people who will take advantage of anything offered to them free.
The fault is with those who have made this possible.
We all see this from our own viewpoint, which is only a very small bird’s eye view of the overall picture.
Iffy, for example sees it from sitting in Court, where a succession of unemployed scroungers and single mothers pass through.
Most single mothers certainly didn’t set out to be single mothers and we should remember all of those who have lost their husbands and those who have chosen to walk out on their families and not support them.
There are so many things that could be done to ease the situation but not put hardship upon those who don’t deserve it, as the current plans will do, in most cases.
Child benefit should be capped at an income of £40,000, and nothing for the fourth child and more, for anyone.
WTC should go completely, and are one of the reasons some people don’t seek to better themselves in employment.
Something Stu said in another thread sticks with me, and I’m really not getting at you Stu, just using it as an example.
You live frugally and manage to save money each week…well done, but is it right that you can receive benefits as in WTC and still save money?
I don’t think so.
The benefits system was never intended for this and I know many people who live frugally, and don’t have enough money to heat their homes, but neither smoke drink or have a car. This is where it should be going.
We talk on here of moving people to less expensive areas if they claim housing benefit, but where to? Are we going to create shanty towns of the terminal unemployed in certain parts of the country….supposing that part of the country is your home, your birth place and where your roots are?
We’ve also told on here how people should be prepared to move home to where the work is, but there is less and less work to find.
We need to remember that there are so many people in this country who have worked all their life in very low paid jobs (which EU labour does now), have had no option but to live frugally in rented or tied houses, but have brought up a family and never claimed benefits in their lives.
These are the ones who will be hit most by the proposals, and in fact, have been hit by them for some time.
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Fri 27 Jan 12 at 07:52
|
An eloquent and well reasoned post Pat. I think that as things are one should claim what the law and regulations give one and wait for the rules to change. At the other end of the scale, tax evasion is illegal and tax avoidance is not. Claim one's entitlement and pay one's dues.
I think everyone should save if they can, otherwise how does one deal with a £1000 bill for a car or boiler breakdown and other potential disasters? What about future bills for "care"?
I live within my means, have savings and balance my income and outgoings to suit myself. At the moment I am in my lounge writing this, dressed warm and with the heating off. The temperature is 14.9 and 11 in my bedroom and that is my choice. The money I am saving will go towards a good meal out, a day trip somewhere nice or a book that I want.
|
>>The temperature is 14.9 and 11 in my bedroom and that is my choice<<
15c Mildew! good grief man - even my dog wouldn't put up with that, why don't you heat your dwelling??
|
|
I am distantly genetically related to Aptenodytes forsteri! The temperature is OK and I am dressed for it although I appreciate your concern. I have used 61 units of gas in 3 months so I should be quids in on my £45 a month direct debit!
|
|
Keep warm Meldrew you can't take a penny with you when the time comes.>:)
|
|
Thanks Dutchie and Dog. In accordance with Government guidance I have turned down my body thermostat and all is well in the igloo!
|
I can confirm that Meldrew is OK:)
You certainly do get used to cooler conditions.
I find that having worked outdoors in most weathers all of my life I don't have my heat above 16C at all in the daytime now I'm home all day.
Pat
|
|
Thank you Pat. Let me add that I very much appreciate the interest and kind thoughts re my self-induced heating arrangements from contributors to this Forum. I am perhaps an Ancient Rattle but not yet a Death Rattle >:)
|
|
er....heat on......in the daytime ???!!
|
|
Well yes! At night one has an electric blanket or a warm babe, depending on one's domestic arrangements!
|
I don't disagree with much of what you say, Pat.
But you know that capping benefits for children is the hardest cut of all. And I disagree about child benefit and a £40,000 income cap at a household level. It seems to me very desirable that children are brought up by one of their own parents, one of whom should be able to stay at home at least until they are of school age. Of course I have just illustrated the difficulty - there is an argument against cutting any one benefit.
You also have to deal with the affordability point. Whose taxes will you increase, or what else will you cut?
Benefits aside, I think we should all have to pay to see the doctor, at least initially, as they do in France. My doctor's surgery is like a social club. I'm sure the NHS bill could be reduced drastically.
Incidentally, I don't think you should be objecting to Stu saving - the less money you have, the more important it is to budget, and to build and maintain a buffer. I'd rather he did that than smoke and drink it, then say he can't pay his "unexpected"gas bill.
