scoobynutta555

Can't you have any reasoned discussion at all without going off on some sort of looney left tangent?

Income support errors and fraud cost the taxpayer £1.2 billion pounds each year out of a budget of £133 billion. By far the biggest drain on the public purse is in the form of social security. Benefits should be slashed dramatically and tax cuts should be pushed forward to encourage people to work. Some, not all, are quite content with their lot doing nothing. If illegal and illiterate immigrants from thousands of miles away risk their lives getting to these shores to work I can't see why someone is on long term unemployment here.

We're now a society that's individually and collectively unaccountable and, quite frankly, wasteful and lazy. If your replies to the subject add nothing apart from ridicule and hypothethical nonsense then I suggest you don't bother replying.

PeteBrant

Depends if someone comes out with some right wing claptrap.


So for 1% of claimants being fraudulent, you clamp down on the other 99%.

Brilliant.

Any other exmaples where because of the actions of a few you want to affect the lives of everone else?

How about ID cards?


Slashed to what point? Just above the breadline, or on it?

And do you lump everyone in together? How about if you have worked for 30 years paying your tax and then find yourself out of work?


As for tax cuts, if you think any of these reforms will result in tax cuts, you are sadly mistaken.


Yes, some people are on the take, how many? I have no idea, neither do you. What I absolutely refute is the practice of assuming everyone on benefits is some form of workshy layabout.

Mitchy260

Pete..Why are you so defensive over the benefits system?

This topic comes up regularly and from memory you are the only 1 that ever sticks up for the scroungers of today

I assume you are in FT employment and paying taxes so why does the benefit system hit a nerve with you? Do you have a partner on benefits or family members that you are trying to protect?

Im sure no-one begrudges benefits for the genuinally sick and disabled along with someone thats down on their luck in the short term. What people do get annoyed at though is people that are abusing the welfare system and living more comfortably than many in work.

That is what this proposal is trying to stop, but you're getting all defensive about it (again )

The benefits system is an absoloute shambles, and it annoys the majority of the working tax payers, so with you on the defensive its like you are trying to convince people black is white, it's never going to work.

I personally am sick fed up of people sponging off the state whilst sitting at home all day permanently on holiday.

As you'll know, we raised £158bn in taxation only to splurge £161bn out in benefits, that is unsustainable hence why our government is re-writing its own guidelines as to how much it can borrow. I wonder who then has to be penalised for this further borrowing? Yes the working tax payer.

You go off on a tangent every time benefit related threads pop up Maybe its time to respect other peoples opinions on the matter I can pretty much guarantee the majority of working tax payers are irate with the benefit system and how it operates.

Over and out

Spoon

Pete, I caught that bit did you?

rallymad_homer

I know what id like to see happen with regards to benefits but it will never happen so.....

It just annoys me that all the non-genuine claimants get away with it and insist on bragging about it. Getting p****d up and doing nothing with the money they get apart from squander it.

I mean far be it from me to say but if i was on benefits then i would be making sure every penny was being used to maximum effect. I would not be down the local getting smashed and smoking 60 a day. Then have the bare faced cheek to whinge that i wasn't getting enough !...It happens, ive seen it

As previously mentioned, i would happily work for benefits. There isnt nothing i wouldnt do to provide for my family. Be it scraping chewing gum off park benches or cleaning public loo's. Needs must and all that.

(Im on one now..lol) What annoys me even more is that prisoners arn't out doing jobs to help the country. I mean when a local city was hit by flooding the RAF base where i worked at the time downed tools and went to fill thousands of sand bags in the pooring rain, hands getting torn to ribbons from the sand bags and endless chunks being taken out from the shovels, for the people who lived there....where were the prisoners ?? Oh thats right, safe and sound watching sky sports and playing pool.

Rant over, feel better now. Soap box going back into the shed !!

RMH

PeteBrant

The new system proposed covers all on benefits - not "some".

Shark Man

If they can't actively seek work in the alloted period to provide for themselves; Yes. HOWEVER If they did find work but the income is insufficient to fully support them in a basic honest life style, then that's another issue; for someone actually working, benefits should continue if they are struggling.

More importantly; YOU inferred that. Whilst ignoring that there are people who scam the system for their own benefit; using children as a more commodity. The ethics with that lie with the parents: We have social services. I suggest that its should be put to more beneficial use.

