Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
delboypass

Benefits Need To Change In This Country

Recommended Posts

It appears yet again, us hard working tax payers are again subsidising the scum of the earth that Nu-Labour wants to promote.

£37,000 TAX FREE on benefits....Surely this is absolutely crazy.

Anyone that is caught with benefit fraud should never receive benefits again.

Does anyone else think £37,000 is a bit too much?

How do we get the Governemnt to respect its hard middle class workers when the lower class sit at home all day doing F..K all, raising hundreds of more scroungers whilst we cant afford houses or to have a family???

Bardsleys Cash Cow - Us!!!!

I personally think this is completely irresponsible of the Government and the huge shake up they promised 6 years ago needs to happen to give us some respect to go to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<i>I personally think this is completely irresponsible of the Government and the huge shake up they promised 6 years ago needs to happen to give us some respect to go to work.</I>

Err, guess what - they lied and have been gerrymandering with your taxes ever since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It appears yet again, us hard working tax payers are again subsidising the scum of the earth that Nu-Labour wants to promote.

£37,000 TAX FREE on benefits....Surely this is absolutely crazy.

Anyone that is caught with benefit fraud should never receive benefits again.

Does anyone else think £37,000 is a bit too much?

How do we get the Governemnt to respect its hard middle class workers when the lower class sit at home all day doing F..K all, raising hundreds of more scroungers whilst we cant afford houses or to have a family???

Bardsleys Cash Cow - Us!!!!

I personally think this is completely irresponsible of the Government and the huge shake up they promised 6 years ago needs to happen to give us some respect to go to work.

Made me laugh when it was claimed that she'd 'donated' her earnings to her sister. Yeah right! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK hardly has a generous benefits system - if I want JSA what is it these days? 50 or £60 a week. Big deal! The right-wing press love these stories cause they want us to go the same way as the USA. What a delightful thought.

What I object to is my tax money going on the military and subsidies to big business - the biggest scroungers of them all.

I run a successful business and am now up against a massive publicly funded organisation offering the same services that I do - costing millions in taxpayers money every year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony Blair is a farce......

On one hand he says he wants to crack down on yob behaviour....

Yet they then give Houses to single chav mums (promotion of yobs)

and ridiculous handouts to whole yob familys (again promotion of yobs!)

I have a family on benefits near me and they swear at their kids who are only about 3-4 years old. it makes me sick that I am funding these types of people.

It certainly wasnt the way i was raised and I know how they will grow up in the future thanks the Frued.

If i was in power id cut all benefits

1/ can only be claimed 6 out of 12 months a year

2/ Cant claim for more than 2 children

3/ Have to appear at a benefit office and stay there all day for your money.

4/ People on benefits are placed into 'Benefit gangs' and made to work for the country. IE cleaning rubbish and the likes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Blair is a farce......

On one hand he says he wants to crack down on yob behaviour....

Yet they then give Houses to single chav mums (promotion of yobs)

and ridiculous handouts to whole yob familys (again promotion of yobs!)

I have a family on benefits near me and they swear at their kids who are only about 3-4 years old. it makes me sick that I am funding these types of people.

It certainly wasnt the way i was raised and I know how they will grow up in the future thanks the Frued.

If i was in power id cut all benefits

1/ can only be claimed 6 out of 12 months a year

2/ Cant claim for more than 2 children

3/ Have to appear at a benefit office and stay there all day for your money.

4/ People on benefits are placed into 'Benefit gangs' and made to work for the country. IE cleaning rubbish and the likes.

I take it you believe that the unemployment rate is due solely to the fact that a proportion of people refuse to work, rather than them being unable to find work?

I agree the system isn't perfect, but do you think that every unemployed person is scum and should be humiliated publicly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest burdens on my council's spending at the moment is the child care placements (fostering) done through an agency (who presumably makes £££) and old people's care.

So is it cheaper to let the parents look after them on benefits or foster them out?

I sometimes think that sterilising EVERYONE in the early years would be a good idea. People would then have to take tests and pass before they were allowed to have children.

OK, its being done slowly through the water at the moment - fertility levels are at an all time low - just look how much the nhs wastes on IVF.

However an increasingly aged population needs younger people to look after it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you get shot of benefits, sorry subsidies, to big business and our heavy military spending as well? If you think all benefits should be cut after 12 months, I suppose we'd be following in the footsteps of the USA - does their social model appeal to you?

