Government's Spending Challenge

[Tommy!]

On the first point, and regarding your "bread line" comment, i've witnessed this first hand. My mum raised me and my brother alone for most of our lives with income from working at the local co-op, but we scraped through and she would in fact earn more income on benefits, but she has stayed in work because she doesn't want to sponge off benefits. Yeah we're worse off, but we cope. If she had any more children at this point it would be stupid because she couldn't afford it, especially not if she had 2 or 3 more. Yet my Dad has 3 kids now, and as far as i'm aware (I don't keep in contact directly, he's an arse) he's living on benefits and has no plan to get a job as he had one and quit. He went on a christmas break in a private cabin somewhere in the Lakes or somewhere this past Winter with his girlfriend and all 3 kids, and still had money to buy them all presents. Funny how two people living on benefits with 3 kids can afford that really.

 

I don't see what i've said as stupid points at all. Why should two people who don't have any intention of ever working or earning money be allowed to just pop out kid after kid and then reap the benefits?. Fair enough if they've been forcefully unemployed, or are seeking work, but people who have no intention of looking for a job or working a day more in their lives shouldn't be allowed tons of kids.

 

Too be honest every one I know on benefits, some of whom are work shy and try to milk the system, all live in the shits and having another child won't leave them rolling in the cash. I've met people who are better off on benefits than working at times, but never long term and never because of the immense size of their family. I've certainly never met or heard of any one who does the bit in bold outside of a sensationalist news story.

 

And your sob story of being all working class doesn't make you point any less farcical

 

I'm with David on this one

And before anyone says it, the answer isn't to decrease the benefit in order to make the chance of employment seem more attractive, it's to increase the reward for working by way of a higher minimum wage and better working conditions across the board.

 

That won't happen though, as it would result in a dent in the high salaries earned by those at the top of the companies who hire these people.

[The King Of Swing]

David has hit the nail on the head on this one.

[Psygnosis]

Yup you can see how this threads going to end.

 

Why don't we cut all benefits from the sick or disabled (physically or mentally) while we're at it, them evil sponging cunts, they can wheel themselves to work or get someone to push them!

I think you're going a bit overboard there, I can't see anyone who's sick or disabled being someone who people feel deserve to lose benefits (sure, there's some who do lie and claim to need DLA, but the majority aren't like that).

 

Also, with benefits, there is a lot of people who do have children purely because it works out better for them, again, perhaps not the majority, but it's a decent enough size now to be a drain on the country and it's something that does need stopping, as do the handouts.

 

Actually, I'd also suggest they set up a better system for said handouts, as it seems purely random whether you get them or not, rather than them properly checking te forms. Case in point, my mate's sister and her boyfriend wanted a new TV, carpet, sofa etc. to replace their old stuff. They head into the Job Centre pick up a form for a grant (can't remember the specific name right now), claim for everything on it, and get half of what they asked for (still more than they needed anyway).

 

My Mum who had just moved into a new property (from temporary housing I'll note) was asking for a cooker, carpets, and I think she needed curtains too. She was denied because, according to them, she hadn't moved from temporary housing to permanent accomodation.

 

How do people living in the same house for about 5 years get the benefit, but someone who actually meets all the criteria for it get palmed off and pretty much told that it's tough luck?

 

I'd also suggest cuts for MPs and less spending allowed. It's hard to claim to be trying to fix the countries budget when you're also taking rather large amounts away from said funds to line your own pockets with, especially when you also claim more money to fund stuff you should be funding yourself.

 

Thats all well and good but I wasn't being serious and was taking the piss.

 

[Mike Castle]

Thats all well and good but I wasn't being serious and was taking the piss.

Fair enough, but my point does stand. Benefits would be seen as more like something to simply help you through while you look for work, than as a nice little holiday while you bullshit your way through the Job Centre every 2 weeks pretending you're looking for work, if rather than direct money, it was vouchers for the specifics they needed.

[Steveo2007]

Come on guys haven't you watched a David Icke presentation? It's all an illusion

 

All this is meant to stir people up. The fact is there is enough of everything to go around in the world for everyone. Those at the top never have to worry about not having enough, they aren't affected, it's a load of old poo!

 

Look at Cameron, he's not lived on benefits or been ill and struggled to have an effing clue! He was groomed for the job. The caps on foreign immigration is nonsense because our EU membership means we can't stop European immigrants coming here, only those outside of the union. Our politicians and the Queen are basically guilty of treason. A foreign power has control, we don't. Look it up folks.

Possibly because him and his family for generations past have all worked to a level where they've never needed to claim benefits. This thread hasn't turned into a "cut all benefits" discussion, it's turned into a discussion of cutting benefits of those who simply cannot be arsed getting a job and can live off the fact they have a shit load of kids and we as the taxpayers are covering that cost. I've never been able to buy into the argument that when you get generations of a family that have never worked a day in their lives is purely a result of location and circumstance. These are the negative results of people who simply cannot be bothered going to work who then have kids who are raised with the knowledge that you don't need to work to be able to survive because the state will pay your way.

 

In relation to the argument of us having no control, that is totally untrue. Membership of the EU is strictly voluntary and any regulation, directive or treaty becomes a part of national law under the European Communities Act which the government of the time implemented voluntarily. We can, at any time, withdraw if we choose, but our government has chosen not to therefore we have control.

[Glen Quagmire]

OK, since everyone else is seemingly soap-boxing, I may as well throw in my two cents as well.