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 27 Jan 12 at 08:34
|
|
Next clean up the Child Support Agency totall bunch of twits.
|
>> unemployed in certain parts of the country….supposing that part of the country is your home, your birth place and where your roots are? >>
It is not a human right (at least not recognised by any human rights organisation anywhere in the world) that you should be entitled to benefits because you are unwilling to move from "your home, your birth place and where your roots are? ".
>> The overwhelming majority of people on benefits are on them because they can’t work through ill health or because there are no jobs available and would give anything to just be ‘normal’. >>
1. no jobs available? How did the millions of EU citizens and non-EU immigrants who arrived in the last 10 years get their jobs in the UK?
2. overwhelming majority? yes based on 2010 statistics. But wait and see how those stats change once the three year reassessment of incapacity claimants has been completed.
Official 2010 stats presented in an unbiased form by a "poverty" organisation:
www.poverty.org.uk/13/a.png
www.poverty.org.uk/13/map.png
www.poverty.org.uk/13/d.png
So it would seem that twice as many people in Wales and North East are "sick or disabled" compared to the rest of UK society.
Official 2011 statistics -
Now note the high rate (75%) of claimants who withdraw from the assessment process before completion:
Unsuccessful Employment and Support Allowance claims – qualitative research statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2011-2012/rrep762.pdf
"Claims were unsuccessful because:
they were withdrawn by the customer before it was assessed;
their claim was closed by Jobcentre Plus; or,
the claimant was found fit for work and not entitled to Employment and Support Allowance.
Together, these groups make up 75% of all initial Employment and Support Allowance claims. "
>> Something Stu said in another thread sticks with me, and I’m really not getting at you Stu, just using it as an example.
You live frugally and manage to save money each week…well done, but is it right that you can receive benefits as in WTC and still save money? >>
I believe Stu has stated previously that he owns his property outright. In which case, is it right he should be getting benefits? Or do you think he should first use the capital in his house to raise cash by remortgaging (borrow and get in to debt like the UK Government is doing)?
>> We all see this from our own viewpoint, which is only a very small bird’s eye view of the overall picture. >>
Yes, agreed, Pat. It is no good making a case based on personal anecdotes. We need to look at the national picture, as presented in raw statistics collected and reported by unbiased civil servants.
I will now do a "Zero-esque" mini-flounce from this thread.
Last edited by: John H on Fri 27 Jan 12 at 08:57
|
Please don't flounce on my account JohnH:)
>>I don't think you should be objecting to Stu saving <<
I don't object to Stu saving and don't think he should sell his house, in fact I commend him for saving at all.
What I object to is ANYONE claiming any benefit who can afford to save money.
That in itself would fund a lot of the cuts and I do think anyone should be forced to use those rainy day savings for the rainy day that is here now when they claim.
I don't know where you live John, but would you want a benefits/unemployed shanty town next to you?
I know many people just below the £16000 threshold for benefits who spend anything above that on frivolities to stay below it....we finance those puchases, not them.
I would also stop paying the £200 heating allowance to people who don't live in this country full time, and pay it only to people with no savings at all.
Pat
|
>>What I object to is ANYONE claiming any benefit who can afford to save money<<
There is an element in that I agree with.
Some people do spend their benefits on rubbish, especially those who clearly are doing OK.
I dont know why anyone who has children qualifies for child benefit - to my mind I think you want to start with the millionaires taking their child benefit before you start on low earners tbh.
I cant afford a new phone, I dont have spare cash for things like a CD or a new pair of jeans, Im repianting the cupboard doors in my kitchen with gloss paint my dad had in his garage because a new kitchen is a lottery idea. Im hoping to make new worktops myself out of wood bought at the tip.
I have one light on at night, a small lamp. I use the light of my phone to navigate the house in the dark.
I can tell you, for free, you aint gonna make many people on benefits live like that and if the government hears of it being widespread they will prob send in Unicef.
I know what you saying, but remember the individual story is always more complicated - I certainly dont divulge as much about my life as I may appear to, I only shine a light on some areas.
I think food vouchers would be very valid. I think council tax relief would also be valid though I dont qualify under the current rules on that. What I mean by this is id like to see benefits targetted more directly to valid expenditure like food and shelter, as someone said before.
|
>> Yes, agreed, Pat. It is no good making a case based on personal anecdotes. We
>> need to look at the national picture, as presented in raw statistics collected and reported
>> by unbiased civil servants.
What's needed is a Royal Commission to investigate and report on the whole system. But such non-partisan long term solutions are way off the current agenda.
