They are promoted by a media that makes villains out of these groups of people and is completely blind to the reasons why they're in that position in the first place.

More like they promote self help-yourself

 

Not in any way supporting Tories, but life isnt black & white. I have friends who have no intention of ever working again and have quite a reasonable state supported lifestyle, and others who do want to work but can't. I'm not judging either groups of people/friends, just saying not every person on state support is an unfortunate victim sometimes it's choice. On the other hand I provide data in my job for Right To Buys (and apologies for repeating this) - people renting council houses getting a state-supported half-price house under Right To Buy. This expensive-to-the-taxpayer policy is Tory-supported, but is a free gift to the less well off not available to private-sector people renting houses. The benefits system was created to help the needy who found themselves in between jobs (unless they couldnt work) not to become a lifestyle choice even if some don't see it that way...

They are promoted by a media that makes villains out of these groups of people and is completely blind to the reasons why they're in that position in the first place.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Everyone else to blame but themselves. I guess its the Tories fault that certain groups that don't have the means to do so have children they can't support for example. Contraception is free no? I guess we blame the education system that's also free which sends them from school so stupid? The reward free accommodation, bills paid etc. And people that are working in average jobs support these people while struggling themselves but hey because they work and support their children, that's seen as "helping yourself" by some of the responses on here. As a recent poster said it's not black and white and the whole "Money bad, the poor good" nonsense is so ridiculous.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Everyone else to blame but themselves. I guess its the Tories fault that certain groups that don't have the means to do so have children they can't support for example. Contraception is free no? I guess we blame the education system that's also free which sends them from school so stupid? The reward free accommodation, bills paid etc. And people that are working in average jobs support these people while struggling themselves but hey because they work and support their children, that's seen as "helping yourself" by some of the responses on here. As a recent poster said it's not black and white and the whole "Money bad, the poor good" nonsense is so ridiculous.

Are you saying education and contraception shouldn't be free?

 

What you're either struggling to recognise or willfully ignoring is that, benefits or no benefits, people at the bottom are being disproportionately penalised by this government. The people at the top stay at the top because that's how the market works, and every step to roll back the state and get the minority working only serves to punish everyone but the elite.

Are you saying education and contraception shouldn't be free?

 

What you're either struggling to recognise or willfully ignoring is that, benefits or no benefits, people at the bottom are being disproportionately penalised by this government. The people at the top stay at the top because that's how the market works, and every step to roll back the state and get the minority working only serves to punish everyone but the elite.

 

Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand me? I am saying obviously that contraception and Education are FREE for all so there is absolutely no excuse for having children you can't support at others expense and certainly not doing it more than once. They make themselves "poor" in some cases.

 

There are always going to be some people better off than others what do you want to do. Take money from people who work and give a share to people who are irresponsible? They are certainly wages that are ridiculous but I don't let the fact I'm earning average wage and some banker may be earning 10 times what I am make me bitter. If I could get a job like that I would and I'm sure most people would as well. Its too simplistic your argument.

 

I have more problem with the teen age mums who have never worked and get everything paid for them than I do with someone working in the City. When I lost my job I didn't apply for Council tax reduction for a few months because I wanted to support myself and was hoping to find work quickly. When I didn't find work and asked for help because my money was running out I was told "you should have applied from your first day of unemployment" and they penalised me gave me minimal support. I guess I should have rushed down there straight away and taken money I didn't need. This country is warped. They are happy to pay irresponsible people though year in year out but not help me for a couple of months while I tried to find a job.

 

I know we are not going to agree and that's fine but the way things are done really makes me angry and fed up of hearing everyone is a victim. Some are unfortunate, yes, many more are not.

There are always going to be some people better off than others what do you want to do. Take money from people who work and give a share to people who are irresponsible? They are certainly wages that are ridiculous but I don't let the fact I'm earning average wage and some banker may be earning 10 times what I am make me bitter. If I could get a job like that I would and I'm sure most people would as well. Its too simplistic your argument.

 

Yes, there are always going to be some people better off than others - but why does that mean we should give up trying to change things if it's undeserved? The whole "taking money from people who work" thing hits it on the head - the money shouldn't be coming from people who will notice the difference. Of all the suicidally stupid things that have happened in the last three years, it's the 45% tax rate that angers me most.

 

If people think that a life on benefits is more lucrative than life on a low end wage, then low end wages are too low. End of.

 

If people think that a life on benefits is more lucrative than life on a low end wage, then low end wages are too low. End of.

This is, in one sentence, where the difference lies, do you increase wages or reduce benefits? To my mind you can't now escape globalisation and to increase wages will just make us uncompetitive and unattractive to business (hello France) but you pays your money and takes your pick.

I guess the fact that this topic is still active more than a month after Thatcher died shows how big the effect she had on the country was.

Yes, there are always going to be some people better off than others - but why does that mean we should give up trying to change things if it's undeserved? The whole "taking money from people who work" thing hits it on the head - the money shouldn't be coming from people who will notice the difference. Of all the suicidally stupid things that have happened in the last three years, it's the 45% tax rate that angers me most.

