David Lock

I've listened to all the Osborne stuff about hounding jobless welfare claimants with increasing anger.

Sure there are folk who take advantage but there are many who try really hard to find work and it must be pretty galling to be told by some snotty nosed Eton boy that all they deserve is a job picking up dog s,hit in the park.

And let's face it many of the 2 million out of work are the dregs and mentally ill of society who no one wants to employ.

Of course I appreciate that SN is full of the "serve them right" brigade but are there some that feel that Osborne is being a bit of an uncaring dick?

David

Sub97

Not really looked in to the finer details, but if the general idea is "If you want to be given welfare, then you're going to have to do something to earn it", then that seems fair enough to me. Sorry if that makes me heartless!

Chip

I don't think it will actually happen but I definitely agree with the sentiment. I know a few who have abused the benefits system for years, just because they can, which to be honest is really fukcin annoying.

And why not get them out doing a bit anyway?

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

I am known on here as a lefty, but I don't have a problem with the concept of people working for their benefits! Why not especially with the country's finances in the state they are?

The problem as is usually the case with politicians will be the way they implement said concept as they always manage to make a simple system overly complicated and ultimately unfair!

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

I'mte happy for those on benefits to work for them...so long as they get minimum wage.
Or so long as they only work the number of hours that £6 odd an hour needs to get up to whatever benefit they get.

It MAY help some of them develop a work ethic, it MAY sort out a few actual scroungers.

Chip

I'd also limit benefits to a maximum equal to the minimum wage. My Bro in law and his Mrs both work full time for min wage. They also worked opposite shifts, weekends etc so one of them was at home when the kids were little. They also managed to buy a house, a car,eat, drink and keep warm all through hard work. Between them, they have, apart from child benefit never had a penny from the state.

Chip

You are joking right? They wouldn't want their benefits cut down to min wage level surely.

ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

You missed out the part where it costs twice as much as it saves, whilst managing to line the pockets of a few specialist companies, back benchers and consultants, that have absolutely nothing to do with any government minister or their friends/family.

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

I suspect what has happened here is that they've come out with a pretty aggressive policy, sure in the knowledge that the doo-gooding left will make them water it down to be palatable, to a level they can accept.

What I hope does not happen as it's debated in the press, is that people simply ignore the finer points to make it sound like a terrible policy, and get the whole thing abandoned, straw-man style.

For example, it will only apply to those on long-term JSA (two years), so no not those who have been finding it tricky to find that new job after 12 months of looking, nor disabled people, etc.

Don't see what's wrong with any of this. I'm sure the ECHR and random Quango organisations will though.

Simes777

Very emotive subject which will be seen by some as "completely heartless" and by others as "about time too"

As suggested above, this will probably be watered down to a more palatable level.

What most of us see in the press is sponging families with several kids by several fathers, or immigrants not paying in to the system but benefiting to a large degree - housing, etc.

I'm sure there are people out there who have made a conscious decision to make a lifestyle of claiming benefits and therefore not working - these are the people who should be made to contribute in some way to society.

People in genuine need should be supported - this doesn't mean paying ILA or Sick Pay whatever it's called these days to fat people, drug addicts, diabetics, multiple baby poppers or the bone idle.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the welfare budget was something like £160 Billion per year - surely that is not sustainable and therefore something needs to be done.

A Short Sharp Shock might actually encourage people to think about their lifestyle and do something about it rather than relying on the tax paying public to keep them.

tony de wonderful

The premis that a small rump in our society - who in reality consume a tiny slice of the cake - are the cause of our problems and misfortune, is complete bunk.

Most us work to serve and perpetuate our elites who don't have to labour. That the 'squeezed middle' choose to identify with the very class who exploits them only makes 'us' (the squeezed middle) stupid as.

It's a form of mass scapegoating.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

The Tories have been doing this since they took power.

First it was the public sector, then immigrants, now the unemployed.

It's a form of scapegoating perfected by a certain party in Germany in the 1930's.

If you get the public to hate someone and blame them for all their ills, you can then treat them as you like

tony de wonderful

Loads of people are entitled to have an income and consume despite not working. BTL landlords for a start, in fact anyone who lives off owning rent yielding assets, they are licensed to take money from others pockets.

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

Not really comparable is it?

BTL involves at least some risk, and has a purpose for whoever is renting it; sitting at home watching Sky from the age of 16 and receiving an income does not.