The 'cliff edge' where people moving from subsistence benefits into work at subsistence plus wages also needs to be addressed.
While John H correctly states that nobody has a 'right' to live amongst their family moving them out breaks links. Not least of these are the informal child care that might make employment pay.
And as is pointed out in today's Guardian £20k of £26k might be going straight to the Landlord leaving £6k to feed, clothe and keep warm a family of 5. So the answer is to move them (at a cost) and force them to re-settle, buy new school uniforms and lose the informal contacts that might find local work.
|
Reading your post Bromp the landlords are having a laugh or not.?
Shouldn't these rents be capped or is this not possible.
|
>>Something Stu said in another thread sticks with me, and I’m really not getting at you Stu, just using it as an example.
You live frugally and manage to save money each week…well done, but is it right that you can receive benefits as in WTC and still save money?
I don’t think so.<<
That depends on whether you want to either force thousands of low earners to live like me ( good luck with that ) or you want to encourage people to blow every last penny they get on benefits to justify the need.
I dont make a net gain over the year, any money saved in the summer months goes on winter fuel bills and things such as a boiler service. I have to save something in order to cover such costs.
|
|
Remember that savings whether skimmed from your benefits can affect your benefits - and could actually get into trouble with the DWP if they find out about it.
|
>>Remember that savings whether skimmed from your benefits can affect your benefits - and could actually get into trouble with the DWP if they find out about it. <<
You have to declare them all on the forms, which I do. No sense lying, you only get found out.
Im talking about £20-30 a month here though, theres no pile of cash hiding anywhere, much to my dismay.
|
There's nothing worse than whingers, malingerers and lead swingers IMO - my ole mum had to bring up 6 kids on her own decades before all these blimmin hand outs were available, how did she manage? by being a scrubber.
I personally know a one legged solicitor plus a working mother of 3 - with type 1 (The Real) diabetes,
how do they manage to do a days graft I wonder?
I also know a 24 year old boy (man?) who has never done even alf a days work in his entire life and even has his own flat paid for by you (the tax payer) along withal his 'benefits' - how did he get all that?
because his mummy told a complete pack of lies.
Welfare pigs are what I call that type - can work, won't work.
|
Most of the anomalies arise because of the way benefits and entitlements have fixed cut-off points rather than progressive incentives. Obviously that encourages people to manipulate their circumstances so that they just qualify. That must be intentional? Why else have governments maintained a system for 60 years on that basis without apparently noticing it or bothering about it?
The other anomaly is the inconsistent treatment of people as self-contained individuals, or as couples, or even more confusingly, "households". The tax system now treats people as individuals. A non-working person gets allowances etc even if living with a millionaire.
But not tax credits, not benefits. For those, the two are assessed as one unit.
They really should sort out which it is and treat people consistently, otherwise we get this predictable nonsence of couples juggling their earnings so as to come just under some cut-off point.
In effect we are still living under the mediaeval presumption that husband and wife are legally a single person - but now only for some purposes.
|
|
The problem, as I see it is that can work but no incentive to work, is the problem. Who is going to go out to work for £x a week in hand when they can stay at home for £x + 50 a week. I add that I worked until I was 71 as the money was useful and I didn't have anything better to do with my time. Not working for a bigger income is an easy choice for some people although there is a moral dimension to it too.
|
I agree. But the system has deliberately brought about these shortcomings.
By design there is no moral dimension. The system works on allowances, entitlements, and rights. There has not been the slightest pretence at a moral dimension ever since 1944.
Job centre and social services staff have been carefully trained to have no moral standpoint. Those that do are ruthlessly disciplined and pruned out.
|
|
I went to "sign on" in hope rather than expectation. Twenty minute "sift" interview and then onto the JCP - what a totally de-humanising experience - from the stained sofas, security man to the disinterested granite faced civil servant that conducted the interview. I shrugged it off but it must be a total culture shock to the legions of newly unemployed coming from their comfort zone to that place. Awful.
|
...to the disinterested granite faced civil servant that conducted the interview...
I did a limited amount of claiming when I was off sick with the hip - all done by phone and post.
When I returned to work, I was surprised to receive a hand written note from 'Sue' at the JobCentre congratulating me.
I think she thought I'd managed to obtain a new job, rather than returned to an existing one, but it was a kind gesture.
|
I married in 1971, first child in 1973 and 2 x more followed, SWMBO stopped work in 1973 to look after the kids until 1998, then her infirm/frail mother for who died in her late 90's.
