Don't be RIDICULOUS. Do you seriously think that that much of £120 per week (which would be the highest a couple with kid/s would get in direct benefits a week) ends up being DISPOSABLE? The poor pay for gas, water, electric and food as well, you realise?

 

You have a bizarre definition of disposable income. Your private healthcare bills, luxury food, broadband and mobile phone contract count as disposable income, which is the income you have left over after tax.

 

The poor (well the poor on benefits I don't know about the working poor) have free housing benefit whereas my rent comes out of my own pocket

 

Broadband and mobile phone in my case are essential working tools, I cannot carry out my work without either likewise my car as I have to travel to meetings in areas where there is no rail links so again I don't consider those things a luxury to me they are all essential for me to carry out my every day business effectively.

 

After I have paid out my tax, NI, rent, food, phone, broadband, car expenses etc etc etc, I have about £130 a week left which is really not that far away from what the couple on benefits are on

The poor (well the poor on benefits I don't know about the working poor) have free housing benefit whereas my rent comes out of my own pocket

 

Broadband and mobile phone in my case are essential working tools, I cannot carry out my work without either likewise my car as I have to travel to meetings in areas where there is no rail links so again I don't consider those things a luxury to me they are all essential for me to carry out my every day business effectively.

 

After I have paid out my tax, NI, rent, food, phone, broadband, car expenses etc etc etc, I have about £130 a week left which is really not that far away from what the couple on benefits are on

Yes, but the benefits aren't disposable income! :/ After the couple with a child have paid out their food, phone, electric, gas, water from their £120 p/w, do you really think they'll have anything NEAR £130 a week left?! Your disposable income is greater than their ENTIRE income. You're in no position to complain that they 'have it so good' at all.

Yes, but the benefits aren't disposable income! :/ After the couple with a child have paid out their food, phone, electric, gas, water from their £120 p/w, do you really think they'll have anything NEAR £130 a week left?! Your disposable income is greater than their ENTIRE income. You're in no position to complain that they 'have it so good' at all.

 

Difference being I have completed 50 hrs work at the end of the week, they have done 0 between them. I have earned the right to enjoy any money I have left over, they haven't.

 

People need to cut their coat according to their cloth, I would love an Aston Martin but instead get by on a Hyundai i30 as that is what I can afford within my budget so if a "poor" person is struggling then they need to find economies within their existing lifestyle rather than desire more state handouts.

 

There is no such thing as equality, the idea people are born equal and are entitled to the same as everyone else is a myth, the poor are poor because either they didn't try hard at school or because they are thick or because they are too lazy to haul themselves up by the bootstraps and make something of their lives, I have little sympathy for those people. I have sympathy for the physically and mentally handicapped but I don't have sympathy for bone idle wasters who don't want to make something of their lives or thought it smart to not get an education, the rich are largely rich because they studied hard, worked hard etc.

 

 

Difference being I have completed 50 hrs work at the end of the week, they have done 0 between them. I have earned the right to enjoy any money I have left over, they haven't.

 

People need to cut their coat according to their cloth, I would love an Aston Martin but instead get by on a Hyundai i30 as that is what I can afford within my budget so if a "poor" person is struggling then they need to find economies within their existing lifestyle rather than desire more state handouts.

The idea that somebody can enjoy a measly couple of quid compared to £130 is laughable.

 

I'll refer you to this article - a REAL example of the people living on benefits rather than a caricature offered up by the Daily Wail etc.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/mar...adicate-promise

 

She made mistakes, correct. But do explain how she can work her way out of her current problem (or ought life to be decided at 16?), and do explain where she can find economies within her existing lifestyle.

 

There is no such thing as equality, the idea people are born equal and are entitled to the same as everyone else is a myth, the poor are poor because either they didn't try hard at school or because they are thick or because they are too lazy to haul themselves up by the bootstraps and make something of their lives, I have little sympathy for those people. I have sympathy for the physically and mentally handicapped but I don't have sympathy for bone idle wasters who don't want to make something of their lives or thought it smart to not get an education, the rich are largely rich because they studied hard, worked hard etc.