 

If people think that a life on benefits is more lucrative than life on a low end wage, then low end wages are too low. End of.

 

I will not disagree that some wages should be higher (wages in my sector have come down because its so competitive) obviously depending on what the job is. All I'm saying is people shouldn't be penalised for working and supporting themselves. The Child Tax credit system is great actually and a good incentive. My main point was that people on benefits are not necessarily worse off than people working in good jobs. When you are working you pay for everything, when you don't work you don't. It evens out in a lot of cases.

 

 

This is, in one sentence, where the difference lies, do you increase wages or reduce benefits? To my mind you can't now escape globalisation and to increase wages will just make us uncompetitive and unattractive to business (hello France) but you pays your money and takes your pick.

We have no hope of competing on the global scale in terms of low wages, so in mind it's not worth the effort. We need to diversify and specialise, bringing it around full circle I'd say the biggest crime of the Thatcher administration wasn't killing industry, it was failing to provide an alternative. Some places have eventually found a new niche - Sheffield is casting itself as a hub of high-end sport as a delayed response to the carnage wrought by the death of the steel industry, but it's so dominant over the likes of Doncaster that it's far easier to do than it is for most. Even then, they're now shutting down a world class athletics facility that helped revitalise a rundown ex-industrial bit of town when it was built 20 years ago.

 

Of course the other side of it is that, for all the talk of competitiveness, if your workers are paid so little that they get ill and commit more crime (to simplify it) then the state has to spend more than it would have done increasing wages.

We have no hope of competing on the global scale in terms of low wages, so in mind it's not worth the effort. We need to diversify and specialise, bringing it around full circle I'd say the biggest crime of the Thatcher administration wasn't killing industry, it was failing to provide an alternative. Some places have eventually found a new niche - Sheffield is casting itself as a hub of high-end sport as a delayed response to the carnage wrought by the death of the steel industry, but it's so dominant over the likes of Doncaster that it's far easier to do than it is for most. Even then, they're now shutting down a world class athletics facility that helped revitalise a rundown ex-industrial bit of town when it was built 20 years ago.

 

Of course the other side of it is that, for all the talk of competitiveness, if your workers are paid so little that they get ill and commit more crime (to simplify it) then the state has to spend more than it would have done increasing wages.

I don't really see what pushing up wages will do- we did that in the 70s and ended up with hyper inflation, without being competitive it's all just pouring money down the drain. We could of course specialise as you suggest- but then we have specialised in banking and financial markets which proved to do the trick for 20 odd years but has left us in large debt. I don't think there is really an easy solution sadly.

This is, in one sentence, where the difference lies, do you increase wages or reduce benefits? To my mind you can't now escape globalisation and to increase wages will just make us uncompetitive and unattractive to business (hello France) but you pays your money and takes your pick.

I wish some would stop ignoring what's actually happening rather than repeating this rhetoric over and over again. If this was a dominant factor then it wouldn't be London and the South East leading the way to recovery, it would be the rest of the UK. Simple as that.

I wish some would stop ignoring what's actually happening rather than repeating this rhetoric over and over again. If this was a dominant factor then it wouldn't be London and the South East leading the way to recovery, it would be the rest of the UK. Simple as that.

Yes because I haven't thought about this AT ALL myself. Of course wages are higher in London/ South East than they are in the rest of the UK but we're not comparing that, we're comapring the UK to other countries, beside which London gets many of its resources and goods from outside the area which can work out considerably cheaper.

I don't really see what pushing up wages will do- we did that in the 70s and ended up with hyper inflation, without being competitive it's all just pouring money down the drain. We could of course specialise as you suggest- but then we have specialised in banking and financial markets which proved to do the trick for 20 odd years but has left us in large debt. I don't think there is really an easy solution sadly.

The '70s had other problems, it was the first wave of proper globalisation and we struggled to cope with what was going on.

 

There's no point lowering wages when we won't be competitive without borderline violating human rights. Specialising in banking worked for the area that has an agglomeration in that sector but couldn't work anywhere else. The problems of progressively raising wages at the bottom end in line with the "living wage" are far outweighed by the benefits.

Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand me? I am saying obviously that contraception and Education are FREE for all so there is absolutely no excuse for having children you can't support at others expense and certainly not doing it more than once. They make themselves "poor" in some cases.

 

There are always going to be some people better off than others what do you want to do. Take money from people who work and give a share to people who are irresponsible? They are certainly wages that are ridiculous but I don't let the fact I'm earning average wage and some banker may be earning 10 times what I am make me bitter. If I could get a job like that I would and I'm sure most people would as well. Its too simplistic your argument.