Too often is money given to aid child support; yet little or no accounting is done by the parent(s) to confirm where that money is spent; on the parents or on the kids? Or just **** and booze?

So I'll infer that you think that this policy was OK and that the benefits system is not being abused and there are no people out there willing to have kids for sakes of better benefits or not thinking of the financial consequences.

The problem should have been stopped regardless of the year of introduction; I have no idea when it was introduced, only the knowledge of when the loopholes became apparent to the masses and the fruits of such policies were starting to show en masse.

PeteBrant

Precisely for this reason. The assumption that people on benefits are "scroungers"

Yes I am in FT employment. No I do nhave any family members on benefit. I just have different values to you.

By and large, people on benefits do not live better than those in work. And why are only "short term" unemployed ok?

No, this proposal is about trying to placate middle England getting all irate about "spongers"

Of course we need controls.

But to come up with the bes tsolution, we need to first have a handle on what the problem is and I don't think we do at the moment.

I;m not trying to convince anybosy of anything, I am debating and putting across my point of view.
But you're getting fed up over something that you have no idea how big a problem it is.

We did not raise £158bn in taxation. It's more like £550 billion.

And how are you being penalised for extra borrowing?
And why is it purely the benefits system that costs the tax payer? Are you saying that, say, Defence costs us nothing?

Hey, it's my opinion and I am entitled to it. Don't like what I write? Don't read it.

Spoon

WTF.

Pete, that wasn't even being discussed in scoobynutta555's post. You know full well what was meant but chose to quote something irrelevant.

PeteBrant

I was making a general observation that there is a perception that all benefit claimants are scorungers.

Follow?

Spoon

[PeteBrant mode on] Rossi rode a great race and deserved to win[/PeteBrant mode off]

Mitchy260

More children = A lot more money.

The child tax credit system awards a sum currently at £2085 per child. If you have 6 children, this is 6 x £2085. (Tax free money remember)

Then you have child benefit on top of that worth near enough £1000pa for the 1st child and £650pa for every child after, it all amounts up.

Then because of the numbers you move up the housing ladder with a 5bed house given to you.

It's time the government put a cap on child benefits. If it was up to me, maximum payments would be for the 1st 2 children then nothing for any children after that.

I bet people would then think twice about popping out 7/8 children and expecting the state to look after them.

Pete...I should have said £158bn direct from income tax
There is also no reason as to why someone should be off long term hence why i said short term unemployment. (Unless genuinally sick/disabled of course)

Spoon

A general quote doesn't require another posters quote used innacurately in the post then.

Understand?

PeteBrant

Actively seeking work is different to what the winsconsin system is though. You get your benefits stopped whether you are actively seeking work or not after a set period of time.


I didn't infer that; you said you support the winsconsin system?
Again, though, you go back to asking why should the child suffer for the parents attitude? (Given that by and large people, regardless of social standing actually love thier kids and so feed and cloth them as well as smoke)
I think that you cannot just stop the benefits of parents of children regardless of the circumstances, yes.

PeteBrant

Whatever - you obviously have a bee in your bonnet about something and I'm not going to get into semantics with you.

PeteBrant

Are you saying that 7 or 8 children is a common thing, then? Or even 5 or 6?

Shark Man

Ok, lets put this to aside, Pete:

A government has a problem with too many benefit seekers. How do you propose to solve this issue?

Spoon

Isn't it marvellous that when you get totally outsmarted its somebody else with a bee in their bonnet?

You were plainly wrong in quoting something totally irrelevant to what you then quoted, which in your own words was a 'general' posting and not a specific reply to a post.

P.S. You did it earlier in another thread without actually grasping the reason for the previous post.

Slow?

Martin2005

I think we need to have some 'facts' here, you are so certain that this is actually happening, then please produce some evidence, just a scrap would be nice. I suspect that your points on this thread, along with many other contributors are predicated upon, Daily Mail spin, and snobbish and prejudical attitude towards anyone who is less fortunate than themselves.
These views are for the weak minded, and of course the Daily Mail preys upon the weak minded.

PeteBrant

Like I said, first of all you need to establish how big the problem is before you come up with a solution.

I mean you can't have an answer if you don't have a question.