My mother came from a fairly poor background but still went to university and got a 2:1 in Law. She ended up working as a part-time administrator at a nursery for about £18,000 a year because that was all there was going. Was she stupid or lazy? No. She got a respectable qualification, applied for every law job going but ended up getting turned down from all of them - probably because, not coming from an affluent background, she didn't have the requisite contacts or what have you. She got a good qualification but ended up poor. Do tell me how this example fits into your model of 'the poor are only poor because they are thick or lazy'. I am currently poor - I hope to haul my way out of that one in the long term, but I would resent the implication that it was because I was thick or lazy. I currently work damn hard as a sandwich salesman but the market isn't particularly great at the moment BECAUSE people are cutting back on things like this. So why do I do it? Because it's all that there is going. I don't earn very much, but I'm still working hard at increasing my returns in the holiday I have before I go to university. I'd hope I wouldn't be described as stupid, and I'd resent being described as lazy when it comes to my career - so do explain how I, as a (admittedly slightly inaccurate example, in that I don't depend entirely on this income) member of the working poor, DESERVE to be poor and bear a larger share of a crisis I have nothing to do with? You may resort to platitudes about the 'scroungers' and the like, but they are by no means in the majority - these measures will affect the 7 million in the lowest 10% of working earners. Are all of these people thick and lazy? Certainly not. This isn't a pure meritocracy Craig - just because YOU managed to get to the top doesn't mean everyone else can.

 

The fact that social mobility has collapsed since Thatcher came into power shows this. Did the poor all of a sudden carry on wanting to be poor once Thatcher got into power? Did the rich all magically produce children all as capable of studying and working hard as their parents when Thatcher came into power (and since)? Bollocks.

What people forget about persons on benefits (the vast majority through no fault of their own) is whatever benefits they get ... they spend in their local community ... thus keeping any workplaces in those areas - food shops, clothes shops ... and yes ... the odd pub ... in business. It isn't like they go on a bloody Caribbean Cruise with them. If benefits stopped or were cut drastically in any way ... it would just exacerbate the problem as those businesses in these already cash-strapped areas - would go bust.

 

Kath

 

What people forget about persons on benefits (the vast majority through no fault of their own) is whatever benefits they get ... they spend in their local community ... thus keeping any workplaces in those areas - food shops, clothes shops ... and yes ... the odd pub ... in business. It isn't like they go on a bloody Caribbean Cruise with them. If benefits stopped or were cut drastically in any way ... it would just exacerbate the problem as those businesses in these already cash-strapped areas - would go bust.

 

Kath

 

Very true. Plus, no matter how much Craig and other Conservanazis try and claim otherwise, the fact is benefit dependency decreased substantially between Labour's time in office between 1997 and 2010. In fact, evidence from numerous other countries shows strong correlation between increases in benefits and a decrease in benefit dependency, and this has been borne out by the increase in benefits (particularly for families with children) over the past 13 years in the UK. From the Liberal Conspiracy:

 

Increasing benefits helps people get jobs

 

Right-wing think tank boss Neil O’Brien writes that:

 

“If you give people more benefits, they will be better off today. But if that encourages them to stay on benefits, rather than find work, they will be poorer tomorrow. “The question to ask,” as Nick Clegg wrote, “is what its dynamic effects are, particularly across the generations. How does it increase opportunities? Will it unlock the poverty trap or deepen it?”"

 

Let’s have a look at what these dynamic effects might be.

 

Between 1996 and 2009, benefits for lone parents were increased substantially. So according to the Clegg/O’Brien theory, we would expect more of them to be encouraged to stay on benefits. Over the same time period, benefits for single adults of working age decreased in real terms. The same theory would suggest that this would lead to more people finding work.

 

Here’s what actually happened:

 

In 1996, during a time of economic growth, 45% of lone parents were in work. In 2009, when Britain was in severe recession, 57% of lone parents were in work.