 

I have more problem with the teen age mums who have never worked and get everything paid for them than I do with someone working in the City. When I lost my job I didn't apply for Council tax reduction for a few months because I wanted to support myself and was hoping to find work quickly. When I didn't find work and asked for help because my money was running out I was told "you should have applied from your first day of unemployment" and they penalised me gave me minimal support. I guess I should have rushed down there straight away and taken money I didn't need. This country is warped. They are happy to pay irresponsible people though year in year out but not help me for a couple of months while I tried to find a job.

 

I know we are not going to agree and that's fine but the way things are done really makes me angry and fed up of hearing everyone is a victim. Some are unfortunate, yes, many more are not.

Ten times? I think you'll find 100 times is nearer the mark.

 

The real scandal is the number of people in full time employment - many of them with massive and highly profitable employers such as the major supermarkets - who are paid so little that they need to claim benefits to get a decent income. That means that the government are effectively subsidising large employers which makes those employers the real benefit scroungers. Don't forget that the largest part of the benefits bill goes to pensioners with the overwhelming majority of the rest going to people in work.

 

As for your first statement, you make no allowance for people whose circumstances change. People may well decide that they can afford a(nother) child but they cannot possibly predict what will happen over the following 18 years or so.

Ten times? I think you'll find 100 times is nearer the mark.

 

The real scandal is the number of people in full time employment - many of them with massive and highly profitable employers such as the major supermarkets - who are paid so little that they need to claim benefits to get a decent income. That means that the government are effectively subsidising large employers which makes those employers the real benefit scroungers. Don't forget that the largest part of the benefits bill goes to pensioners with the overwhelming majority of the rest going to people in work.

 

As for your first statement, you make no allowance for people whose circumstances change. People may well decide that they can afford a(nother) child but they cannot possibly predict what will happen over the following 18 years or so.

 

I am not talking about people who get married have a long term partner or whatever and split up. I'm talking about people who are irresponsible and expect others to pick up the pieces. Have you really not seen the many teenagers having babies before they have even worked and many who have children by different fathers who have abandonded them but think the next guy will be different and do the same thing again? All this while not working but oh well I have a baby someone will pay.

 

The tax credit system (which I believe you are referring) which tops up income is a good thing. It keeps more people in work and promotes self help and self esteem. There are all sorts of benefits and I don't have any problem with anyone in work getting their salary topped up this way. I do have a problem however with people who contribute nothing and think the world owes them a living. I have seen this behaviour multiple times growing up and its much more common than you may think.

 

 

 

But why should employers - particularly large and profitable ones - be allowed to get away with paying their staff so little that they NEED to claim benefits? It is simply morally wrong.

 

Of course there are irresponsible parents around but who will suffer most if benefits are withdrawn? The children. They didn't choose their parents any more than you or I did.

But why should employers - particularly large and profitable ones - be allowed to get away with paying their staff so little that they NEED to claim benefits? It is simply morally wrong.

 

Of course there are irresponsible parents around but who will suffer most if benefits are withdrawn? The children. They didn't choose their parents any more than you or I did.

I doubt employers would be overly bothered whether Government stepped in to top wages they pay or not.

 

As for the children suffering, first and formost that is the parents responsibility and shouldn't be shoved onto government as primarily their responsibility. This is what creates the issue of irresponsibility- whatever happens someone else will bail me out. Sadly I see it everyday at work.

I doubt employers would be overly bothered whether Government stepped in to top wages they pay or not.

 

As for the children suffering, first and formost that is the parents responsibility and shouldn't be shoved onto government as primarily their responsibility. This is what creates the issue of irresponsibility- whatever happens someone else will bail me out. Sadly I see it everyday at work.

Companies would soon be bothered if the government sent them a bill for the cost of topping up wages.

 

Of course parents should be responsible for their children but that doesn't alter the fact that children should not be made to suffer for something which is not their fault. Nothing could make it more likely that those children will become the next generation of benefit dependents than just leaving them under-nourished in a home that is cold and damp - and therefore not a good environment for doing homework - because of a lack of money.

Companies would soon be bothered if the government sent them a bill for the cost of topping up wages.

 

Of course parents should be responsible for their children but that doesn't alter the fact that children should not be made to suffer for something which is not their fault. Nothing could make it more likely that those children will become the next generation of benefit dependents than just leaving them under-nourished in a home that is cold and damp - and therefore not a good environment for doing homework - because of a lack of money.

I don't think any government is going to sent business a bill for that do you?

 

No it is not a child's fault but then the child is not getting benefit the parent is- it is up to parents to budget appropriately. The weight of history doesn't support your argument, millions of people have grown up over the decades and centuries under awful conditions that were less than desirable and with no benefit system to support them. Whilst I'm hardly advocating returning to Victorian Britain what I am saying is that you have to have a system which teaches responsibility and rewards doing the right thing. I agree that all work should pay better than benefits and how are we to do that without jobs? How are you going to pull jobs back from China etc, and how are we going to pay for a welfare system that is ever more consuming and costly? They might be admirable principles but someone has to write the cheque and simply saying tax the rich more is not the answer, the practical evidence of the 70s and 80s teaches us that didn't work.