FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Is it ever acceptable to be on benifits?
Is it ever acceptable to be on benifits?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) and then when you reach hard times you use your banked allowance to help you through. once its gone, its gone. hard luck." That's not a bad idea at all.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"if you have worked, and paid into the system, then i see no reason why someone shouldt draw on that when they hit hard times. also, if you have a young family, you dont really have much of a choice but to do so. however, its the career mothers, or lazy feckless people that have no want to work that dont deserve it, imo. i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) and then when you reach hard times you use your banked allowance to help you through. once its gone, its gone. hard luck." well said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"if you have worked, and paid into the system, then i see no reason why someone shouldt draw on that when they hit hard times. also, if you have a young family, you dont really have much of a choice but to do so. however, its the career mothers, or lazy feckless people that have no want to work that dont deserve it, imo. i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) and then when you reach hard times you use your banked allowance to help you through. once its gone, its gone. hard luck. well said "There would have to be exceptions for special needs and disables people to some extent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) and then when you reach hard times you use your banked allowance to help you through. once its gone, its gone. hard luck. That's not a bad idea at all. "As many benefits are geared around looking after and bringing up children is it also hard luck on them to when threir parents benefits run out - seems rather ill thought out as a suggestion to me  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"if you have worked, and paid into the system, then i see no reason why someone shouldt draw on that when they hit hard times. also, if you have a young family, you dont really have much of a choice but to do so. however, its the career mothers, or lazy feckless people that have no want to work that dont deserve it, imo. i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) and then when you reach hard times you use your banked allowance to help you through. once its gone, its gone. hard luck." This already happens but from when youngest is 9 and the age will drop to eventually 5 when youngest starts school removing everyone off income support and putting them on job seekers so people have to actually look for work and be willing to work. Loads of back to work help too. Help wit cv etc and the new scheme of work experience when it gets underway. Plus there will be the new universal benefits so it will all be capped under one benefit. Job centres are moving out to the communities. In my local childrens centre we have a back to work person come in for drop in service. And while children are in play group mums can refresh their literacy and numeracy skills which I think is a great idea. There is help out there if you know where to look. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) and then when you reach hard times you use your banked allowance to help you through. once its gone, its gone. hard luck. That's not a bad idea at all.
As many benefits are geared around looking after and bringing up children is it also hard luck on them to when threir parents benefits run out - seems rather ill thought out as a suggestion to me "Well there are plenty of parents out there working and paying their way so what's wrong with limiting a free ride to 5 years? Or should those of us working pay for a life time on benefits? Face it things have to have some limit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was made redundant a month ago and did not want to sign on. All my friends and family said I was stupid but I haven't signed on for 25 years. After a month of looking for jobs joining job agencies on the web sending countless CVs out I finally made a claim on Friday !!!! I suppose as I have paid in I am entitled but not happy with it. "It's not a good feeling nor a pleasant experience. Hope you get sorted soon xx | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it ever acceptable to be on benifits? Yes, but it is totally unacceptable to be on them and not to spell it correctly ! You should know the forum spell check police will be after you now. I shall have a false passport made up for you. In the mean time, wear a comedy glasses, nose and moustache combo and lay low. We won't tell them where you are !" lol sorry bussy x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was made redundant a month ago and did not want to sign on. All my friends and family said I was stupid but I haven't signed on for 25 years. After a month of looking for jobs joining job agencies on the web sending countless CVs out I finally made a claim on Friday !!!! I suppose as I have paid in I am entitled but not happy with it. "You're who the system was designed for. I can't imagine how you feel claiming, so I'll wish you good luck in finding a job soon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was made redundant a month ago and did not want to sign on. All my friends and family said I was stupid but I haven't signed on for 25 years. After a month of looking for jobs joining job agencies on the web sending countless CVs out I finally made a claim on Friday !!!! I suppose as I have paid in I am entitled but not happy with it.
It's not a good feeling nor a pleasant experience. Hope you get sorted soon xx"Thanks for that it's really appreciated and I am very optomistic about finding work. Going to do some courses which are going to be expensive but with the additional certificates it should vastly improve my chances of getting a job fingers crossed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But for the grace of God... I have no issue with people being on benefits who have worked and contributed then fallen on hard times. It's the career claimants that annoy." what do you mean by career claimants? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a general question. There's been some strong views on this before and from the outlook its come across that its not accepted. Before when i was fortunate to be working i often took a dim view on people who were receiving benefits, and now that i'm in a position where i am receiving help i'm exceptionally grateful. By no means is it an easy option. I do not have a lavish lifestyle, do not smoke, drink or do drugs yet there are still issues with peoples attitudes towards my current situation. Feel free to enlighten me. " Because some people have limited imagination and zero empathy. Dont let it worry you.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) and then when you reach hard times you use your banked allowance to help you through. once its gone, its gone. hard luck. That's not a bad idea at all.
As many benefits are geared around looking after and bringing up children is it also hard luck on them to when threir parents benefits run out - seems rather ill thought out as a suggestion to me
Well there are plenty of parents out there working and paying their way so what's wrong with limiting a free ride to 5 years? Or should those of us working pay for a life time on benefits? Face it things have to have some limit. "Still doesnt answer what happens to the children  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Worked most ov my life till few yr ago n stoped working 2 care 4 my dad.now ive started looking 4 work again im lucky 2 get a interview never mind a job.i look 4 work everyday i cant find owt.i hate been on the dole n it certainly aint a lifestyle choice.n hate the way ppl look down on me when i tell them im on benefits.like i said worked most my life n payed plenty ov taxes." Although i have masses to be grateful for i still feel that my own self worth is down because i'm not working. So can relate on that issue. Good Luck. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Well there are plenty of parents out there working and paying their way so what's wrong with limiting a free ride to 5 years? Or should those of us working pay for a life time on benefits? Face it things have to have some limit. Still doesnt answer what happens to the children "When a child is 5 they would be in full time education, so only reason i can see for a parent not working is lack of jobs or no motivation to create working opportunities for themselves | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) and then when you reach hard times you use your banked allowance to help you through. once its gone, its gone. hard luck. That's not a bad idea at all. "Hard luck? Starved and homeless? Don't talk rubbish it's great Britain not Iran. Everyone entitled to it of they need it & jail terms for them who abuse including all expenses scandal mp's | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) and then when you reach hard times you use your banked allowance to help you through. once its gone, its gone. hard luck. That's not a bad idea at all.
As many benefits are geared around looking after and bringing up children is it also hard luck on them to when threir parents benefits run out - seems rather ill thought out as a suggestion to me
Well there are plenty of parents out there working and paying their way so what's wrong with limiting a free ride to 5 years? Or should those of us working pay for a life time on benefits? Face it things have to have some limit.
Still doesnt answer what happens to the children "The same that happens to single parents who work already of which there are hundreds of thousands already. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But for the grace of God... I have no issue with people being on benefits who have worked and contributed then fallen on hard times. It's the career claimants that annoy. what do you mean by career claimants?" Those that have been on benefits from day one and have no intention of working. They'll find every excuse not to work and if a woman, will state she can't leave her kids and go to work as she's a good mum, implying those of us that are working mums are not good mothers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But for the grace of God... I have no issue with people being on benefits who have worked and contributed then fallen on hard times. It's the career claimants that annoy. what do you mean by career claimants? Those that have been on benefits from day one and have no intention of working. They'll find every excuse not to work and if a woman, will state she can't leave her kids and go to work as she's a good mum, implying those of us that are working mums are not good mothers." ah cool beans.. thanks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) and then when you reach hard times you use your banked allowance to help you through. once its gone, its gone. hard luck. That's not a bad idea at all.
As many benefits are geared around looking after and bringing up children is it also hard luck on them to when threir parents benefits run out - seems rather ill thought out as a suggestion to me
Well there are plenty of parents out there working and paying their way so what's wrong with limiting a free ride to 5 years? Or should those of us working pay for a life time on benefits? Face it things have to have some limit.
Still doesnt answer what happens to the children
The same that happens to single parents who work already of which there are hundreds of thousands already. "Sorry lost me there - we are talking about stopping benefits for all after say 5 years which would mean children possible living on the streets and begging along side their parents - is that so difficult to understand - this is how people live in the 3rd world | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) and then when you reach hard times you use your banked allowance to help you through. once its gone, its gone. hard luck. That's not a bad idea at all.
As many benefits are geared around looking after and bringing up children is it also hard luck on them to when threir parents benefits run out - seems rather ill thought out as a suggestion to me
Well there are plenty of parents out there working and paying their way so what's wrong with limiting a free ride to 5 years? Or should those of us working pay for a life time on benefits? Face it things have to have some limit.
Still doesnt answer what happens to the children
The same that happens to single parents who work already of which there are hundreds of thousands already.
Sorry lost me there - we are talking about stopping benefits for all after say 5 years which would mean children possible living on the streets and begging along side their parents - is that so difficult to understand - this is how people live in the 3rd world"You are easily lost by the looks of it! 5 years is long enough for anyone who is fit and able to find some sort of employment even if it is voluntary work (Which benefits could still be given). Nobody ever said anything about being out on the streets apart from you. But you were asking what world happen with the children! What do you think happens to the hundreds of thousands of parents that currently work? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"if you have worked, and paid into the system, then i see no reason why someone shouldt draw on that when they hit hard times. also, if you have a young family, you dont really have much of a choice but to do so. however, its the career mothers, or lazy feckless people that have no want to work that dont deserve it, imo. i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) and then when you reach hard times you use your banked allowance to help you through. once its gone, its gone. hard luck. well said
There would have to be exceptions for special needs and disables people to some extent. "agrea with this but not the last bit as most people with genuin disabilitys and learning dificultys do work wether it be paid or volantry work | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"if you have worked, and paid into the system, then i see no reason why someone shouldt draw on that when they hit hard times. also, if you have a young family, you dont really have much of a choice but to do so. however, its the career mothers, or lazy feckless people that have no want to work that dont deserve it, imo. i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) and then when you reach hard times you use your banked allowance to help you through. once its gone, its gone. hard luck. well said
There would have to be exceptions for special needs and disables people to some extent.
agrea with this but not the last bit as most people with genuin disabilitys and learning dificultys do work wether it be paid or volantry work "Granted a lot do and the govt has made it easier for them to compete for jobs I know many who hold down good jobs and are more astute than many able bodied people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hold on! Let's get this straight! The government is actually giving out free money? Where??? "----- over there | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) and then when you reach hard times you use your banked allowance to help you through. once its gone, its gone. hard luck. That's not a bad idea at all.