 

In 1999, 30% of single adults without children were in “workless” households. In 2009, 29% of single adults without children were in “workless” households. If you look at a longer time period, the value of out of work benefits has nearly halved over the last forty years, and unemployment has more than doubled.

 

If you give people more benefits, they will be better off today. But what the evidence shows is that higher benefits also helps people to find work, increases opportunities and unlocks the poverty trap.

 

If you are a millionaire politician, this might be hard to understand, particularly when it is politically inconvenient to grasp the point. But it’s not that difficult.

 

If the government pursues a strategy of class warfare, of demonising poor people and cutting their benefits, then people will concentrate on day to day survival, on trying to keep a roof over their heads and coping with ill health and all the other problems that are caused when you don’t have enough money to live on. In consequence, they will find it harder and harder to get a job or stay in work. And, in any case, there will be fewer jobs in their community as benefit cuts suck money out of the local economy.

 

In contrast, if the government provides everyone with a decent safety net and enough money to live on, then more and more people will be able to think about and plan for more than just getting through to the end of the week. They’ll get the confidence to apply for jobs, they’ll be in better health and even have a little bit of money to spend on studying and developing their skills. They’ll see their friends and neighbours getting jobs and help each other to be able to lift themselves out of poverty.

 

This isn’t some wild-eyed theory, this is what actually happens in the real world. And Clegg’s comments and those of his right-wing supporters just show, yet again, that they are the ones in denial.

And, while I'm quoting left-wing blogs, this is from Labour MP Rachel Reeves:

 

 

The more you look at the IFS analysis, the worse it gets

 

In June I wrote a piece for the Guardian’s Comment is Free, citing the ‘shocking’ evidence from the Institute of Fiscal Studies that George Osborne’s budget will cost the poorest families four times as much as the richest families. Two months on, and after much number crunching, the IFS has revised its analysis.

 

Poorer families are in fact paying nearly five times more than the richest to bring down the budget deficit at a speed and value greater than anything tried before. This comes on top of evidence from the House of Commons Library that women will bear 73% of the impact of the budget as tax credits and child benefit and scaled back.

 

This week it was left to Nick Clegg to defend this regressive budget that will push more families, and especially children according to the analysis, back in to poverty. Clegg defended the budget on two counts.

 

First he said that:

 

“Much of the IFS analysis was about benefits, but we want to get people off benefits and into work. That is a plan for real fairness.”

 

A laudable ambition which we all share. But, hardly consistent with a budget that on the Office of Budget Responsibility’s forecast (the very quango set up by Osborne) reduces growth this year and next and adds an extra 100,000 people to the unemployment count this year and for the duration of the Parliament. The budget is regressive, and if you take in to account the impact on unemployment, even more so.

 

The second defence from the leader of the once-progressive Liberal Democrats is that the capital gains tax increases weren’t included. But as the IFS point out:

 

“The capital gains tax measures that were excluded only came to about £800m compared to £4.1 billion in welfare measures excluded by the Treasury in their assessment.”

 

Even if all the capital gains impact were included it would not alter the facts. The poor lose out, while those at the top of the income distribution who have much greater capacity for absorbing some of pain and who arguably bear a little more responsibility for the recession, can carry on as usual.

 

 

The IFS analysis shows that because of the changes to benefits – particularly linking benefits to CPI and not RPI (a broader measure of prices) – substantially cutting housing benefits, freezing child benefit, and cuts to Disability Living Allowance and tax credits – the poor lose out. This is compounded by the increase in VAT which falls harder on low income families.

 

Child and pensioner poverty fell substantially under Labour, but to meet the target of abolishing child poverty by 2020 a lot more is needed. The new government point to the pupil premium and plans to offer a tax incentive to keep married couples together. But, the stark reality of this budget is clear from the IFS numbers. For every income bracket, families with children lose out most, and those with least money to spare are hit hardest.

 

For families in the bottom income decile, earning £190 a week, the budget will make them £8 a week worse off – whereas families in the top decile, earning an average of £1,600 a week the hit is £13. More than affordable at the top but plunging people in to poverty at the bottom. Expect child poverty to increase even higher. Expect income inequality to start rising sharply – especially as most wage settlements are linked to the broader RPI rather than CPI.