SWMBO never worked for ££s, never paid NI after 1973 and at 60 she got a reduced pension from the state- we made £4000 voluntary contributions in 2005 and she gets £80 / week.
3rd party
She has not worked for more than 2/3 months every 3/4 years - then goes back on the dole. She receives unemployment benefit...........takes a job for a few months/ goes to college for a course........then signs on again. This is the pattern for the last 20 years.
Shortly to retire she will receive a FULL Pension of £103 + add-ons - you get this because as well as drawing the dole for 20+ years and working say 18 - 24 months SHE HAS BEEN CREDITED WITH NI CONTRIBUTIONS - so will get the full state pension.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16740199
Goodness sake - what's wrong with people ?
|
|
Tesco and the DWP people or their customers/clients people? As long as their wobbly/squelchy bits are concealed I don't think we should be too worried. I wasn't actually aware that either of these organisations operated a legally enforceable dress code. slightly TIC BTW!
|
|
People wearing their PJs in public though - good grief....awful
|
|
True - for men. I can't honestly tell the difference between ladies jim-jams and lightweight summer trousers. Where does one draw the line? Ban jeans worn low with the Calvin Klein band showing, visible tattoos, ripped jeans. I think that people providing what passes for a public service should accept their clients as they are, within the bounds of decency. This particularly applies if the staff have sour granite faces and stained sofas! Still TIC!
|
>> a public service should accept their clients as they are, within the bounds of decency.
Not in the benefits office it dont. If they cant turn up to collect free money dressed, they are not fit for work.
Throw them out and stop the benefits till they can turn up appropriately dressed.
|
|
Might be a nice idea but how you are dressed has no bearing on your fitness for work, I doubt there is any legal basis from removing people from a Benefits Office solely on the basis of how they are dressed. They might actually be unfit for work and turning up to collect that specific benefit? Cut them some slack most claimants are genuine and in need and don't need hassle from the fashion police.
|
Doesn't everyone sleep in the nude?
Pat
|
|
Not if it's only 11 degrees in the bedroom. :-(
|
|
See earlier post re electric blanket and/or hot babe! Plus warm jim-jams and bed sox! Too much information!
|
|
Depends, I find if I'm grabbing 40 winks on a plane or in the car it's generally best to keep my underpants on.
|
>>Doesn't everyone sleep in the nude?<<
+1
|
>> Doesn't everyone sleep in the nude?
>>
>> Pat
>>
Do you?
|
from outrage over benefits to sleeping in the buff in 140 moves
I love this place!!
|
Of course L'es, it comes from years of sleeping in a lorry cab where space for dressing and undressing was somewhat limited.
Used to surpise the ladies of the night though when they knocked on the cab door;)
Pat
|
Used to surpise the ladies of the night though when they knocked on the cab door;)
Bye heck there is some right mingers i work in a area of the red light district in fact most depots are near one, some right rough mingers walking the streets.
|
>> Of course L'es, it comes from years of sleeping in a lorry cab where space for dressing and undressing was somewhat limited.
So why didn't you keep your clothes on if it was difficult to undress?
|
Would you go to bed in your work clothes?
Pat
|
>> Would you go to bed in your work clothes?
Good point.
|
>> Would you go to bed in your work clothes?
>>
>> Pat
>>
personally, no.
But I suppose Lygonos might (in his previous profession) ;-)
|
|
No clothes required back then it seems :-)
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16740199
Are they really pyjamas or are they Asian clothes?
|
>> >> www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16740199
>>
>> Are they really pyjamas or are they Asian clothes?
>>
Could be jim-jams and a housecoat but I thought Shalwar-Khameez or similar as well.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 27 Jan 12 at 14:18
|
>> Are they really pyjamas or are they Asian clothes?
Seems that a lazy pictures editor has picked it from the wrong library stock.
[still flouncing - only back to make that comment]
Last edited by: John H on Fri 27 Jan 12 at 14:40
|
It will forever be my claim to fame...I made JohnH flounce!
Zero used to be my challenge but I think he's getting too old now.
Pat
|
|
It was a pathetic flounce.
|
|
Is it possible to flounce in a Benefit Office wearing pyjams or does one do it in the nude?
|
|
looks to me typical asain salwar kameez the ladies wear them
|
Bottom line is no one should be able to afford something on benefits that they couldn't by working.
If household income is 40k then you don't need child benefit at all. Children suffering? Any parent that will let their children suffer wouldn't have been spending the child benefit on them in the first place!