As many benefits are geared around looking after and bringing up children is it also hard luck on them to when threir parents benefits run out - seems rather ill thought out as a suggestion to me
Well there are plenty of parents out there working and paying their way so what's wrong with limiting a free ride to 5 years? Or should those of us working pay for a life time on benefits? Face it things have to have some limit.
Still doesnt answer what happens to the children
The same that happens to single parents who work already of which there are hundreds of thousands already.
Sorry lost me there - we are talking about stopping benefits for all after say 5 years which would mean children possible living on the streets and begging along side their parents - is that so difficult to understand - this is how people live in the 3rd world
You are easily lost by the looks of it! 5 years is long enough for anyone who is fit and able to find some sort of employment even if it is voluntary work (Which benefits could still be given). Nobody ever said anything about being out on the streets apart from you. But you were asking what world happen with the children! What do you think happens to the hundreds of thousands of parents that currently work? "What are you on about - the discussion is about people on benefits not those in work and incidently many people who work are on benefits would you stop those to and you still havent answered the question what happens to the children when their parents benefits stop, its not their fault they have parents who won't work | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) " Think people have missed the part that it's 5 years starting point with extensions base on work / contributions. For the child benefits that gives two parents who could be working even if they are not together the contributions could still count. Much to easy to say "but what about the children" and do nothing, this proposal has some merit, there are other things to look at too, e.g. job creation schemes in areas of high unemployment, re-training schemes... all of which could get you extra credits on to the 5 years giving ample oppertunity for the system to work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are you on about - the discussion is about people on benefits not those in work and incidently many people who work are on benefits would you stop those to and you still havent answered the question what happens to the children when their parents benefits stop, its not their fault they have parents who won't work" If both parents are not in work for no other reason than being lazy, then that is child abuse. So take them into foster care put them with a family that has one full time working partner and one who works as a foster parent. Single parents happen is many ways, either one parent is no longer around the child, (so can work) or perhaps a partner dies, in which case you could add the 5 years + they were entitled to to the family account... gives 10 years + to sort the children and get into a job that will qualify for tax and a stamp therefore extending the entitlement to benefits... Damn we should be politicians instead of swingers  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) Think people have missed the part that it's 5 years starting point with extensions base on work / contributions. For the child benefits that gives two parents who could be working even if they are not together the contributions could still count. Much to easy to say "but what about the children" and do nothing, this proposal has some merit, there are other things to look at too, e.g. job creation schemes in areas of high unemployment, re-training schemes... all of which could get you extra credits on to the 5 years giving ample oppertunity for the system to work." But the same people that say cut benefits also say you can't create jobs or it's not the governments job to create jobs so where does that leave us - There are not enough jobs for those actively looking let alone those who arn't actively looking and are on benefits | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are you on about - the discussion is about people on benefits not those in work and incidently many people who work are on benefits would you stop those to and you still havent answered the question what happens to the children when their parents benefits stop, its not their fault they have parents who won't work If both parents are not in work for no other reason than being lazy, then that is child abuse. So take them into foster care put them with a family that has one full time working partner and one who works as a foster parent. Single parents happen is many ways, either one parent is no longer around the child, (so can work) or perhaps a partner dies, in which case you could add the 5 years + they were entitled to to the family account... gives 10 years + to sort the children and get into a job that will qualify for tax and a stamp therefore extending the entitlement to benefits... Damn we should be politicians instead of swingers "Seriously are you in medication put kids in foster care as their parents are unemployed. Think the politicians we have are bad enough without making them worse. They do need to be out of parliament but only to be replaced with better. Not loonies | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are you on about - the discussion is about people on benefits not those in work and incidently many people who work are on benefits would you stop those to and you still havent answered the question what happens to the children when their parents benefits stop, its not their fault they have parents who won't work If both parents are not in work for no other reason than being lazy, then that is child abuse. So take them into foster care put them with a family that has one full time working partner and one who works as a foster parent. Single parents happen is many ways, either one parent is no longer around the child, (so can work) or perhaps a partner dies, in which case you could add the 5 years + they were entitled to to the family account... gives 10 years + to sort the children and get into a job that will qualify for tax and a stamp therefore extending the entitlement to benefits... Damn we should be politicians instead of swingers "How can that be classed as child abuse and it would cost far more to put the children with foster parents than leave them with their natural parents | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) and then when you reach hard times you use your banked allowance to help you through. once its gone, its gone. hard luck. That's not a bad idea at all.
As many benefits are geared around looking after and bringing up children is it also hard luck on them to when threir parents benefits run out - seems rather ill thought out as a suggestion to me
Well there are plenty of parents out there working and paying their way so what's wrong with limiting a free ride to 5 years? Or should those of us working pay for a life time on benefits? Face it things have to have some limit.
Still doesnt answer what happens to the children
The same that happens to single parents who work already of which there are hundreds of thousands already.
Sorry lost me there - we are talking about stopping benefits for all after say 5 years which would mean children possible living on the streets and begging along side their parents - is that so difficult to understand - this is how people live in the 3rd world
You are easily lost by the looks of it! 5 years is long enough for anyone who is fit and able to find some sort of employment even if it is voluntary work (Which benefits could still be given). Nobody ever said anything about being out on the streets apart from you. But you were asking what world happen with the children! What do you think happens to the hundreds of thousands of parents that currently work?
What are you on about - the discussion is about people on benefits not those in work and incidently many people who work are on benefits would you stop those to and you still havent answered the question what happens to the children when their parents benefits stop, its not their fault they have parents who won't work"The children would remain with their parents I wouldn't give people the chance NOT to work after 5 years it wouldn't be an option. If they refused though point blankly to contribute to society and insisted on sponging out rather than contributing they would be deemed unfit to keep the children. Child care would be available to all going back to work. It sounds like you do not like the idea of people pulling their weight! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) and then when you reach hard times you use your banked allowance to help you through. once its gone, its gone. hard luck. That's not a bad idea at all.
As many benefits are geared around looking after and bringing up children is it also hard luck on them to when threir parents benefits run out - seems rather ill thought out as a suggestion to me
Well there are plenty of parents out there working and paying their way so what's wrong with limiting a free ride to 5 years? Or should those of us working pay for a life time on benefits? Face it things have to have some limit.
Still doesnt answer what happens to the children
The same that happens to single parents who work already of which there are hundreds of thousands already.
Sorry lost me there - we are talking about stopping benefits for all after say 5 years which would mean children possible living on the streets and begging along side their parents - is that so difficult to understand - this is how people live in the 3rd world
You are easily lost by the looks of it! 5 years is long enough for anyone who is fit and able to find some sort of employment even if it is voluntary work (Which benefits could still be given). Nobody ever said anything about being out on the streets apart from you. But you were asking what world happen with the children! What do you think happens to the hundreds of thousands of parents that currently work?
What are you on about - the discussion is about people on benefits not those in work and incidently many people who work are on benefits would you stop those to and you still havent answered the question what happens to the children when their parents benefits stop, its not their fault they have parents who won't work
The children would remain with their parents I wouldn't give people the chance NOT to work after 5 years it wouldn't be an option. If they refused though point blankly to contribute to society and insisted on sponging out rather than contributing they would be deemed unfit to keep the children. Child care would be available to all going back to work. It sounds like you do not like the idea of people pulling their weight! "As a matter of fact i do not work at the moment, my choice though as I'm financially very stable and don't need to. I don't begrudge anyone in benefits money to survive. Oh ... I'm also financially stable through being in work for many years not through born with a silver spoon. I'm sure some here are prob paid up members of BNP too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are you on about - the discussion is about people on benefits not those in work and incidently many people who work are on benefits would you stop those to and you still havent answered the question what happens to the children when their parents benefits stop, its not their fault they have parents who won't work If both parents are not in work for no other reason than being lazy, then that is child abuse. So take them into foster care put them with a family that has one full time working partner and one who works as a foster parent. Single parents happen is many ways, either one parent is no longer around the child, (so can work) or perhaps a partner dies, in which case you could add the 5 years + they were entitled to to the family account... gives 10 years + to sort the children and get into a job that will qualify for tax and a stamp therefore extending the entitlement to benefits... Damn we should be politicians instead of swingers "I was going to keep out of this but I couldn't. 2 parents on the dole is child abuse?? Clearly you never suffered child abuse!! Take them away from loving parents because they haven't got a job wtf, no, I mean, WTF!!!!!! There's too many children hoping for foster care as it is, that have been took away from parents for ACTUAL child abuse!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are you on about - the discussion is about people on benefits not those in work and incidently many people who work are on benefits would you stop those to and you still havent answered the question what happens to the children when their parents benefits stop, its not their fault they have parents who won't work If both parents are not in work for no other reason than being lazy, then that is child abuse. So take them into foster care put them with a family that has one full time working partner and one who works as a foster parent. Single parents happen is many ways, either one parent is no longer around the child, (so can work) or perhaps a partner dies, in which case you could add the 5 years + they were entitled to to the family account... gives 10 years + to sort the children and get into a job that will qualify for tax and a stamp therefore extending the entitlement to benefits... Damn we should be politicians instead of swingers
I was going to keep out of this but I couldn't. 2 parents on the dole is child abuse?? Clearly you never suffered child abuse!! Take them away from loving parents because they haven't got a job wtf, no, I mean, WTF!!!!!! There's too many children hoping for foster care as it is, that have been took away from parents for ACTUAL child abuse!! " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) and then when you reach hard times you use your banked allowance to help you through. once its gone, its gone. hard luck. That's not a bad idea at all.