 

From the Conservatives, we should have expected this sort of budget. From the Liberal Democrats, it is further evidence that they abandoned their principles on entering office. For families up and down Britain it is just a prelude to what this government defines as ‘progressive’ politics.

Edited August 27, 201014 yr by Danny

The idea that somebody can enjoy a measly couple of quid compared to £130 is laughable.

 

I'll refer you to this article - a REAL example of the people living on benefits rather than a caricature offered up by the Daily Wail etc.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/mar...adicate-promise

 

She made mistakes, correct. But do explain how she can work her way out of her current problem (or ought life to be decided at 16?), and do explain where she can find economies within her existing lifestyle.

My mother came from a fairly poor background but still went to university and got a 2:1 in Law. She ended up working as a part-time administrator at a nursery for about £18,000 a year because that was all there was going. Was she stupid or lazy? No. She got a respectable qualification, applied for every law job going but ended up getting turned down from all of them - probably because, not coming from an affluent background, she didn't have the requisite contacts or what have you. She got a good qualification but ended up poor. Do tell me how this example fits into your model of 'the poor are only poor because they are thick or lazy'. I am currently poor - I hope to haul my way out of that one in the long term, but I would resent the implication that it was because I was thick or lazy. I currently work damn hard as a sandwich salesman but the market isn't particularly great at the moment BECAUSE people are cutting back on things like this. So why do I do it? Because it's all that there is going. I don't earn very much, but I'm still working hard at increasing my returns in the holiday I have before I go to university. I'd hope I wouldn't be described as stupid, and I'd resent being described as lazy when it comes to my career - so do explain how I, as a (admittedly slightly inaccurate example, in that I don't depend entirely on this income) member of the working poor, DESERVE to be poor and bear a larger share of a crisis I have nothing to do with? You may resort to platitudes about the 'scroungers' and the like, but they are by no means in the majority - these measures will affect the 7 million in the lowest 10% of working earners. Are all of these people thick and lazy? Certainly not. This isn't a pure meritocracy Craig - just because YOU managed to get to the top doesn't mean everyone else can.

 

The fact that social mobility has collapsed since Thatcher came into power shows this. Did the poor all of a sudden carry on wanting to be poor once Thatcher got into power? Did the rich all magically produce children all as capable of studying and working hard as their parents when Thatcher came into power (and since)? Bollocks.

 

When the kids go to school there is no reason why she can't get on a college course and get some skills or learn a trade, she could do an office course for a couple of years while the kids are at school and get NVQ or whatever which would help her get a job in an office, she could get a job waitressing, I bet all these poles and afhgans who are working in cafes and restaurants didn't have any degrees to flash about at the interview.

 

Looking in her living room I can see several nice gadgets, she has a nice expensive tv, I can see a DVD player, I can see a Sky TV box (can't make out whether it is HD or normal Sky but I can see it), I can see a games console too, why does she have those things ? if she did not buy gadgets she would have more money to feed the kids, I am sure she will say "the kids get bored without the gadgets" but there were no gadgets when I was a kid we made our own entertainment. She should sell all the gadgets, cancel the Sky, replace the 36" tv with a 14" portable.

 

In terms of your circumstances Tyron you and your family were not remotely what I was referring to in my original post.

 

And going to the 7m that are on the "poverty line" again there are so many variables and everyone is lumped in together, a single bloke making £250 a week in a warehouse or factory and lives at home with his parents is raking it in given he has to only spend his money on himself and has no commitments but because he is earning 60% of median wage he is lumped in as "poor", very few young single blokes or single girls are earning the £500 a week national average but they are all lumped intothis 7m and are doing very nicely as they have no dependents so can spend their money on clothing make up and binge drinking.