In the last big recession two of my cousins moved abroad as they could not find work in the UK.
One of my friends moved to NZ last year as they were fed up of constantly facing redundancy and poor prospects.
Those out of work in expensive rental areas and claiming benefits should be moved somewhere locally that is cheaper. People that work have to do that when their circumstances change so why are benefit claimants exempt? Ones that have never worked should be shoved in very cheap places. Those that have worked and contributed should be given more leeway to find work.
Capping benefits to previous salary would be a great way of dealing with the scroungers. If they have never worked then they get NMW as a maximum total. Those that can be bothered to have found work should get extra and an easier transition from benefits to working. There is a lot that could be done through the tax system to make working better. Much higher personal tax allowances eg 10k would level the playing field more between benefits and working. If you earn NMW only I don't think you should be paying much tax at all. NMW is subsistence money.
Last edited by: teabelly on Sun 29 Jan 12 at 10:46
|
I do wonder whether or not social housing should be organised and run on a national basis.
Then there should be a one-stop organisation you go to for it and job centres should be tied in with it, so you can go in and look for work on a national basis, then they can search for social housing if required at the same time and arrange it in one action.
This may encourage people to move to areas with better employment opportunities as people need a bit of support to uproot and move somewhere new.
I think having less agencies to deal with would certainly make it easier for people to make the leap. I also think some sort of support for those not in social housing to move for jobs would be a good idea aswell, plus some sort of assistance for those who want to seek work abroad.
Its never a bad idea to make stuff easy for people.
|
>> I do wonder whether or not social housing should be organised and run on a
>> national basis.
.
>>
>> I think having less agencies to deal with would certainly make it easier for people
>> to make the leap.
NO, NO, NO..
Fewer agencies means fewer jobsworths... That would never do..
|
Haha, indeed. I think IDS is the biggest hope for such joined up thinking the system has atm.
I like this universal credit idea, im looking forward to seeing how it will work. It does strike me that theres alot of sense in one form, one means tested benefit, rather than having to apply for multiple benefits from multiple sources.
My father-in-law got in a right state trying to get on the right benefit as one agency said he was sick, another said he was disabled and yet another said he was fit to work and should be on jobseekers. He didnt know who to believe and none of the agencies believed eachother - the State in action :-/
|
Upthread Iffy says:
>>That's what we call a tactical pregnancy - prison was a feint possibility, so best to get another one going to >>emotionally blackmail the judge.
Surely Rebekah Brooks recent surrogate delivery......
No, that's a bit too cynical.
|
>> Upthread Iffy says:
>>
>> >>That's what we call a tactical pregnancy - prison was a feint possibility, so best
>> to get another one going to >>emotionally blackmail the judge.
>>
>> Surely Rebekah Brooks recent surrogate delivery......
>>
>> No, that's a bit too cynical.
>>
With equal rights should come equal punishment.
Last edited by: madf on Mon 30 Jan 12 at 06:52
|
I'm not sure what Rebekah Brooks, who has paid more in tax than a lot of us earn, has to do with a feckless single mother who costs the country thousands of pounds a week, and will continue to do so for most of her life.
|
>>feckless single mother<<
Most of these are so because a man has decided to duck out of their responsibilities to their child.
I sometimes think you don't realise it takes a male to produce a child Iffy, as well as a female.
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Mon 30 Jan 12 at 08:37
|
>> I sometimes think you don't realise it takes a male to produce a child Iffy,
>> as well as a female.
>>
>> Pat
>>
But a child does not have to be the result, pregnancy is a decision these days.
|
>> But a child does not have to be the result, pregnancy is a decision these
>> days.
and a route to idleness, free housing and benefits for many.
|
|
Im not sure I would describe bringing up a small child single handed as idleness. Personally I think one of the biggest causes of social problems in this country is the working mother or more accurately the economic necessity of mothers with young children to work rather than look after their children full time.
|
>> But a child does not have to be the result, pregnancy is a decision these
>> days.
Well up to apoint Lord Copper. The pill doesn't agree with everybody and users need to have RTFM. Mate of my daughter's missed the last step and didn't realise antibiotics could reduce her pill's efficacy - the wean's 18months now. And then there were the contemporaries on our ante natal classes 20yrs ago who's kid who was born clutching Mum's coil.
|
I could understand one, or maybe two babies born and then shoved off into foster care.
But four? And another on the way.