As many benefits are geared around looking after and bringing up children is it also hard luck on them to when threir parents benefits run out - seems rather ill thought out as a suggestion to me
Well there are plenty of parents out there working and paying their way so what's wrong with limiting a free ride to 5 years? Or should those of us working pay for a life time on benefits? Face it things have to have some limit.
Still doesnt answer what happens to the children
The same that happens to single parents who work already of which there are hundreds of thousands already.
Sorry lost me there - we are talking about stopping benefits for all after say 5 years which would mean children possible living on the streets and begging along side their parents - is that so difficult to understand - this is how people live in the 3rd world
You are easily lost by the looks of it! 5 years is long enough for anyone who is fit and able to find some sort of employment even if it is voluntary work (Which benefits could still be given). Nobody ever said anything about being out on the streets apart from you. But you were asking what world happen with the children! What do you think happens to the hundreds of thousands of parents that currently work?
What are you on about - the discussion is about people on benefits not those in work and incidently many people who work are on benefits would you stop those to and you still havent answered the question what happens to the children when their parents benefits stop, its not their fault they have parents who won't work
The children would remain with their parents I wouldn't give people the chance NOT to work after 5 years it wouldn't be an option. If they refused though point blankly to contribute to society and insisted on sponging out rather than contributing they would be deemed unfit to keep the children. Child care would be available to all going back to work. It sounds like you do not like the idea of people pulling their weight!
As a matter of fact i do not work at the moment, my choice though as I'm financially very stable and don't need to. I don't begrudge anyone in benefits money to survive. Oh ... I'm also financially stable through being in work for many years not through born with a silver spoon. I'm sure some here are prob paid up members of BNP too"Well, that sounds like time to go to the shelter. Bombs about to go in the air! Anyone care to join me? I got Chocolate Digestives! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How can that be classed as child abuse and it would cost far more to put the children with foster parents than leave them with their natural parents" In refusing to teach the children a work ethic, which would lead to a better life for them in the future, thats child abuse. and we are not talking of short term here we are talking of 5 years minimum before it happens... as for costing more, that is not actually the issue, and would it really cost more than having generations of non working people as thats all they have known? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) and then when you reach hard times you use your banked allowance to help you through. once its gone, its gone. hard luck. That's not a bad idea at all.
As many benefits are geared around looking after and bringing up children is it also hard luck on them to when threir parents benefits run out - seems rather ill thought out as a suggestion to me
Well there are plenty of parents out there working and paying their way so what's wrong with limiting a free ride to 5 years? Or should those of us working pay for a life time on benefits? Face it things have to have some limit.
Still doesnt answer what happens to the children
The same that happens to single parents who work already of which there are hundreds of thousands already.
Sorry lost me there - we are talking about stopping benefits for all after say 5 years which would mean children possible living on the streets and begging along side their parents - is that so difficult to understand - this is how people live in the 3rd world
You are easily lost by the looks of it! 5 years is long enough for anyone who is fit and able to find some sort of employment even if it is voluntary work (Which benefits could still be given). Nobody ever said anything about being out on the streets apart from you. But you were asking what world happen with the children! What do you think happens to the hundreds of thousands of parents that currently work?
What are you on about - the discussion is about people on benefits not those in work and incidently many people who work are on benefits would you stop those to and you still havent answered the question what happens to the children when their parents benefits stop, its not their fault they have parents who won't work
The children would remain with their parents I wouldn't give people the chance NOT to work after 5 years it wouldn't be an option. If they refused though point blankly to contribute to society and insisted on sponging out rather than contributing they would be deemed unfit to keep the children. Child care would be available to all going back to work. It sounds like you do not like the idea of people pulling their weight! "When did I ever say that people shouldn't pull their weight - The point I'm making is that if there was an easy cost effective way of doing what you suggest then sucessive governments would have done it already - but to think someone can wave a magic wand and cure societies ill is just so naive | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) and then when you reach hard times you use your banked allowance to help you through. once its gone, its gone. hard luck. That's not a bad idea at all.
As many benefits are geared around looking after and bringing up children is it also hard luck on them to when threir parents benefits run out - seems rather ill thought out as a suggestion to me
Well there are plenty of parents out there working and paying their way so what's wrong with limiting a free ride to 5 years? Or should those of us working pay for a life time on benefits? Face it things have to have some limit.
Still doesnt answer what happens to the children
The same that happens to single parents who work already of which there are hundreds of thousands already.
Sorry lost me there - we are talking about stopping benefits for all after say 5 years which would mean children possible living on the streets and begging along side their parents - is that so difficult to understand - this is how people live in the 3rd world
You are easily lost by the looks of it! 5 years is long enough for anyone who is fit and able to find some sort of employment even if it is voluntary work (Which benefits could still be given). Nobody ever said anything about being out on the streets apart from you. But you were asking what world happen with the children! What do you think happens to the hundreds of thousands of parents that currently work?
What are you on about - the discussion is about people on benefits not those in work and incidently many people who work are on benefits would you stop those to and you still havent answered the question what happens to the children when their parents benefits stop, its not their fault they have parents who won't work
The children would remain with their parents I wouldn't give people the chance NOT to work after 5 years it wouldn't be an option. If they refused though point blankly to contribute to society and insisted on sponging out rather than contributing they would be deemed unfit to keep the children. Child care would be available to all going back to work. It sounds like you do not like the idea of people pulling their weight!
As a matter of fact i do not work at the moment, my choice though as I'm financially very stable and don't need to. I don't begrudge anyone in benefits money to survive. Oh ... I'm also financially stable through being in work for many years not through born with a silver spoon. I'm sure some here are prob paid up members of BNP too
Well, that sounds like time to go to the shelter. Bombs about to go in the air!
Anyone care to join me? I got Chocolate Digestives! "Only of they are bought from benefits. Taste much nicer | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How can that be classed as child abuse and it would cost far more to put the children with foster parents than leave them with their natural parents In refusing to teach the children a work ethic, which would lead to a better life for them in the future, thats child abuse. and we are not talking of short term here we are talking of 5 years minimum before it happens... as for costing more, that is not actually the issue, and would it really cost more than having generations of non working people as thats all they have known?" No there are better ways of breaking generations of unemployement - give kids something to aspire to - role models - mentors - rather than them relying on instant fame or winning the lottery | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) and then when you reach hard times you use your banked allowance to help you through. once its gone, its gone. hard luck. That's not a bad idea at all.
As many benefits are geared around looking after and bringing up children is it also hard luck on them to when threir parents benefits run out - seems rather ill thought out as a suggestion to me
Well there are plenty of parents out there working and paying their way so what's wrong with limiting a free ride to 5 years? Or should those of us working pay for a life time on benefits? Face it things have to have some limit.
Still doesnt answer what happens to the children
The same that happens to single parents who work already of which there are hundreds of thousands already.
Sorry lost me there - we are talking about stopping benefits for all after say 5 years which would mean children possible living on the streets and begging along side their parents - is that so difficult to understand - this is how people live in the 3rd world
You are easily lost by the looks of it! 5 years is long enough for anyone who is fit and able to find some sort of employment even if it is voluntary work (Which benefits could still be given). Nobody ever said anything about being out on the streets apart from you. But you were asking what world happen with the children! What do you think happens to the hundreds of thousands of parents that currently work?
What are you on about - the discussion is about people on benefits not those in work and incidently many people who work are on benefits would you stop those to and you still havent answered the question what happens to the children when their parents benefits stop, its not their fault they have parents who won't work
The children would remain with their parents I wouldn't give people the chance NOT to work after 5 years it wouldn't be an option. If they refused though point blankly to contribute to society and insisted on sponging out rather than contributing they would be deemed unfit to keep the children. Child care would be available to all going back to work. It sounds like you do not like the idea of people pulling their weight!
When did I ever say that people shouldn't pull their weight - The point I'm making is that if there was an easy cost effective way of doing what you suggest then sucessive governments would have done it already - but to think someone can wave a magic wand and cure societies ill is just so naive"Yes you are naieve, if governments were to go down this route you would ave all the lazy and fekless voting them out rather than stopping in bed on voting day. It has nothing to do with magic wands it is what they can do while maintaining popularity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry lost me there - we are talking about stopping benefits for all after say 5 years which would mean children possible living on the streets and begging along side their parents - is that so difficult to understand - this is how people live in the 3rd world" Completely agree. There are companies and individuals in this country who avoid tax paying to the sum of £billions, and there would be no issue paying out the benefits that we currently have, to those entitled to them. Governments have allowed too many loopholes, but when you realise that there are so many millionaires in the government cabinet, some of whom do not pay tax as residents, you realise that they're not of the same mindset as those who have struggled financially. The government has demonised benefit recipients, almost like trolls setting off arguments, and we're falling for their spin/trolling by going against each other. The greedy and thieving £multi-million cheats are the ones to despise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) and then when you reach hard times you use your banked allowance to help you through. once its gone, its gone. hard luck. That's not a bad idea at all.
As many benefits are geared around looking after and bringing up children is it also hard luck on them to when threir parents benefits run out - seems rather ill thought out as a suggestion to me
Well there are plenty of parents out there working and paying their way so what's wrong with limiting a free ride to 5 years? Or should those of us working pay for a life time on benefits? Face it things have to have some limit.