 

Someone with kids is in a different situation but they have child benefit and tax credits to help them out too

Edited August 28, 201014 yr by I ❤ JustinBieber

Very true. Plus, no matter how much Craig and other Conservanazis try and claim otherwise, the fact is benefit dependency decreased substantially between Labour's time in office between 1997 and 2010. In fact, evidence from numerous other countries shows strong correlation between increases in benefits and a decrease in benefit dependency, and this has been borne out by the increase in benefits (particularly for families with children) over the past 13 years in the UK. From the Liberal Conspiracy:

 

That is all the well and good but where will the money come from to fund all these huge benefit increases that are proposed in that article ? there is not a money tree at the bottom of the garden or a money fairy the tens of billions that this would cost has to come from somewhere so taxes would have to rise which then punishes hard working middle income families.

 

Do explain without the usual "soak the bankers" mantra where the money to increase all these benefits massively will come from

Edited August 28, 201014 yr by I ❤ JustinBieber

How is it fair that a family that scrounge have more disposable income or as much as someone who works 50 hrs a week

 

Where the hell are you getting that fantasy from...? Been reading the Daily Heil again have we..? And taking the ONE or TWO extreme cases where this might be true as being typical for the vast majority on benefits...

 

Look, I dont like "dole scroungers" anymore than you do, but unless you can actually come up with a policy or a method which targets them and them alone, then forget it....

My mother came from a fairly poor background but still went to university and got a 2:1 in Law. She ended up working as a part-time administrator at a nursery for about £18,000 a year because that was all there was going. Was she stupid or lazy? No. She got a respectable qualification, applied for every law job going but ended up getting turned down from all of them - probably because, not coming from an affluent background, she didn't have the requisite contacts or what have you. She got a good qualification but ended up poor. Do tell me how this example fits into your model of 'the poor are only poor because they are thick or lazy'. I am currently poor - I hope to haul my way out of that one in the long term, but I would resent the implication that it was because I was thick or lazy. I currently work damn hard as a sandwich salesman but the market isn't particularly great at the moment BECAUSE people are cutting back on things like this. So why do I do it? Because it's all that there is going. I don't earn very much, but I'm still working hard at increasing my returns in the holiday I have before I go to university. I'd hope I wouldn't be described as stupid, and I'd resent being described as lazy when it comes to my career - so do explain how I, as a (admittedly slightly inaccurate example, in that I don't depend entirely on this income) member of the working poor, DESERVE to be poor and bear a larger share of a crisis I have nothing to do with? You may resort to platitudes about the 'scroungers' and the like, but they are by no means in the majority - these measures will affect the 7 million in the lowest 10% of working earners. Are all of these people thick and lazy? Certainly not. This isn't a pure meritocracy Craig - just because YOU managed to get to the top doesn't mean everyone else can.

 

And this is the essential truth.. If you're not one of the "Oxbridge Mafia" or are connected or are born into a certain class, you've got little or no chance of getting anywhere in life in this country... I wouldn't say Craig was at the "top" either tbh, he wants to be, but if he thinks the "rolly-up trouser leg" brigade or the "old boys network" is gonna let him in to their exclusive little clique, well, I'd argue he's got a cat in hell's chance tbh...

 

That lot dont want us "lower class" types in their club, they dont want us to have a piece of their pie, some rare people from working class backgrounds like Alan Sugar, or Sir Paul McCartney, yeah they make money sure, but they'll never really be truly part of their little "gang"....

 

Remember what John Lennon once said - "Those of you in the cheap seats clap your hands, the rest of you rattle your jewellry"... He KNEW what it was all about, and he was absolutely correct, nothing's changed, or will ever change in this country without a fundamental restructuring of our society......

 

Where the hell are you getting that fantasy from...? Been reading the Daily Heil again have we..? And taking the ONE or TWO extreme cases where this might be true as being typical for the vast majority on benefits...

 

Look, I dont like "dole scroungers" anymore than you do, but unless you can actually come up with a policy or a method which targets them and them alone, then forget it....

 

Time limiting benefits would be a start, give everyone on JSA 1 year to find a job, if they do not find a job after 1 year then their JSA stops and they can go to charities for assistance, there is no real excuse in an advanced western society why an able bodied person could not find a job of some sort within a year, if they haven't then quite frankly they haven't been trying hard enough.