Osimabu

iTrader: (2)

Did anyone else notice that one of the women looking adoringly on at Mr Milliband as he spouted off about energy price caps last week looked suspiciously like George Osborne in drag?

Simes777

I think you are missing the point. Someone dealing in the BTL market is surely paying tax rather than claiming benefits?

tony de wonderful

What is the nature of this risk. What exactly is 'produced' by the landlord taking on this risk? The houses aren't going anywhere nor are they being knocked down. What exactly are BTL as a class of people doing for all the rent they receive? The true is NOTHING.

tony de wonderful

The tenents pay the tax. It all comes from their pockets ultimately.

I missed no point. We are talking about people who are 'drains on society' aren't we?

tubbytommy

iTrader: (20)

turn of jeremy kyle and do something productive for your money

boo fcking hoo

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

They're affording people a place to live, in the kind of property they do not have the deposit up-front to be able to buy. The risk they take is that of devaluation, negative equity, physical damage to the property, loss of earnings if the property is empty.

Don't get me wrong, I have no love for people who BTL, I would like to see a staggered stamp duty so people pay higher stamp duty the more property they own, but I can see the difference between them, and those living directly off the state's handouts for NO return, like it's their god given right, an entitlement.

pflowers

Guy I know is in his 20's doesn't work and hasn't for as long as I remember, he lives with his girlfriend in a 3 bedroom house (rent and council tax paid) she apparently is epileptic although I have never seen any evidence of this so gets DLA and he gets a carer allowance.

They both smoke, they both drink, have sky TV (full package) phone contracts, tablets, broadband, he's just got a 51inch 3D tv on finance. He drives an Impreza she has 4 horses (which she rides but cannot work) he does the odd hobble when it fits in with his social life.

I offered him a full time job at my business but he said no..

tony de wonderful

Devaluations and negative equity make no difference to the 'ability' of the property to provide shelter for people. It isn't going anywhere.

Ergo landlords don't do anything substantive for their money.

Busterbulldog

iTrader: (1)

Huh I lmfao at these people cleaning up public areas. After 30 years involving working in 1000s of social houses and council houses I can tell you all now, These long term unemployed people cant clean their own spaces they wont clean ours...they will just steal the brushes and shovel....Oh and try to claim for an injury somehow.

David Lock

So report him. He is obviously taking the p,iss and that should be easy enough to prove.

Or would you feel bad about snitching on a neighbour?

David

pflowers

Yes he maybe taking the **** but is he actually doing anything legally wrong? If the doctor has signed his girlfreind off and he is an approved carer for her then what can I report him for? From what I can see apart from the odd hobble he's doing nothing wrong.

Whilst I certainly wouldn't or couldn't live like he does, he clearly has no morals and so sees nothing wrong in what he does, he's playing the system and it's the system that needs to change.

My point is if he / they were made to actually do something constructive for the money they may be encouraged to actually look for work and contribute rather than take.

And by the way he's not a neighbour of mine

Dingdongler

You're a funny little man aren't you?

You always seem to need somebody to hate and blame for all the ills in society. The topic is about benefits yet once again you bring up landlords and btl

If you feel so strongly about it why don't you vote with your feet and stop paying the rent on your one bedder in Liverpool, move out and live in a tent?

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

3 kids council platform/ council tax and rent paid plus ctc and all the rest adds up to the £500 max per week so if you devide that by £6.70 per hour you end up with 74 hours. can't see them making anyone work 74hours a week

tony de wonderful

I have to pay rent or the state would use violence against me and kick me out.

I'm not hating anyone. I'm just showing that being unproductive isn't limited to one social strata of benefits 'scrounges', who at any rate really use up very few of our resources and wealth.

Dingdongler

But you aren't showing that at all are you? You've tried again and again on lots of different threads to try and prove that point but nobody buys it.

Just look back at this thread, nobody has agreed with you after you once again tried to draw some sort of similarity between those that choose benefits as a lifestyle and a landlord.

You can accuse me of having a vested interest but I'm sure that can't be true of all those who have replied.

You are entitled to your bizarre opinion but at some point you've got to accept that the vast majority of people don't agree with you.

And I don't think they'll change their minds no matter how many times you keep repeating yourself.

hodgy0_2

Ironic

Labour - freezing energy prices, state intervention in a market= lefty Stalinist dogma

Tory - subsidising mortgages , state intervention in a market = ?????????

I wonder if the real difference is simply who benefits from each

As I said a few years ago it comes down to winners and losers