Still doesnt answer what happens to the children
The same that happens to single parents who work already of which there are hundreds of thousands already.
Sorry lost me there - we are talking about stopping benefits for all after say 5 years which would mean children possible living on the streets and begging along side their parents - is that so difficult to understand - this is how people live in the 3rd world
You are easily lost by the looks of it! 5 years is long enough for anyone who is fit and able to find some sort of employment even if it is voluntary work (Which benefits could still be given). Nobody ever said anything about being out on the streets apart from you. But you were asking what world happen with the children! What do you think happens to the hundreds of thousands of parents that currently work?
What are you on about - the discussion is about people on benefits not those in work and incidently many people who work are on benefits would you stop those to and you still havent answered the question what happens to the children when their parents benefits stop, its not their fault they have parents who won't work
The children would remain with their parents I wouldn't give people the chance NOT to work after 5 years it wouldn't be an option. If they refused though point blankly to contribute to society and insisted on sponging out rather than contributing they would be deemed unfit to keep the children. Child care would be available to all going back to work. It sounds like you do not like the idea of people pulling their weight!
When did I ever say that people shouldn't pull their weight - The point I'm making is that if there was an easy cost effective way of doing what you suggest then sucessive governments would have done it already - but to think someone can wave a magic wand and cure societies ill is just so naive
Yes you are naieve, if governments were to go down this route you would ave all the lazy and fekless voting them out rather than stopping in bed on voting day. It has nothing to do with magic wands it is what they can do while maintaining popularity. "I really do dispair with the attitude of some people no wonder this country is going down hill rapidly as a caring tolerant society - I have no more to add - closes door behind me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was going to keep out of this but I couldn't. 2 parents on the dole is child abuse?? Clearly you never suffered child abuse!! Take them away from loving parents because they haven't got a job wtf, no, I mean, WTF!!!!!! There's too many children hoping for foster care as it is, that have been took away from parents for ACTUAL child abuse!! totaly agree there "Sorry no, it is abuse. I have friends in the benefit trap. raised their kids with never a holiday, or a day out, kids were bullied in school for having hand me down clothing and it's all to easy for the kids to not know there is a better life out there. The media have painted a picture of benefits being great for those who know the system showing them on great lifestyle etc. BUT the majority survive on minimums, actually working bloody hard to avoid starvation and god forbid that things start to go bad for them as there is no cash surplus to sort anything out ever! So they are destined to stay in the trap... that is long term abuse! 5 years to get another job, nobody mentioned no benefit system 5 years PLUS for every year either parent works that gets extended... add to that diability / accident / job creation contingencies, then all parents have the chance to raise there kids well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was going to keep out of this but I couldn't. 2 parents on the dole is child abuse?? Clearly you never suffered child abuse!! Take them away from loving parents because they haven't got a job wtf, no, I mean, WTF!!!!!! There's too many children hoping for foster care as it is, that have been took away from parents for ACTUAL child abuse!! totaly agree there
Sorry no, it is abuse. I have friends in the benefit trap. raised their kids with never a holiday, or a day out, kids were bullied in school for having hand me down clothing and it's all to easy for the kids to not know there is a better life out there.
The media have painted a picture of benefits being great for those who know the system showing them on great lifestyle etc. BUT the majority survive on minimums, actually working bloody hard to avoid starvation and god forbid that things start to go bad for them as there is no cash surplus to sort anything out ever!
So they are destined to stay in the trap... that is long term abuse!
5 years to get another job, nobody mentioned no benefit system 5 years PLUS for every year either parent works that gets extended... add to that diability / accident / job creation contingencies, then all parents have the chance to raise there kids well.
"I am sorry but I genuinely dont know whether to laugh or cry at this post...
So the only way a child can be loved is via material wealth and possessions and with out that you are abusing them?
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If both parents are not in work for no other reason than being lazy, then that is child abuse." And that applies to lottery winners who gave up work because they couldn't be arsed to go in anymore? 
What a stupid thing to say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) and then when you reach hard times you use your banked allowance to help you through. once its gone, its gone. hard luck. That's not a bad idea at all.
As many benefits are geared around looking after and bringing up children is it also hard luck on them to when threir parents benefits run out - seems rather ill thought out as a suggestion to me
Well there are plenty of parents out there working and paying their way so what's wrong with limiting a free ride to 5 years? Or should those of us working pay for a life time on benefits? Face it things have to have some limit.
Still doesnt answer what happens to the children
The same that happens to single parents who work already of which there are hundreds of thousands already.
Sorry lost me there - we are talking about stopping benefits for all after say 5 years which would mean children possible living on the streets and begging along side their parents - is that so difficult to understand - this is how people live in the 3rd world
You are easily lost by the looks of it! 5 years is long enough for anyone who is fit and able to find some sort of employment even if it is voluntary work (Which benefits could still be given). Nobody ever said anything about being out on the streets apart from you. But you were asking what world happen with the children! What do you think happens to the hundreds of thousands of parents that currently work?
What are you on about - the discussion is about people on benefits not those in work and incidently many people who work are on benefits would you stop those to and you still havent answered the question what happens to the children when their parents benefits stop, its not their fault they have parents who won't work
The children would remain with their parents I wouldn't give people the chance NOT to work after 5 years it wouldn't be an option. If they refused though point blankly to contribute to society and insisted on sponging out rather than contributing they would be deemed unfit to keep the children. Child care would be available to all going back to work. It sounds like you do not like the idea of people pulling their weight!
When did I ever say that people shouldn't pull their weight - The point I'm making is that if there was an easy cost effective way of doing what you suggest then sucessive governments would have done it already - but to think someone can wave a magic wand and cure societies ill is just so naive
Yes you are naieve, if governments were to go down this route you would ave all the lazy and fekless voting them out rather than stopping in bed on voting day. It has nothing to do with magic wands it is what they can do while maintaining popularity.
I really do dispair with the attitude of some people no wonder this country is going down hill rapidly as a caring tolerant society - I have no more to add - closes door behind me"Wait hold it! I'm right behind you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) and then when you reach hard times you use your banked allowance to help you through. once its gone, its gone. hard luck. That's not a bad idea at all.
As many benefits are geared around looking after and bringing up children is it also hard luck on them to when threir parents benefits run out - seems rather ill thought out as a suggestion to me "of course its not ill thought out. how absurd. ahy should someone that has no children pay to ring up your children? you cant afford them, dont have them. thatsr the way the world SHOULD work, and how we kep the population down. its very easy to squeeze out loads of kids you have no intention of paying for thier upkeep, and live off the proceeds. its quite another thing to actually plan things and ensure you have the finances to cope with missing the first 5 years of your childs life from work, then going back when he starts at school. thats what im talking about. why do families need to be so big in a western society where mortality rates are very low? hell, they shouldnt be sizable in a society where mortality is high simply because less mouths to feed = more food for those that survive. have we forgotten that positive evolution is survival of the fittest? when we allow the lowest of the low to survive then we infect the genepool, and its a slippery slope my friends. (actually the last bit is just an inane rant, the main point is in the first section of my post) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the only way a child can be loved is via material wealth and possessions and with out that you are abusing them? " A friend I know well had two kids, neither parent worked, they lived in a damp riden house in the benefit trap, kids were often hungry when they went to bed, and what they did eat was pretty poor quality, badly fitting shoes, shaby clothes may not seem important but school kids are vary cruel and pick up on these things as cause for bullying. So my view is biased, yes I feel those kids missed out on a happy childhood. Only when the kids got older and benefits were removed did the parents start work, started out below benefit levels but working tax credit helped get going, now they have a decent life style that the kids should have benefited from, but too late! Material wealth and possesions are far beyond what long term benefits give you. As I have said there are exceptions where there are no options... but to live life with no options is the same as living without hope! terrible thing to do to anyone of any age. I am very happy we live in a country with a welfare system which is not too bad, but I would rather pay more tax to a system that gives hope and prospects by working tax credit and job training / creation than a system designed to stop people starving and forget them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I there any free money or not? "Nope sorry there is a 1 in 13,983,816 chance you may win the lottery though  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've been unemployed 3 times in my life. The first time was my own choice after I relocated to London from the Midlands and I chose not to claim anything (though I could have) as it felt wrong as I was unemployed through choice. The other 2 times I did, once for a few weeks which wasnt that bad, the other for almost 4 months. I was single at the time and have no family so no one to help me out. People who think it is easy living on benefits haven't got a clue. I had just over a grand left of my last pay cheque, got my rent and council tax paid and then had less than £70 a week to live on. Even with having a grand to dip in to it was almost impossible to live. I ate the cheapest food I could (usually whatever was reduced and vaguely healthy), I possibly managed a night out a fortnight (usually a gig because that meant spending zero money beyond the admission fee), would take a bus to an interview even though it might take 3 or 4 times the time to get there because it was marginally cheaper than the tube. More often than not with my walking shoes in a bag to walk back home if I had no other interviews just to save another £1.20 bus fare. I was at one point a matter of hours from being homeless - a combination of an unsympathetic landlord and a lost claim for housing benefit and to this day am not sure how I dug myself out of that one. I would spend on average 4 or 5 hours a day job hunting online, luckily it was summer so I could go for a ride on my bike or for a walk in the park to occupy time because I had quite literally nothing else to do to kill time and I was going stir crazy. It was a hellish time but something I am glad I did. i never complain about getting a job now and mt heart goes out to those that are long term recipients. Anyone that thinks it is an easy life is an idiot that should look behind the sensationalist crap that the media publishes - for most people it simply isn;t like that. As for benefits cheats, easy to stigmatize and arguably unjustified behaviour but I suspect more often motivated by desperation rather than greed. Unlike MP's and their expenses or the super rich avoiding their tax liabilities."