Someone needs to tell this woman to stop breeding, unless she acquires the will and resources to look after what she produces.
The man/men have not covered themselves in glory, but having seen her in the dock, he/they must be desperate - or blind.
Last edited by: Iffy on Mon 30 Jan 12 at 13:19
|
>> I'm not sure what Rebekah Brooks, who has paid more in tax than a lot
>> of us earn, has to do with a feckless single mother who costs the country
>> thousands of pounds a week, and will continue to do so for most of her
>> life.
I suppose the judge might be less sympathetic given they can afford a Nanny.
|
It isn't just this thread, there have been many on here where single mothers are mentioned and always in a derogatory manner.
We'd all do well to remember that a man, at some point, has been involved.
He is capable of making an adult decision to practice safe sex as well as the female.
He can choose to support the mother and the child.
The blame should not be one sided, as it so often is.
Pat
|
|
I agree. It's strange how all the censure is on the woman who chooses to look after the child but none on the man who walks away from the situation
|
|
Don't forget single male parents Pat! Men are subject to physical violence and are abandoned by by feckless partners too. Certainly not to the extent that women are but it is a problem.
|
I'm not Meldrew.
>>Men are subject to physical violence <<
I worked with a man who suffered that not so long ago, and it's so very sad and unforgivable.
Pat
|
My first girlfriend when I was 17 used to hit me, I used to have bruises all down my arms.
Luckily my current wife only gives me a clip round the ear if I dont agree shes lost weight :-p
|
|
No offence intended Pat. How could I be rude to a lady who feeds hedgehogs and has a shed with bedding and food in it for homeless cats??!!
|
...and don't forget 'sticks up for single mothers' too:)
To Iffy
Men never look at the mantelpiece when poking the fire do they?
But we should never forget that looks are but a piece of wrapping paper, and a sweet, good and kind nature can often hide underneath.
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Mon 30 Jan 12 at 16:42
|
Men never look at the mantelpiece when poking the fire do they?
We don't thats what pillows are for we get them to face them & then 2x fires to poke.!
|
|
My experience has been that, even if only in appearance. the mantelpiece can look better than the fire.
Last edited by: Meldrew on Mon 30 Jan 12 at 17:08
|
You are a sweetie Meldrew;)
Pat
|
>> We don't thats what pillows are for we get them to face them
Bigtee, you are BBD.
AICMFP :)
Last edited by: Dave_TDCi on Mon 30 Jan 12 at 18:33
|
I've been poking my fire since last Thursday and I've kept it up continuously since then,
I nearly lost it this morning though but managed to keep it going all day,
I'm aiming to keep it up 24/7 all through the cold spell if possible.
|
Pat is quite right of course.
But I understand from people who sort of know that in some circles pregnancy can be tactical. I have no idea how widespread it is.
|
Estranged fathers often are automatically assumed to be absent by desire rather than by design, which is derogatory in itself. No story is that simple and 'single mother' does not mean 'abandoned by a man' either, there are a huge number of circumstances which lead to relationship breakdown - it takes two to make a relationship and two to make a child.
Some single mothers want the father involved, some dont.
Mine doesnt really, she just wants the money - many single mothers have suggested to me that it was a 'tactical' pregnancy as it made little sense how it played out otherwise - the majority of single mothers I know who havent got involvement of the father make a huge effort to get him involved, but there are also those who have no interest in working the father into the post-split arrangements, for a variety of reasons.
There are bad mothers and bad fathers, the only reason single mother is a more common term is because there is an assumption of custody in the mothers favour at this present time.
|
Some single mothers want the father involved, some dont.
Mine doesnt really, she just wants the money - many single mothers have suggested to me that it was a 'tactical' pregnancy as it made little sense how it played out otherwise - the majority of single mothers I know who havent got involvement of the father make a huge effort to get him involved, but there are also those who have no interest in working the father into the post-split arrangements, for a variety of reasons.
There are bad mothers and bad fathers, the only reason single mother is a more common term is because there is an assumption of custody in the mothers favour at this present time.
Spot on.
It's big bucks with the CSA the more you earn the more the mother gets, just pay it.
|
When I think of how being an estranged father feels, what it means to me, the only word I can come up with, is powerless - being a father is by consent of a childs mother and any power is illusionary, only existing if uncontested.
First thing to do on break up is offer more money than the CSA will collect, keeping those numpties out of the picture is a no brainer.
|
Benefit Changes Thread Volume 2. - Falkirk Bairn