 

That will not weed out the scroungers on incapacity benefit but I would bring in severe restrictions in terms of entitlement to that, really raise the bar in terms of who is entitled to it, instead of a letter from a GP for people with bad backs/bad legs etc there would have to be a note from an orthapaedic surgeon plus x rays that verify this person has a physical condition that makes them unfit for any type of work, hoodwinking and conning GP's is a lot easier than doing the same to an orthapaedic consultant surgeon. Depressives would instead of going to a GP have to provide hard evidence of a history of seeing a psychiatrist and a note from the psychiatrist that this person is unfit for work. On top of that I would bring in regular spot checks, a visit without warning to the claimants home, if they are doing the gardening when the inspector turns up and they are claiming incapacity benefit for a bad back then bye bye benefit etc

Time limiting benefits would be a start, give everyone on JSA 1 year to find a job, if they do not find a job after 1 year then their JSA stops and they can go to charities for assistance, there is no real excuse in an advanced western society why an able bodied person could not find a job of some sort within a year, if they haven't then quite frankly they haven't been trying hard enough.

 

That will not weed out the scroungers on incapacity benefit but I would bring in severe restrictions in terms of entitlement to that, really raise the bar in terms of who is entitled to it, instead of a letter from a GP for people with bad backs/bad legs etc there would have to be a note from an orthapaedic surgeon plus x rays that verify this person has a physical condition that makes them unfit for any type of work, hoodwinking and conning GP's is a lot easier than doing the same to an orthapaedic consultant surgeon. Depressives would instead of going to a GP have to provide hard evidence of a history of seeing a psychiatrist and a note from the psychiatrist that this person is unfit for work. On top of that I would bring in regular spot checks, a visit without warning to the claimants home, if they are doing the gardening when the inspector turns up and they are claiming incapacity benefit for a bad back then bye bye benefit etc

 

 

The first is unrealistic in a bloody recession, AND with the fact that the unemployment levels are likely to reach 1980s levels in the next couple of years... We were an "advanced western society" in the 1980s when Thatcher threw millions onto the scrap heap, destroyed communities and industry, loads of people never worked again because of what she did, you cant reasonably expect someone in their 40s who's been doing a particula job for 15-20 years to be able to "re-train" for another just like that, it's unrealistic.. The Tories are gutting the Public sector, so it's the 80s all over again... And I simply dont believe the Private Sector is gonna pick up the slack or employ anything like all the people who are gonna be made redundant in the coming couple of years, so, sorry, but that's just bullsh"t......

 

And the second might not work either with conditions such as Sciatica or ME which can come and go.... You seem to also be assuming that all GPs are idiots or something....

 

 

The first is unrealistic in a bloody recession, AND with the fact that the unemployment levels are likely to reach 1980s levels in the next couple of years... We were an "advanced western society" in the 1980s when Thatcher threw millions onto the scrap heap, destroyed communities and industry, loads of people never worked again because of what she did, you cant reasonably expect someone in their 40s who's been doing a particula job for 15-20 years to be able to "re-train" for another just like that, it's unrealistic.. The Tories are gutting the Public sector, so it's the 80s all over again... And I simply dont believe the Private Sector is gonna pick up the slack or employ anything like all the people who are gonna be made redundant in the coming couple of years, so, sorry, but that's just bullsh"t......

 

And the second might not work either with conditions such as Sciatica or ME which can come and go.... You seem to also be assuming that all GPs are idiots or something....

 

Another thing that I would like to see but unfortunately the stupid Human Rights act would not allow it is electronic tagging of JSA claimants who have been claiming over 6 months and non physically and mentally handicapped incapacity benefit claimants, the start up costs and the costs of monitoring the tagging would be quite substantial but it would make working while claiming almost impossible as the tags would show regular patterns of behaviour such as being at a certain place several hours a day regularly for example or show a consistent pattern, also someone who claims to be unfit for work due to a bad back or unable to walk 50 yards disappearing for hours regularly would flag up suspicious behaviour and then this person can be watched.