Totally agree, i've had to claim twice in my life, once because we returned from living abroad and had no other choice, luckily for only a couple of months.....and once about 3 years ago, when i got so sick of working for greedy self righteous, nob heads, again only for a couple of months while i set up my own business.....without doubt 2 of the hardest, most depressing and soul crushing periods of my life.....Living on benefits for me was near on impossible, i think if had to stay on benefits for any length of time i would have gone stir crazy......in my opinion the majority of people on benefits are not claiming through choice but necessity, but i can see how easy it is for people to find their way onto benefits and truly struggle to get off....its soul crushing and confidence sapping and i think after a year or 2 on benefits i would have found it so difficult to find the self belief to actually get a job.
Actually its the type of attitudes that we are seeing from certain forum posters (you know who) that confound the problem and make people ashamed and embarrassed and struggle to find work....These people in my opinion are a bigger problem than the actual so called benefit frauds, they think they can do a better job of running the country by taking millions of kids out of loving homes and putting them into foster care (which by the way costs around £26,000 per year, per child to the government), what an absolute joke, its people and attitudes like this that have put this country in the shit in the first place, only one word comes to mind...... douche!!! no doubt they work in banking and read the daily mail.
Whatever system you have (in anything) there are going to be people who abuse it, thats just life.....but to condemn a whole section of people and their children because they have fallen on hard times is ludicrous, selfish, self righteous and plain idiotic. Since when does the amount of money you have or employment status have anything to do with your commitment and quality as a parent? in fact the opposite is probably true, at the very least the kids have 2 parents that are always around for them, how can that be considered a bad thing for children?.....thats why we see closer family units and a higher community spirit in some of the most underprivileged and deprived areas of Britain.
Charlie | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I there any free money or not?
Nope sorry there is a 1 in 13,983,816 chance you may win the lottery though "Ha I could win the lottery any time I liked! Step 1: get bank loan for £13,983,816 Step 2: buy 13,983,816 lottery tickets Step 3: win lottery Step 4: repeat steps 1 and 2. Step 5: INFINITE MONEYYYYYY!!! 
SEE U ALL LATERZ LOTTO FAGS! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and as for the post that said children need role models and mentors, who to mentor and role model for choldren but those they are supposed to look up to? their parents?? my dad was always my hero when i was a kid, and i got my work ethic from him. my mum did 2 jobs as we were growing up, 8 hours a day in a factory, then 5 hours in an evening in a pub. this is where my work ethic came from. if they had been sat at home all day, every day, smoking, drinking and squirting out more kids, i would more likely be doing the same now!" Think you need to reread the post - it's in the absence of good parents they need support not farmed off to fostor parents at greater cost | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and as for the post that said children need role models and mentors, who to mentor and role model for choldren but those they are supposed to look up to? their parents?? my dad was always my hero when i was a kid, and i got my work ethic from him. my mum did 2 jobs as we were growing up, 8 hours a day in a factory, then 5 hours in an evening in a pub. this is where my work ethic came from. if they had been sat at home all day, every day, smoking, drinking and squirting out more kids, i would more likely be doing the same now! Think you need to reread the post - it's in the absence of good parents they need support not farmed off to fostor parents at greater cost" i absolutely agree with you. but do you not see parents that have no interest in earning a way in life, and showing their kids a work ethic, and that they can have a positive influence in society as poor parents? you would agree that a parent not putting a plate of food on the table would be poor, yes? so surely, in the same context, a parent not giving his/her child the means to allow him to put his own plate on his own table when older is also a poor parent, no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"when we allow the lowest of the low to survive then we infect the genepool, and its a slippery slope my friends. Is that really how you think? I'm appalled at a response like that. I think you should be ashamed of yourself. " With benefits,IVF and other medical advances, this is the first period of human history that the weak and ill are being positively encouraged to procreate en-masse. This is a good thing, for now. However, I believe that humanity will have some very severe problems in a few generation's time, unless medical science keeps up with demand, and it's already falling behind. 
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and as for the post that said children need role models and mentors, who to mentor and role model for choldren but those they are supposed to look up to? their parents?? my dad was always my hero when i was a kid, and i got my work ethic from him. my mum did 2 jobs as we were growing up, 8 hours a day in a factory, then 5 hours in an evening in a pub. this is where my work ethic came from. if they had been sat at home all day, every day, smoking, drinking and squirting out more kids, i would more likely be doing the same now! Think you need to reread the post - it's in the absence of good parents they need support not farmed off to fostor parents at greater cost i absolutely agree with you. but do you not see parents that have no interest in earning a way in life, and showing their kids a work ethic, and that they can have a positive influence in society as poor parents? you would agree that a parent not putting a plate of food on the table would be poor, yes? so surely, in the same context, a parent not giving his/her child the means to allow him to put his own plate on his own table when older is also a poor parent, no?" Yes I recognise that it is a chain and they are poor parents but children can't choose their parents and yet 99.9% of children will love their parents no matter what and will see them as role models - so if they are poor it's important to redress the balence and provide positive roll models in some way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"when we allow the lowest of the low to survive then we infect the genepool, and its a slippery slope my friends. Is that really how you think? I'm appalled at a response like that. I think you should be ashamed of yourself. With benefits,IVF and other medical advances, this is the first period of human history that the weak and ill are being positively encouraged to procreate en-masse. This is a good thing, for now. However, I believe that humanity will have some very severe problems in a few generation's time, unless medical science keeps up with demand, and it's already falling behind.
"many already know my opinion on medical advances. we are far too clever fro our own goods. we enable the weak to flourish meanning the lessons of history are no longer valid, hence humanity will, soon enough, be a weaker species than it maybe would have been. before anyone gets on a high horse about me being barbaric and whatever, let me say this!!! if i get into an fatal accident/have a heart attack, or contract a life threatening disease, my family have already been instructed that i DO NOT want life saving treatment. i really do believe when its my time, i should go, and no amount of medical intervention should allow me to waver from this belief. i have been in 3 car accidents that would have killed many, and yet i walked away with nothing more than a bump to the head (explains a lot to some people i hear you mutter) so i know it wasnt my time at each of those points, but when it is, it is and i will die with dignity, on my terms, and without being a burden on friends, family, loved ones, or the state. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes I recognise that it is a chain and they are poor parents but children can't choose their parents and yet 99.9% of children will love their parents no matter what and will see them as role models - so if they are poor it's important to redress the balence and provide positive roll models in some way "so, what exactly are we disagreeing about? we agree that children need positive role models. we agree that some parents are not this are you REALLY advocating a life on the dole is a positive message to give a child? do you honestly tell me that someone that sits at home all day THROUGH CHOICE is a better parent than the tens of thousands that go out to work and show their children the same amount of love? under the system i mentioned, you could leave school, work for 5 years, have a child, and stay at home for the first 10 years of the childs life, so how is that throwing a child into poverty/on the street? is 10 years really to short a time to find a job? i really dont think so | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a general question. There's been some strong views on this before and from the outlook its come across that its not accepted. Before when i was fortunate to be working i often took a dim view on people who were receiving benefits, and now that i'm in a position where i am receiving help i'm exceptionally grateful. By no means is it an easy option. I do not have a lavish lifestyle, do not smoke, drink or do drugs yet there are still issues with peoples attitudes towards my current situation. so before when you was working your views on people claiming benefits was that they were scroungers defrauding the system and now you find yourself amongst them now there not? As a result of the current economic climate and people being made redundant left right and centre and more of the same for the forseeable future with us entering into another recession the people claiming benifits is going to continue to increase ...they say get on your bike to go find work ..truth is there are not that many jobs to apply for as a result of employers tightening there belts. Thanks to the government the view originally shared by yourself and many others that people claimining benefits are lazy work shy scroungers is diminishing as those very same people find themselves unemployed. The government loves people who think people on benefits are responsible for the countries huge debts as it takes the real blame of there own economic mis management of the country away from themselves. By the way just like to point out i work for a living and dont think theres anything wrong in people claiming benefits. Feel free to enlighten me. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes I recognise that it is a chain and they are poor parents but children can't choose their parents and yet 99.9% of children will love their parents no matter what and will see them as role models - so if they are poor it's important to redress the balence and provide positive roll models in some way
so, what exactly are we disagreeing about?
we agree that children need positive role models.
we agree that some parents are not this
are you REALLY advocating a life on the dole is a positive message to give a child?
do you honestly tell me that someone that sits at home all day THROUGH CHOICE is a better parent than the tens of thousands that go out to work and show their children the same amount of love?
under the system i mentioned, you could leave school, work for 5 years, have a child, and stay at home for the first 10 years of the childs life, so how is that throwing a child into poverty/on the street? is 10 years really to short a time to find a job? i really dont think so"were we disagreeing - my main point is that in an ideal world people will get jobs if they want them - but some people will leave school and never get work for many reason and maybe they shouldnt have children if they can't support them but they will - so you can't have a blanket policy that will then penalise those children - as a society maybe it's better for us in the long run to try and get them into a productive lifestyle | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes I recognise that it is a chain and they are poor parents but children can't choose their parents and yet 99.9% of children will love their parents no matter what and will see them as role models - so if they are poor it's important to redress the balence and provide positive roll models in some way
so, what exactly are we disagreeing about?
we agree that children need positive role models.
we agree that some parents are not this
are you REALLY advocating a life on the dole is a positive message to give a child?
do you honestly tell me that someone that sits at home all day THROUGH CHOICE is a better parent than the tens of thousands that go out to work and show their children the same amount of love?