Edited by gruffydd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its not her fault. she and lots of people like this have been brought up on benefits themselves. they have no idea of where the public money that goes into their pockets actually comes from.

they have no concept of this. they simply see it like falling water. as normal as a daybreak. the sun comes up = the food comes onto the table.

nice isnt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The biggest burdens on my council's spending at the moment is the child care placements (fostering) done through an agency (who presumably makes £££) and old people's care.

So is it cheaper to let the parents look after them on benefits or foster them out?

I sometimes think that sterilising EVERYONE in the early years would be a good idea. People would then have to take tests and pass before they were allowed to have children.

OK, its being done slowly through the water at the moment - fertility levels are at an all time low - just look how much the nhs wastes on IVF.

However an increasingly aged population needs younger people to look after it.

Perhaps the problem is the debt monster that stalks our country? Families are relatively poorer today than in the past, hence the need for both parents to work and pay childcare costs. If we didn't have such free and easy credit poilicies debt would be lower (house prices would be a fraction of current levels), parents could look after their own children and we would have a healthier society.

Unfortunately success is only measured in financial terms by our society. The result is that we are in reality very poor.

Sterilisation will guarantee us poverty in the future - who will pay your pension and look after you? Your suggestion is yet more of the self-centred, small-minded, short-term thinking that has put us where we are now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Sterilisation will guarantee us poverty in the future - who will pay your pension and look after you"

Do you want a chavvy git wiping your **** when you're old and infirm?

There aren't enough people now to pay the pensions of the people already retired it isn't going to get better if we encourage people to breed like animals on benefits. Benefits are the same as pensions in that they cost us!

So you think one parent should stay at home? Or both? Should we as a society be rich enough and measure success by how the kids turn out?

Currently we're turning out a lot of violent, maladjusted anti-social animals. Would this be solved by parents staying at home and not working? Or giving people on benefits more money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It appears yet again, us hard working tax payers are again subsidising the scum of the earth that Nu-Labour wants to promote.

£37,000 TAX FREE on benefits....Surely this is absolutely crazy.

Anyone that is caught with benefit fraud should never receive benefits again.

Does anyone else think £37,000 is a bit too much?

How do we get the Governemnt to respect its hard middle class workers when the lower class sit at home all day doing F..K all, raising hundreds of more scroungers whilst we cant afford houses or to have a family???

Bardsleys Cash Cow - Us!!!!

I personally think this is completely irresponsible of the Government and the huge shake up they promised 6 years ago needs to happen to give us some respect to go to work.

Sorry dude, hate to say it but middle class *****er7 voted in Tony Cun7 and new labour, I agree with you, i know personally some coucil house low life *****5 and all the do is sit on their fat bone idle uneducated backsides expecting freebies oh yeah and their always copulating their socks off....more kids, more dosh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Sterilisation will guarantee us poverty in the future - who will pay your pension and look after you"

Do you want a chavvy git wiping your **** when you're old and infirm?

There aren't enough people now to pay the pensions of the people already retired it isn't going to get better if we encourage people to breed like animals on benefits. Benefits are the same as pensions in that they cost us!

So you think one parent should stay at home? Or both? Should we as a society be rich enough and measure success by how the kids turn out?

Currently we're turning out a lot of violent, maladjusted anti-social animals. Would this be solved by parents staying at home and not working? Or giving people on benefits more money?

The underclass are a function of our society. They exist because of the way our country is managed, not in spite of it.

Having someone you don't like wiping your backside is better than dying in a pool of your own excrement.

If people weren't allowed to borrow so much we wouldn't pay so much in interest as a society, essentials such as housing would be a great deal cheaper, a parent could stay at home to look after their children if they chose to, freeing up further jobs, reducing unemployment and the cost of benefits.

I do think that success should be measured by means other than solely financial. According to your ideas we should be happy now, as even the poor receive £37k per annum! We are not happy because we are slaves to the debt monster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Australia they started a "Work For Benefit" scheme in 1998 , where un-employed people had to work for so many days per week before they could draw their dole money. This was a compulsory civil conscription scheme and they had no choice in the matter.

If they failed to turn up to work they were docked something like 18% of their dole money for 6 months as a first offense. If they did it again then they had their dole money withdrawn.

The work could have been voluntary, part time work or even go back to school to qualify for benefits.

This is something I could see working in the UK, just think how many towns and cities could be cleaned up through community service even for just a couple of days per week per person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Australia they started a "Work For Benefit" scheme in 1998 , where un-employed people had to work for so many days per week before they could draw their dole money. This was a compulsory civil conscription scheme and they had no choice in the matter.