 

The amount of money that is lost by people cheating and defrauding and working on the side etc is a lot more than this scheme would cost.

Edited August 28, 201014 yr by I ❤ JustinBieber

When the kids go to school there is no reason why she can't get on a college course and get some skills or learn a trade, she could do an office course for a couple of years while the kids are at school and get NVQ or whatever which would help her get a job in an office, she could get a job waitressing, I bet all these poles and afhgans who are working in cafes and restaurants didn't have any degrees to flash about at the interview.

 

Looking in her living room I can see several nice gadgets, she has a nice expensive tv, I can see a DVD player, I can see a Sky TV box (can't make out whether it is HD or normal Sky but I can see it), I can see a games console too, why does she have those things ? if she did not buy gadgets she would have more money to feed the kids, I am sure she will say "the kids get bored without the gadgets" but there were no gadgets when I was a kid we made our own entertainment. She should sell all the gadgets, cancel the Sky, replace the 36" tv with a 14" portable.

 

Did you read the article? She HAS been studying and participating in a computer skills course. You are simply blinkered and will ignore anything that deviates from your "anyone on benefits is a lazy scrounger" crusade. And did it actually state that photo was taken from HER living room?

 

Time limiting benefits would be a start, give everyone on JSA 1 year to find a job, if they do not find a job after 1 year then their JSA stops and they can go to charities for assistance, there is no real excuse in an advanced western society why an able bodied person could not find a job of some sort within a year, if they haven't then quite frankly they haven't been trying hard enough.

 

That will not weed out the scroungers on incapacity benefit but I would bring in severe restrictions in terms of entitlement to that, really raise the bar in terms of who is entitled to it, instead of a letter from a GP for people with bad backs/bad legs etc there would have to be a note from an orthapaedic surgeon plus x rays that verify this person has a physical condition that makes them unfit for any type of work, hoodwinking and conning GP's is a lot easier than doing the same to an orthapaedic consultant surgeon. Depressives would instead of going to a GP have to provide hard evidence of a history of seeing a psychiatrist and a note from the psychiatrist that this person is unfit for work. On top of that I would bring in regular spot checks, a visit without warning to the claimants home, if they are doing the gardening when the inspector turns up and they are claiming incapacity benefit for a bad back then bye bye benefit etc

 

GRIMLY has fielded this already, but in the midst of a great big RECESSION with high unemployment levels, it's actually quite a realistic possibility that someone could go a year and be unable to find work.

Did you read the article? She HAS been studying and participating in a computer skills course. You are simply blinkered and will ignore anything that deviates from your "anyone on benefits is a lazy scrounger" crusade. And did it actually state that photo was taken from HER living room?

GRIMLY has fielded this already, but in the midst of a great big RECESSION with high unemployment levels, it's actually quite a realistic possibility that someone could go a year and be unable to find work.

 

I don't think that EVERYONE on benefits is a lazy scrounger, have never implied that, never will imply that

 

I would say that probably 30% are scroungers, defrauding the system, working on the side or whatever or have no intention of working

 

Another 50% want to work but are not trying hard enough to look for work or are thumbing their noses up at low paid jobs or have set their sights too high and need to take a reality check in terms of what type of work they are going to get

 

Another 20% are trying hard to get jobs but are having difficulty because they are say over 45 or have been in prison or whatever

 

That is my OPINION, not backed up by facts or statistics but by gut instinct

Edited August 28, 201014 yr by I ❤ JustinBieber

When the kids go to school there is no reason why she can't get on a college course and get some skills or learn a trade, she could do an office course for a couple of years while the kids are at school and get NVQ or whatever which would help her get a job in an office, she could get a job waitressing, I bet all these poles and afhgans who are working in cafes and restaurants didn't have any degrees to flash about at the interview.