I agree that incentive should be given to get people out to work, I have no problem at all with that.

What I do have a problem with is then penalising people that can't find work, when we are heading into a recession.

I mean we are going to have a lot of redundancies in the coming months, and those people that get put onto benefits as result we be treated, by the government, media, (and certain forum members ), as if they are on the take.

And this is my point; how do you seperate the genuine cases from the not genuine.

You already have Job seekers allowance being withdrawn if you do not actively seek work

I don't think you can withdraw benefits from single parents regardless (although they too are under increasing pressure ot find work)

I think on the disability benefit you have to trust a GP's judgement ( I cannot for the life of me see how having someone assessed by an independant GP is supposed to change anything) .

PeteBrant

Like I said, I'm not interested in getting to semantics with you. I felt I was clear in my meaning, if its not good enough for you, then sorry, but that's all your getting. If you felt you outsmarted me, then good for you, enjoy it

Spoon

Has anybody not thought that Pete Brant is actually Martin2005 too?

PeteBrant

I think someone maybe developing an infactuation

Mitchy260

Karen Matthews a 1 off perhaps

I personally know of a few big families (6+children) No, its not the norm for these kinds of numbers but still when it comes down to it, they shouldn't expect the state to pay for them. The families i know of, neither of the parents are in work, wonder why Lazyness or just perhaps that they would have to find a job as a doctor to make it worthwhile as the benefit system rewards them so much.

I dont think you realise the figures we are speaking about here. I pay £1200pm and £150 CT for my house every month but the workshy family along the road get this all for nothing PLUS all their benefit money. Where's the work incentive? Im the stupid 1 obviously

I posted a thread not that long ago about the luxury lifestyle of a said friend. Had a fairly low salary but had a £25k M3 on the drive, 3/4 foreign holidays per year etc, Well someone reported them for fraud, she was investigated and the fraud was in excess of £60k. I wonder how many others up and down the country are benefit fiddling like her. Needless to say, the M3 is no longer on the drive, and he cant afford to come out for a pint on a saturday now.

Spoon

Pete, normally you thrive off the need for facts. Whats up here now? Suddenly you introduce the word semantics as a joker. Not even close, as you well know.

I'll accept your apology as I fight the cause of the underdog when I can.

No more PM's either please. Every board needs a Brant.

Mitchy260

What would you like proof of Martin?

The £2085per child award?

Or

The £161bn spent on welfare?

Go on, im just dying to post up a URL

PeteBrant

No, you're right, they shouldn't expect the benefit system to pay for them. But you have to accept there will always be some people that abuse the rules. It happens in every walk of life. What you have to do is balance trying to stop peopel from taking advantage, and penalising people that genuinely need help.

The new proposals go to far in potentially damaging people that genuinely need help IMHO.


It's not just about money though is it. It's about personal values, and fulfillment. Now obviously you are a well adjusted person with good values. Someone down the road from, according to you doesn't. Now just because of your resentment of these people, does that mean a family in a similar *genuine* need should suffer?
So the current system work, then.

Shark Man

Its a simple question: There are too many benefit seekers. How do you fix this issue and redcuce the number of benefit applicants? Assume the problem is big enough to require action to be taken.

Presume most applicants are legitmate under policies similar to what is currently operated by the UK. But that overall number has to be reduced. Regardless of current or future economic issues.

Lets add to that: All changes must be ethical.

Would I be right in saying that you can't solve the problem?

Mitchy260

Yes it does Pete and i had a certain smugness when i heard that she had been caught and convicted. It was nothing to do with me, someone else obviously was wound up about their situation

The series ''On the fiddle'' on a thursday night is a good watch

PeteBrant

Look.

My point about "everyone" on benefits being accused of being a crounger wa s ageneral comment. It was not aimed at anything scoobynutta said in particular. I felt I had explained this but obviously not.

If you have taken offence to that comment, then sorry you feel that way, but I cannot see what else I can say to clear the matter up.

With regards to PMs, If someone if PM'ing on my behalf I would ask them to stop, I certainly haven't PM'd you and I would happily invite webbie to post up all my PM activity (what there is of it) in order to back this up.

I don't play that way, and I think every knows it; The few people I have PM;d on this board know excatly who they are, and you arent one of them.