If they failed to turn up to work they were docked something like 18% of their dole money for 6 months as a first offense. If they did it again then they had their dole money withdrawn.

The work could have been voluntary, part time work or even go back to school to qualify for benefits.

This is something I could see working in the UK, just think how many towns and cities could be cleaned up through community service even for just a couple of days per week per person.

Sounds fantastic.

Can we make them wear fluorescent bibs with 'DOLE' written on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds authoritarian to me. Anyone answered me on the point of goverment benefits going to big business yet? Isn't it rather odd to turn all the blame on the weakest in society whilst turning a blind eye to 'benefits' when they go to big business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darwinisim at it's work, survival of the fittest.....This pair have all day, energy and incentive to re-produce....the more theyre-produce the more the state benefit system provides for them.

Sterilisation, work camps and permits to re-produce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Australia they started a "Work For Benefit" scheme in 1998 , where un-employed people had to work for so many days per week before they could draw their dole money. This was a compulsory civil conscription scheme and they had no choice in the matter.

If they failed to turn up to work they were docked something like 18% of their dole money for 6 months as a first offense. If they did it again then they had their dole money withdrawn.

The work could have been voluntary, part time work or even go back to school to qualify for benefits.

This is something I could see working in the UK, just think how many towns and cities could be cleaned up through community service even for just a couple of days per week per person.

I think that is probably more of a socialist theory than you might think. They are doing work that would otherwise not be done, hence there is a benefit to society.

However, you also need to maintain the existing unemployment infrastructure -dole offices etc. As well as that you need to pay new staff to supervise these forced workers. Forced workers are likely to need a lot of supervision to keep them under control and actually doing something productive.

I would guess you would need 1 member of staff (probably costing £40-50k per year, inc. pay, pension, national insurance contributions etc) per 5 or 10 workers.

Surely this just increases the cost of unemployment to society?

It reminds me of a story I heard about Swiss Banks. due to the strict labour laws in Switzerland it is very difficult and expensive to sack staff. As a result they are kept employed. This is despite the fact that it would be cheaper to put them all in a warehouse all day doing nothing for full pay, and outsourcing their jobs to the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darwinisim at it's work, survival of the fittest.....This pair have all day, energy and incentive to re-produce....the more theyre-produce the more the state benefit system provides for them.

Sterilisation, work camps and permits to re-produce.

I seem to recall that those methods were attempted in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s.

As far as I know, it didn't work out for the best. :rolleyes:

People like you make me laugh. Why do you assume that YOU would survive under such a system? You are a fool, and would be enslaved by the system along with everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds authoritarian to me. Anyone answered me on the point of goverment benefits going to big business yet? Isn't it rather odd to turn all the blame on the weakest in society whilst turning a blind eye to 'benefits' when they go to big business.

People take little interest in such complicated matters, hence business and government get away with it.

The citizens of this country have been abused and bullied, and as a result they vent their anger on who they can: in this case the abused, overworked, overtaxed, debt ridden public turn on the poorest and most vulnerable in society and blame them for everything.

They are looking in the wrong direction, and getting shafted behind their back at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I seem to recall that those methods were attempted in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s.

As far as I know, it didn't work out for the best. :rolleyes:

People like you make me laugh. Why do you assume that YOU would survive under such a system? You are a fool, and would be enslaved by the system along with everyone else.

Oh get real, it was quite clearly somewhat tongue in cheek and used to provoke discussion.

I'm well aware of what happened in Germany and what these sort of authoritarian regimes lead to.

However seeing that Sun article does get you thinking.............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pioneer31
People take little interest in such complicated matters, hence business and government get away with it.

The citizens of this country have been abused and bullied, and as a result they vent their anger on who they can: in this case the abused, overworked, overtaxed, debt ridden public turn on the poorest and most vulnerable in society and blame them for everything.

They are looking in the wrong direction, and getting shafted behind their back at the same time.

but the welfare state does cost this country an awful lot of money

the system is being abused beyond belief

I'm still trying to figue out how Omar Bakri managed to get so many goodies - no NI payed, unable to work, not looking for work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you read that sun article did you see this being the case?

Of course there are cases of abuse (who can say for sure how many though?). Abuse should of course be minimized. But to tar everyone with the same brush is unfair.

Have you ever thought "there but for the grace of God go I"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the thing that worries / upsets me most is that knowing how inefficient the whole of central and local government can be it's probably actually cost the tax payer 100k to provide the 37k to the woman. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 302 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.