under the system i mentioned, you could leave school, work for 5 years, have a child, and stay at home for the first 10 years of the childs life, so how is that throwing a child into poverty/on the street? is 10 years really to short a time to find a job? i really dont think so
were we disagreeing - my main point is that in an ideal world people will get jobs if they want them - but some people will leave school and never get work for many reason and maybe they shouldnt have children if they can't support them but they will - so you can't have a blanket policy that will then penalise those children - as a society maybe it's better for us in the long run to try and get them into a productive lifestyle"but its not society that is penalising those children, its their own parents surely? how would your opinion hold up without a benefits system at all? if it collapses, and it could do, then thats the state we would be in, whether we deserve to ahve them, or not | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes I recognise that it is a chain and they are poor parents but children can't choose their parents and yet 99.9% of children will love their parents no matter what and will see them as role models - so if they are poor it's important to redress the balence and provide positive roll models in some way
so, what exactly are we disagreeing about?
we agree that children need positive role models.
we agree that some parents are not this
are you REALLY advocating a life on the dole is a positive message to give a child?
do you honestly tell me that someone that sits at home all day THROUGH CHOICE is a better parent than the tens of thousands that go out to work and show their children the same amount of love?
under the system i mentioned, you could leave school, work for 5 years, have a child, and stay at home for the first 10 years of the childs life, so how is that throwing a child into poverty/on the street? is 10 years really to short a time to find a job? i really dont think so
were we disagreeing - my main point is that in an ideal world people will get jobs if they want them - but some people will leave school and never get work for many reason and maybe they shouldnt have children if they can't support them but they will - so you can't have a blanket policy that will then penalise those children - as a society maybe it's better for us in the long run to try and get them into a productive lifestyle
but its not society that is penalising those children, its their own parents surely?
how would your opinion hold up without a benefits system at all?
if it collapses, and it could do, then thats the state we would be in, whether we deserve to ahve them, or not"No the parents are poor for any number of reasons but it doesn't mean that as a society we should be saying to kids tough titties you have bad parents live with it - that's one way of guarenteeing they grow up in the same vein. And as I said earlier there is no simplistice answer and if the welfare state collapsed that would be a different scenario but we are not thete yet | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"like i said, 5 years of benefits is ample time, end of... with children, a low wage is brough up to standard with additional benefits paid whilst working (and seeing as you are working and getting benefits then maybe every year worked earns 6 months full benefits when out of work) that way there is NO reason for anyone to be poor, so your argument is moot, imo. as long as you do SOME work you will continue to get money, and your children will have decent role models to lead them on to a decent life and be a benefit to a further society" i agree but with one diffrence school age of leaving should be 18years of age then when you leave you get 6 months benefit set at minimum wage then if you havnt got a job it stops period if you are working and you lose your job then benifit should start at the same rate of pay you were on decrecing to minimum wage after the first year if you have a morgage then it should be frozen and a system put into place were you rent you property of your morgege company | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes I recognise that it is a chain and they are poor parents but children can't choose their parents and yet 99.9% of children will love their parents no matter what and will see them as role models - so if they are poor it's important to redress the balence and provide positive roll models in some way
so, what exactly are we disagreeing about?
we agree that children need positive role models.
we agree that some parents are not this
are you REALLY advocating a life on the dole is a positive message to give a child?
do you honestly tell me that someone that sits at home all day THROUGH CHOICE is a better parent than the tens of thousands that go out to work and show their children the same amount of love?
under the system i mentioned, you could leave school, work for 5 years, have a child, and stay at home for the first 10 years of the childs life, so how is that throwing a child into poverty/on the street? is 10 years really to short a time to find a job? i really dont think so
were we disagreeing - my main point is that in an ideal world people will get jobs if they want them - but some people will leave school and never get work for many reason and maybe they shouldnt have children if they can't support them but they will - so you can't have a blanket policy that will then penalise those children - as a society maybe it's better for us in the long run to try and get them into a productive lifestyle
but its not society that is penalising those children, its their own parents surely?
how would your opinion hold up without a benefits system at all?
if it collapses, and it could do, then thats the state we would be in, whether we deserve to ahve them, or not"the parents who choose to live a life on benefits and not bother to look for work are a small minority maybe i read this wrong but a lot of parents are made redundant throught no fault of there own and due to the economic climate cant get back into employment no matter how hard they try simply because there are not many jobs to apply for out there. it always seems to be the way for some people to lay the countries ills and huge economic debt on people on benefits, single mums or illegal immigrants, i guess some enjoy kicking people when there down rather than blame the real culprits its a bit like blaming smokers for the nhs ills and huge debts rather than the actual mismanagement of it ...if it wasnt for smokers who pay into the nhs twice unlike non smokers via tax on the cigs they buy as well as through there national insurance who knows the nhs cud well have sank without trace years ago. Ime sure this site is mostly populated by civil servants then again due to labours drive to make everyone a civil servant to maintain power then i this countrys probably is full to the brim with em. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) and then when you reach hard times you use your banked allowance to help you through. once its gone, its gone. hard luck. That's not a bad idea at all.
As many benefits are geared around looking after and bringing up children is it also hard luck on them to when threir parents benefits run out - seems rather ill thought out as a suggestion to me
Well there are plenty of parents out there working and paying their way so what's wrong with limiting a free ride to 5 years? Or should those of us working pay for a life time on benefits? Face it things have to have some limit.
Still doesnt answer what happens to the children
The same that happens to single parents who work already of which there are hundreds of thousands already.
Sorry lost me there - we are talking about stopping benefits for all after say 5 years which would mean children possible living on the streets and begging along side their parents - is that so difficult to understand - this is how people live in the 3rd world
You are easily lost by the looks of it! 5 years is long enough for anyone who is fit and able to find some sort of employment even if it is voluntary work (Which benefits could still be given). Nobody ever said anything about being out on the streets apart from you. But you were asking what world happen with the children! What do you think happens to the hundreds of thousands of parents that currently work?
What are you on about - the discussion is about people on benefits not those in work and incidently many people who work are on benefits would you stop those to and you still havent answered the question what happens to the children when their parents benefits stop, its not their fault they have parents who won't work
The children would remain with their parents I wouldn't give people the chance NOT to work after 5 years it wouldn't be an option. If they refused though point blankly to contribute to society and insisted on sponging out rather than contributing they would be deemed unfit to keep the children. Child care would be available to all going back to work. It sounds like you do not like the idea of people pulling their weight! "so what your saying is parents are unfit to keep there children if they are unemployed for 5 years ...what next round up all the people on benefits and put em in concentration camps and force em to slave away for a bowel of rice a day. if you really are a dentist i take it your ovbiously a private one and have a sign on your door.. no benefit scum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We should take all of their kids off them and melt down all the little orphans and make glue out of them!" That is fucking sick, seriously close this thread down at once. PLEASE! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We should take all of their kids off them and melt down all the little orphans and make glue out of them! That is fucking sick, seriously close this thread down at once. PLEASE!" i have no idea who said that, but thats a little wrong. and no one suggested slavery, for christs sake, but really, why do so many people seemingly have a problem with people oging out to earn thier way in life? THAT is what is wrong with society today, not the people who see benefit careers as wrong | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We should take all of their kids off them and melt down all the little orphans and make glue out of them! That is fucking sick, seriously close this thread down at once. PLEASE! i have no idea who said that, but thats a little wrong. and no one suggested slavery, for christs sake, but really, why do so many people seemingly have a problem with people oging out to earn thier way in life? THAT is what is wrong with society today, not the people who see benefit careers as wrong" true i take home less than the family next door and they have never worked and have 6 kids between them and he was a single parent the mother of his kids took off as for her she worked untill they got together now its not worth them working as they waould lose half the money they are on and this is were the problem lays | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We should take all of their kids off them and melt down all the little orphans and make glue out of them! That is fucking sick, seriously close this thread down at once. PLEASE! i have no idea who said that, but thats a little wrong. and no one suggested slavery, for christs sake, but really, why do so many people seemingly have a problem with people oging out to earn thier way in life? THAT is what is wrong with society today, not the people who see benefit careers as wrong" Only a lil wrong you say ????? i feel that comment made is totally wrong and completly sick. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trouble is.. As long as we accept people are going to live on benefits for as long as possible and let them get away with it, the worse it is going to get! I know what I would do.. Kids into school and into a breakfast club. Meal 1! Lunch times, free school meals. Meal 2! After school clubs and a feed. Meal 3! That would do a couple of things. It would make sure that kids would be less likely to truant and it would make sure they had three meals a day! The parents would have to fend for themselves. Housing and heating/lighting costs paid, but they get nothing else! See the clamour for jobs then... " Can you tell me where these 6 million jobs are | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We should take all of their kids off them and melt down all the little orphans and make glue out of them! That is fucking sick, seriously close this thread down at once. PLEASE! i have no idea who said that, but thats a little wrong. and no one suggested slavery, for christs sake, but really, why do so many people seemingly have a problem with people oging out to earn thier way in life? THAT is what is wrong with society today, not the people who see benefit careers as wrong Only a lil wrong you say ????? i feel that comment made is totally wrong and completly sick. " it is, but then again, i cant find the post that it was made on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trouble is.. As long as we accept people are going to live on benefits for as long as possible and let them get away with it, the worse it is going to get! I know what I would do.. Kids into school and into a breakfast club. Meal 1! Lunch times, free school meals. Meal 2! After school clubs and a feed. Meal 3! That would do a couple of things. It would make sure that kids would be less likely to truant and it would make sure they had three meals a day! The parents would have to fend for themselves. Housing and heating/lighting costs paid, but they get nothing else! See the clamour for jobs then... Can you tell me where these 6 million jobs are " obviously not in cwmbran seeing as you are happily advocating a life on benefits for all. yayyy, wonder hwo is going to pay for us all to draw them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes. Of course it's perfectly acceptable to be on benefits. Yes. Of course it's perfectly acceptable for any Government to review benefits in terms of the nation's ability to afford them. And yes, it's perfectly acceptable for there to be a system of checks in place against those who, quite frankly, defraud the system and all tax payers, with proportionate penalties. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes. Of course it's perfectly acceptable to be on benefits. Yes. Of course it's perfectly acceptable for any Government to review benefits in terms of the nation's ability to afford them. And yes, it's perfectly acceptable for there to be a system of checks in place against those who, quite frankly, defraud the system and all tax payers, with proportionate penalties. " is it acceptable for me to drive past my local town center pubs 3 to 4 times aday while im at work and see the same people sat out side all day long people who are on benifits and claiming DLA because they have a drink problem | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
I loved my job and would gladly go back into work if i could.