 

Looking in her living room I can see several nice gadgets, she has a nice expensive tv, I can see a DVD player, I can see a Sky TV box (can't make out whether it is HD or normal Sky but I can see it), I can see a games console too, why does she have those things ? if she did not buy gadgets she would have more money to feed the kids, I am sure she will say "the kids get bored without the gadgets" but there were no gadgets when I was a kid we made our own entertainment. She should sell all the gadgets, cancel the Sky, replace the 36" tv with a 14" portable.

Are you sure that's a Sky player? :/ On the amount she's on a month, how on earth do you think she'd be able to afford Sky? The level of unemployment in Hartcliffe is astronomical - do you really think any waitressing jobs etc. are going to last long on the job market?

 

In terms of your circumstances Tyron you and your family were not remotely what I was referring to in my original post.

 

Someone with kids is in a different situation but they have child benefit and tax credits to help them out too

Really? We were poor and would've been affected terribly by the cuts to public services and increase in VAT. Child benefit and tax credits helped but they were by no means a saviour - we were still struggling to make ends meet at the end of each week. I don't really see how 'the poor are poor because they are thick or lazy' could be construed NOT to have referred to us in at least some way?

I don't think that EVERYONE on benefits is a lazy scrounger, have never implied that, never will imply that

 

I would say that probably 30% are scroungers, defrauding the system, working on the side or whatever or have no intention of working

 

Another 50% want to work but are not trying hard enough to look for work or are thumbing their noses up at low paid jobs or have set their sights too high and need to take a reality check in terms of what type of work they are going to get

 

Another 20% are trying hard to get jobs but are having difficulty because they are say over 45 or have been in prison or whatever

 

That is my OPINION, not backed up by facts or statistics but by gut instinct

Ah, my favourite bit of the debate - the 'Craig pulls figures out of thin air and acts as if they mean anything' bit.

 

The fact you put your bolded statement as if it helps your argument in any way is quite amusing.

That is all the well and good but where will the money come from to fund all these huge benefit increases that are proposed in that article ? there is not a money tree at the bottom of the garden or a money fairy the tens of billions that this would cost has to come from somewhere so taxes would have to rise which then punishes hard working middle income families.

 

Do explain without the usual "soak the bankers" mantra where the money to increase all these benefits massively will come from

 

Well, "soaking the bankers" would be part of it. The banker's bonus windfall tax should be permanent, raising £500m. Also, I'd apply the 50% tax rate to all incomes over £100,000, as well as setting that as a minimum rate, thus ending a loophole where people can displace tax burdens, which altogether would bring in about £18bn. I'd uncap National Insurance contributions, which would raise an extra £15bn. A 0.05% financial transactions tax would bring in £40bn. A "wealth tax" which is targeted at assets (shares, second homes etc.) would mean non-doms would have to pay a contribution and would probably raise £15bn atleast. Private schools could lose their charitable status which would raise about £500m, and a mansion tax would raise about £2bn. Altogether, those suggestions would raise £90bn - more than enough to halve the deficit, and that's before you even start to target the £125bn which is lost each year through tax avoidance/evasion. So don't pretend that public service cuts are the only option.

Well, "soaking the bankers" would be part of it. The banker's bonus windfall tax should be permanent, raising £500m. Also, I'd apply the 50% tax rate to all incomes over £100,000, as well as setting that as a minimum rate, thus ending a loophole where people can displace tax burdens, which altogether would bring in about £18bn. I'd uncap National Insurance contributions, which would raise an extra £15bn. A 0.05% financial transactions tax would bring in £40bn. A "wealth tax" which is targeted at assets (shares, second homes etc.) would mean non-doms would have to pay a contribution and would probably raise £15bn atleast. Private schools could lose their charitable status which would raise about £500m, and a mansion tax would raise about £2bn. Altogether, those suggestions would raise £90bn - more than enough to halve the deficit, and that's before you even start to target the £125bn which is lost each year through tax avoidance/evasion. So don't pretend that public service cuts are the only option.

I'm not a fan of private schools losing their charitable status, but I AM a fan of making them earn it - i.e. at least a quarter of their pupils have to be means-tested and go free below a certain parental income, which would work in conjunction with the pupil premium.