 

I've spoken here before about how the benefits culture in the UK needs to be dealt with, before patdfb had an live nervous breakdown online. The only thing I'd change from what I spoke at the time is that I'd reduce the monthly deduction to around 0.5% per month. To sum it up, I'd prefer a move to unemployment benefits/insurance similar to that found in some countries in mainland Europe, reasonably generous for workers paid in to the system for a year while those beyond that would get pressured more as time goes on. However wholesale changes in the benefits system needs to be done when the economy is strong, not really right now unless it's a desperation act.

 

I've tried looking at what info I can gleam together from UK public expenditure and private economy. From what I've gathered, the main problem is not so much those on benefits & assistance. A source I read last week (sorry for having no online source) pointed out that government spending on benefits and other welfare assistance in 2010 is lower as a percentage of government spending compared to when John Major was last in office in 1997. And that's when the economy was in a much healthier state than it is now. Of course this doesn't mean that nothing should be done to trim such bills, but that it isn't a huge bogey man that the government and its media cheerleaders make it out to be right now.

 

There is of course those swinging the lead but IMO the amount doing so is small compared to genuine claimants, I'd be stunned if it's more than 5% of all claims. Anecdotal evidence from either myself or other posters carries no real weight unless you go and help do something about it other than moan on the internet. A problem with a potential "clampdown" of fakers is that in doing so there is guaranteed collateral damage in taking out genuine claimants. The current benefits system as it stands doesn't treat those with honesty with the right guidance and the fakers still know how to play the game as it were.

 

Another problem is the value of what people get on benefits compared to many low-wage jobs that go about. While some people will take on such a job as a pride issue, in some other cases I can't blame mothers or fathers in turning down offers to look after their kids better. Simply flat-rate cuts in benefits I don't think would solve this problem in a meaningful way - it would need a multi pronged effort with private economic plans.

 

The main problem as I see it is housing/property. The British (and Irish) obsession with private property and the use of housing as investments toys rather than being somewhere to live is in its current state a downfall waiting to happen. (Again this is from an offline source I read a few weeks ago so apologies again) In the 1970's the average rent of a house in the UK was around 15% of the average wage. In the last five years this has fluctuated between 35-40%. This is crazy and both the Conservatives and Labour governments of the last three decades should be held responsible, from the right-to-buy schemes under Thatcher which were well meaning but the heavy discounting and the lack of reinvestment in social housing as a result was a cock-up waiting to happen, while the Labour government in the last decade tried to use property investment to stave off a potential recession back at the start of the last decade which ended up with an even bigger recession by the end of it. Other countries that has had property bubbles over the last few years like the USA, Spain and the Irish Republic have all been significantly deflated (the USA especially in some places, Ireland not as much as I thought it would be), but the UK has somehow rode it out and prices are across much of the country increasing again. It's madness. The current result is a large bill to the government in distributing housing benefit to private landlords whose business is being largely state subsidised, high rents for those in the private sector who can't get housing benefit, and any family looking to buy a property other than a static caravan in Scarborough needs to have two full-time wage earners in good jobs to have any hope. The Germans appear to me to have a much better attitude to housing and property.

 

The price of housing in the UK needs to come down, potentially between 40-50% from its current levels. But there's not a hope in hell of the Conservatives in the coalition government looking to try and encourage such conditions to cause a fall in house prices e.g. offer a relaxation of current planning laws, placing limits on multiple non-commercial property holdings or encourage councils to increase social housing stock, because they have heavy interests in this field. Then again so does Labour, and the Lib Dems to a certain extent. It doesn't have to be really spelled out. But a big reduction of property prices would help many first time buyers, reduce rental prices and most importantly, allow people to have more disposable income to spend on goods and services to stimulate the economy, or to save. The only people who'd lose out would be speculators who should be reminded that the price of investments is always a risk and can go down as well as up. Clegg and Cable have talked about the country being held to ransom by vested interests, wherever its union leaders on power trips or bankers who have behaved recklessly knowing their losses would be covered. The next vested group needs to be those involved in the property cartel, but don't hold your breath on it.

[David]

Possibly because him and his family for generations past have all worked to a level where they've never needed to claim benefits.

Being that his family is directly descended from royalty I find it hard to believe that they have seriously had to "work" in the true sense of the word for anything.

 

[The Amence One]

Ditch the NHS and try for the American style. I've not looked into it, and maybe I'm wrong but isn't private health insurance in and around

[JNLister]

You might get

[Mike Castle]

Ditch the NHS and try for the American style. I've not looked into it, and maybe I'm wrong but isn't private health insurance in and around

[Glen Quagmire]

Ditch the NHS and try for the American style. I've not looked into it, and maybe I'm wrong but isn't private health insurance in and around

[Steveo2007]

Possibly because him and his family for generations past have all worked to a level where they've never needed to claim benefits.

Being that his family is directly descended from royalty I find it hard to believe that they have seriously had to "work" in the true sense of the word for anything.

fair point, but just out of curiosity, in what way is he descended from Royalty?

[JNLister]

His grandad's grandad's grandad's grandad was King William IV.

 

Samantha Cameron's grandad's grandad's grandad's grandad's grandad's grandad was Charles II (shagging Nell Gwynne.)

[Tommy!]

Personally speaking I'm a huge advocate of the NHS. Its not perfect, but I think with some people its a case of you don't know how good you've got it 'till its gone.

[David]

Ditch the NHS and try for the American style. I've not looked into it, and maybe I'm wrong but isn't private health insurance in and around