Some people hate being within the "system", others are on it all their lives. I object to the latter.
They have made claiming benefits a career and so will their kids and on and on it will go. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes. Of course it's perfectly acceptable to be on benefits. Yes. Of course it's perfectly acceptable for any Government to review benefits in terms of the nation's ability to afford them. And yes, it's perfectly acceptable for there to be a system of checks in place against those who, quite frankly, defraud the system and all tax payers, with proportionate penalties. is it acceptable for me to drive past my local town center pubs 3 to 4 times aday while im at work and see the same people sat out side all day long people who are on benifits and claiming DLA because they have a drink problem" See second item above, elect and use your representatives wisely. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"if you have worked, and paid into the system, then i see no reason why someone shouldt draw on that when they hit hard times. also, if you have a young family, you dont really have much of a choice but to do so. however, its the career mothers, or lazy feckless people that have no want to work that dont deserve it, imo. i would actually have a system whereas you start with, say, 5 yars worth of benefits awarded to you from birth. as you work, that extends (maybe to include pension, i dont know) and then when you reach hard times you use your banked allowance to help you through. once its gone, its gone. hard luck. This already happens but from when youngest is 9 and the age will drop to eventually 5 when youngest starts school removing everyone off income support and putting them on job seekers so people have to actually look for work and be willing to work. Loads of back to work help too. Help wit cv etc and the new scheme of work experience when it gets underway. Plus there will be the new universal benefits so it will all be capped under one benefit. Job centres are moving out to the communities. In my local childrens centre we have a back to work person come in for drop in service. And while children are in play group mums can refresh their literacy and numeracy skills which I think is a great idea. There is help out there if you know where to look." it has already dropped to when youngest is 5. I am currently working part time and I am very fortunate that my boss will be able to up my hours in June, once my twins turn 5 years old so that I can finally get to that next level. I never thought that I would be put in the situation of having to collect benefits but when my ex left me with 4 month old twins and a 2 year old, did not really see any other option at the time.Once my twins were in preschool half a day I managed to get a part time job,local and with an amazing boss who works around my need to finish early to collect the kids. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes. Of course it's perfectly acceptable to be on benefits. Yes. Of course it's perfectly acceptable for any Government to review benefits in terms of the nation's ability to afford them. And yes, it's perfectly acceptable for there to be a system of checks in place against those who, quite frankly, defraud the system and all tax payers, with proportionate penalties. " couldnt have put it better myself | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes. Of course it's perfectly acceptable to be on benefits. Yes. Of course it's perfectly acceptable for any Government to review benefits in terms of the nation's ability to afford them. And yes, it's perfectly acceptable for there to be a system of checks in place against those who, quite frankly, defraud the system and all tax payers, with proportionate penalties. is it acceptable for me to drive past my local town center pubs 3 to 4 times aday while im at work and see the same people sat out side all day long people who are on benifits and claiming DLA because they have a drink problem" depends if there drinking in a no drink allowed area. If there not then yes its acceptable for you to drive past your pub 3 to 4 times a day to watch them drink if thats what floats yr boat as there not breaking any laws. How do you know these same people are on benefits and claiming dla have you stopped and asked them? maybe there homeless and not on benefits who knows. Ide say yeah its perfectly acceptable to be on benefits considering as a tax payer myself and no job security as the norm these days then i to along with yourself could be unemployed and in need of benefits tommorow. What i do object to is the narrow minded stigmatic view by some such as that if your on benefits your ovbiously some sort of scumbag. People on benefits can hardly afford to feed themselves let alone there families let alone have the pleasure of being alcholhilic unemployed scum bags for refernce just look at the steep rise in charitable food banks today. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes. Of course it's perfectly acceptable to be on benefits. Yes. Of course it's perfectly acceptable for any Government to review benefits in terms of the nation's ability to afford them. And yes, it's perfectly acceptable for there to be a system of checks in place against those who, quite frankly, defraud the system and all tax payers, with proportionate penalties. is it acceptable for me to drive past my local town center pubs 3 to 4 times aday while im at work and see the same people sat out side all day long people who are on benifits and claiming DLA because they have a drink problem depends if there drinking in a no drink allowed area. If there not then yes its acceptable for you to drive past your pub 3 to 4 times a day to watch them drink if thats what floats yr boat as there not breaking any laws. How do you know these same people are on benefits and claiming dla have you stopped and asked them? maybe there homeless and not on benefits who knows. Ide say yeah its perfectly acceptable to be on benefits considering as a tax payer myself and no job security as the norm these days then i to along with yourself could be unemployed and in need of benefits tommorow. What i do object to is the narrow minded stigmatic view by some such as that if your on benefits your ovbiously some sort of scumbag. People on benefits can hardly afford to feed themselves let alone there families let alone have the pleasure of being alcholhilic unemployed scum bags for refernce just look at the steep rise in charitable food banks today. " these people i am talking about are there every day and also pick up there drink alounce every day how do i know this because i know some of them and i dont see why the tax payer should feed some ones drink or even drug problem when people who suffer from MS and heart complints that meen they can not work get sod all of thisor anyother governt my hubby for one was injured while serving this country as a member of the armed forces and he gets nothing and he carnt work he wished he could but he carnt all he will get is his army penshion when he turns 65 if he lives that long | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Thankfully I have now managed to find employment but it really hasn't been an easy road. We have managed to get into some financial difficulties and been forced to go cap in hand for help.
Re benefits .... I don't agree with those who use them as a career choice if you like.
Clearly there are those who have paid into the system and while they hate the idea, they are entitled to claim. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"well according to a previous poster both my kids should have been taken from me while my hubby and I were out of work!" Whooooooh now not according to me thank you! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"well according to a previous poster both my kids should have been taken from me while my hubby and I were out of work! Whooooooh now not according to me thank you! "me ether | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"well according to a previous poster both my kids should have been taken from me while my hubby and I were out of work! " Nope, neither of you were out of work in excess of 5 years, so it wouldn't have applied! plus that 5 years according to the original post would have been added to for every year you were in work, details on how much extra you "earn" per year were not included in the idea but as you say hubby was in the forces for 12 years thats got to count for at least another 3 or more so is 8 years benefits minimum enough? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"well according to a previous poster both my kids should have been taken from me while my hubby and I were out of work! Whooooooh now not according to me thank you! "I didn't say the previous poster, I said A previous poster. Couldn't recall their name ... sorry | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have a fantastic benefits system, it's there for all the right reasons, for when someone falls down on their luck, for when someones job is pulled out from under them, it's something we must fight to maintain.... However (didn't you just know I would have a however?)....It gets abused, it's become the 'career choice' of many....far too many. It's seen as a god given right by a massive section of our society, and many use it as an excuse for not wanting to better themselves....which I find the saddest thing of all. To many it's a much needed crutch when they most need it.....to many more it's a much needed excuse when they need to justify their lazy lifestyle." Not entirely correct, a generation ago we used to have a reasonable system. The system itself is broken and abusive. Take for example the coalitions move to reduce housing benefit for a three bedroom residence downwards ( and not in all cases ) to a maximum of £400 per week, per WEEK not per month. Think what ordinary, hardworking people could do with £1,733 per month towards their mortgage or rental costs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Take for example the coalitions move to reduce housing benefit for a three bedroom residence downwards ( and not in all cases ) to a maximum of £400 per week, per WEEK not per month. " To begin with.
I can see that figure coming down to reflect rental prices in any given area and what people/families can realistically expect the govt to foot the bill for. Those currently living in plush mansions in London that they'd never otherwise be able to afford can relax as the new cap is not retrospective, but they'll move out/move on sooner or later in the natural cycle of things and the private landlord of said properties will find themselves struggling for tennants paid for by the taxpayer. Any new tennants will not find themselves put up in swanky town houses in Central London or a nice little 5-bed detached out in Surrey. Give it time but I'm convinced that eventually we'll have a housing policy for the homeless that reflects their status in the order of things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
You look like you have a better standard of living or have a reasonable life then fekk off ye sponger! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"tell you what we can do as well how about all those unfortu... sorry scroungers who haven't found work after 5 years .we could make them where a star on there clothes and live in a ghetto eh stigmatise them even more suspect that some on here would be happy then ." the germans would claim copyright if we did | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"tell you what we can do as well how about all those unfortu... sorry scroungers who haven't found work after 5 years .we could make them where a star on there clothes and live in a ghetto eh stigmatise them even more suspect that some on here would be happy then . the germans would claim copyright if we did" And sorry wishy but phrases like "eventually we'll have a housing policy for the homeless that reflects their status in the order of things." just seem like it's something that would have been written in 1930's germany | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes. Of course it's perfectly acceptable to be on benefits. Yes. Of course it's perfectly acceptable for any Government to review benefits in terms of the nation's ability to afford them. And yes, it's perfectly acceptable for there to be a system of checks in place against those who, quite frankly, defraud the system and all tax payers, with proportionate penalties. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" when we allow the lowest of the low to survive then we infect the genepool, and its a slippery slope my friends. (actually the last bit is just an inane rant, the main point is in the first section of my post)" Yet you still raised it. It maybe an inane rant..Actually it is pretty vacuous but I'm not convinced that you don't believe it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And sorry wishy but phrases like "eventually we'll have a housing policy for the homeless that reflects their status in the order of things." just seem like it's something that would have been written in 1930's germany "Huh? Are you having one or something? A housing policy that places people/families in houses that they would realistically be able to afford if they were working is a pretty sound policy to me. How the hell does that smack of nazism? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No it is never acceptable to be on benefits. You are entitled to benefits if you cannot find work but I find it unacceptable for a government to leave a vast proportion of it's people rotting and alienated. It is not acceptable." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No it is never acceptable to be on benefits. You are entitled to benefits if you cannot find work but I find it unacceptable for a government to leave a vast proportion of it's people rotting and alienated. It is not acceptable." that just about sums it up for me..well said granny | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" when we allow the lowest of the low to survive then we infect the genepool, and its a slippery slope my friends. " I've heard this said somewhere before, I think it was a statement by some cult in America. They advocate killing all disabled and infirm so the gene pool is not infected. I've never heard anything so evil and down right sick in all my life! You should definitely should be seriously ashamed of yourself! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I take a different view, I would like everybody to be on state benefits, that way the only people working is for gain. Much better incentive than all that bollocks about life doesn't owe you a living. They should remove the link with having children, if you're a lazy slapper who can't be bothered you'll get no more with a kid than without, so don't forget to take your pill." Or if you are a fucking sexist twunt who got a young lady pregnant then left her on her own deserting your child in the process and paying no child support ? So many miracle births these days according to mysoginists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I take a different view, I would like everybody to be on state benefits, that way the only people working is for gain. Much better incentive than all that bollocks about life doesn't owe you a living. They should remove the link with having children, if you're a lazy slapper who can't be bothered you'll get no more with a kid than without, so don't forget to take your pill. Or if you are a fucking sexist twunt who got a young lady pregnant then left her on her own deserting your child in the process and paying no child support ? So many miracle births these days according to mysoginists. " I think you misconstruing what my point is, my point is that I would rather give people, especially the young a base in which to build, rather than if you fuck up (avoidably), don't worry we'll bail you out | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
I am widowed and I went from having 2 wages coming in to having just mine. I fell apart but instead of wallowing in self pity I got a better paid job to help with the short fall. Believe me if I can do it anyone can. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well from my point of view I do think it's unacceptable for some to be in benefits! Why? Well I have a long term illness and I still get up everyday and work as well as do rescue work with animals. Too many lazy sods out there! Get pregnant and get a lovely free house paid for by my taxes
I am widowed and I went from having 2 wages coming in to having just mine. I fell apart but instead of wallowing in self pity I got a better paid job to help with the short fall. Believe me if I can do it anyone can. "That says a lot but its really down to attitude. Its not good or acceptable for anyone to see benefits as a solution. They were and are a short term gap until you can support yourself and regain self worth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"what has this topic got to do with sex, all it does is feed ignorant people to make assumptions about other people without any insights into there lives" I agree, why not give everybody state benefits and then claw it back through a progressive tax system. Leave them alone to get pregnant, waste it on booze or build a multibillion company. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"what has this topic got to do with sex, all it does is feed ignorant people to make assumptions about other people without any insights into there lives" Hear hear....yes...HEAR HEAR!! This is a swinging site, not Question Time....leave it to the idiots that run the country and lets get swinging! Personally we think the site should scrap forums, camrooms and club ads, then we all might have some fun instead of listening to weirdos squabble over things...fook all to do with swinging! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"what has this topic got to do with sex, all it does is feed ignorant people to make assumptions about other people without any insights into there lives Hear hear....yes...HEAR HEAR!! This is a swinging site, not Question Time....leave it to the idiots that run the country and lets get swinging! Personally we think the site should scrap forums, camrooms and club ads, then we all might have some fun instead of listening to weirdos squabble over things...fook all to do with swinging! " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"what has this topic got to do with sex, all it does is feed ignorant people to make assumptions about other people without any insights into there lives Hear hear....yes...HEAR HEAR!! This is a swinging site, not Question Time....leave it to the idiots that run the country and lets get swinging! Personally we think the site should scrap forums, camrooms and club ads, then we all might have some fun instead of listening to weirdos squabble over things...fook all to do with swinging! "You keep finding Threads to air your rather bigotted views. You were taken to pieces elsewhere and now you are spouting it here. So let me get this right: No Forum. No chatrooms. No club Ads. So what does that leave? Personal ads only I think. So how do we get to know which people are interesting and which are just a big turn off. You spout the typical Hardened Swinger attitude of seeing it as 'just a fuck'. Well for me and hundreds of others on here it is far far more than that. And if Forums are so wrong why do you keep posting in them? But at least you have shown to others the sort of people you are. Regarding the OP yes of course people should be supported by the Benefit system when in need. And without any sense of guilt either. Its what a compassionate society does. But there should be limits and control. It one's right to be supported by the public purse but with that comes responsibility to get off the support as soon as possible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"well according to a previous poster both my kids should have been taken from me while my hubby and I were out of work!" and under the system i proposed, you and you hero hubby would be entitled to at the very least, 11 years on full benefits, without either of you working, before it was brought to your attention that it was going to end (5 year start off allowance, and 6 months for every year your hubby worked), but seeings as you are working part time also, then that would also be contributing to the continuation of the payments until your OH manages to get himself sorted. see, its a perfectly workable system, for those that actually want to do something. it only doesnt work for those that dont. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" and under the system i proposed, you and you hero hubby would be entitled to at the very least, 11 years on full benefits, without either of you working, before it was brought to your attention that it was going to end (5 year start off allowance, and 6 months for every year your hubby worked), but seeings as you are working part time also, then that would also be contributing to the continuation of the payments until your OH manages to get himself sorted. see, its a perfectly workable system, for those that actually want to do something. it only doesnt work for those that dont." Saw your post earlier about your idea and its so bloody simple and therefore workable. But the Civil Service don't like simple ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have a fantastic benefits system, it's there for all the right reasons, for when someone falls down on their luck, for when someones job is pulled out from under them, it's something we must fight to maintain.... However (didn't you just know I would have a however?)....It gets abused, it's become the 'career choice' of many....far too many. It's seen as a god given right by a massive section of our society, and many use it as an excuse for not wanting to better themselves....which I find the saddest thing of all. To many it's a much needed crutch when they most need it.....to many more it's a much needed excuse when they need to justify their lazy lifestyle." We do not have a fantastic benefits system-ask the Swedes or the Norwegians. A single unemployed person receives about sixty pounds a week which he is supposed to live on. If he pays rent then the chances are that his Local Housing Allowance will not cover it, which means that he will have to pay some of his sixty pounds a week to his landlord. And all this discussion about Housing Benefit caps misses the point which is that if we had a decent system in the first place, landlords wouldn't be able to charge the highest rents in Europe; the rents they could charge would be regulated by the state like they were here before Thatcher and still are in Germany and the Scandinavian countries. The gap between rich and poor in the UK is one of the highest in the developed world and growing steadily, and the rich are rich because the poor are poor. Knocking the poor, rather than attempting to change this situation is cowardly and beneath contempt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"what has this topic got to do with sex, all it does is feed ignorant people to make assumptions about other people without any insights into there lives Hear hear....yes...HEAR HEAR!! This is a swinging site, not Question Time....leave it to the idiots that run the country and lets get swinging! Personally we think the site should scrap forums, camrooms and club ads, then we all might have some fun instead of listening to weirdos squabble over things...fook all to do with swinging!
You keep finding Threads to air your rather bigotted views. You were taken to pieces elsewhere and now you are spouting it here.
So let me get this right: No Forum. No chatrooms. No club Ads. So what does that leave? Personal ads only I think. So how do we get to know which people are interesting and which are just a big turn off.
You spout the typical Hardened Swinger attitude of seeing it as 'just a fuck'. Well for me and hundreds of others on here it is far far more than that. And if Forums are so wrong why do you keep posting in them? But at least you have shown to others the sort of people you are.
Regarding the OP yes of course people should be supported by the Benefit system when in need. And without any sense of guilt either. Its what a compassionate society does. But there should be limits and control. It one's right to be supported by the public purse but with that comes responsibility to get off the support as soon as possible."We are all entitled to opinion, this is a swinging site, not question time. If people want to wank or pose on cam they can, but we dont and find it perverted. Entitled Opinion mate, just like yours of us....we are far from hardened. We chat to people on the phone, that way we know theyr genuine | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"what has this topic got to do with sex, all it does is feed ignorant people to make assumptions about other people without any insights into there lives Hear hear....yes...HEAR HEAR!! This is a swinging site, not Question Time....leave it to the idiots that run the country and lets get swinging! Personally we think the site should scrap forums, camrooms and club ads, then we all might have some fun instead of listening to weirdos squabble over things...fook all to do with swinging! "No one is forced to use any part of the site including the forums. you can choose which ones to join in on...I see you chose the forums | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one is forced to use any part of the site including the forums." This isn't strictly true as I attempt to force most people to look at my bottom pictures. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"what has this topic got to do with sex, all it does is feed ignorant people to make assumptions about other people without any insights into there lives Hear hear....yes...HEAR HEAR!! This is a swinging site, not Question Time....leave it to the idiots that run the country and lets get swinging! Personally we think the site should scrap forums, camrooms and club ads, then we all might have some fun instead of listening to weirdos squabble over things...fook all to do with swinging!
No one is forced to use any part of the site including the forums.
you can choose which ones to join in on...I see you chose the forums "Well said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one is forced to use any part of the site including the forums. This isn't strictly true as I attempt to force most people to look at my bottom pictures." What bottom pics?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one is forced to use any part of the site including the forums. This isn't strictly true as I attempt to force most people to look at my bottom pictures. What bottom pics? "http://www.fabswingers.com/profile/funky_monkey LOOK AT IT! LOOK AT ITTTTTTT! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
I saw monkey penis... eak! has that always been available for public viewing?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
