A government led by me would not hesitate in sending such companies a bill (after passing the appropriate legislation of course). You still haven't said why it is acceptable for a company that makes hundreds of millions of pounds in profit should receive an effective subsidy from the state. That answers a large part of your question about who pays.

 

Millions of people have indeed lived in a time when there were no benefits. Millions of children died as a result. As I said before, the proportion of the benefits budget that goes to people out of work is tiny. However, the press choose to concentrate on cases where they can describe parents as feckless etc. which suits the government as it gives them an easy target. Any government that is serious about tackling the benefits bill should concentrate on tackling low pay.

The simple answer to the question of how we are going to compete with China is that we aren't. We can't and shouldn't try to get sucked into the undercutting game, jobs can be created in other ways.

A government led by me would not hesitate in sending such companies a bill (after passing the appropriate legislation of course). You still haven't said why it is acceptable for a company that makes hundreds of millions of pounds in profit should receive an effective subsidy from the state. That answers a large part of your question about who pays.

 

Millions of people have indeed lived in a time when there were no benefits. Millions of children died as a result. As I said before, the proportion of the benefits budget that goes to people out of work is tiny. However, the press choose to concentrate on cases where they can describe parents as feckless etc. which suits the government as it gives them an easy target. Any government that is serious about tackling the benefits bill should concentrate on tackling low pay.

 

I don't know what the proportion is for in/out work but you have to remember that the people who are getting working tax credit for example are also paying tax, which redeems a lot of the money given out to them in some ways. Wheras people who are not are a drain on resources. And as has been said previously, its not just the unemployment benefit, the money has to be found to pay rent, Council tax, heating and the rest for these people as well. Like I said I was unemployed myself for six months or so and of course not everyone chooses to be. These people should get help to maintain their lifestyle while seeking work in my opinion as they have contributed for many years. Why someone who has contributed nothing can complain about whatever they are given is beyond me. Also the "moral blackmail" argument that the children will suffer etc I can understand from you, but where do you draw the line? Like Gezza says there has to be some way to try and get people to act responsibly. Successive governments on both sides have failed to tackle this. People who do avoid working & have multiple children etc have a certain mentality. They obviously do not care about the burden put on society by their actions, but we all feel guilty because the children may suffer etc. Again like Gezza says "someone will bail me out".

Edited May 14, 201312 yr by torresgirl

They're a drain on resources while they're not working, so create jobs rather than leading them to a slow death.

They're a drain on resources while they're not working, so create jobs rather than leading them to a slow death.

 

Create jobs for those that want to work yes, but we are talking about the irresponsible section where generations have never worked & choose "alternative" lifestyles.

Create jobs for those that want to work yes, but we are talking about the irresponsible section where generations have never worked & choose "alternative" lifestyles.

Jobs start appearing and you'd be surprised how many realise that they want one. All this talk of "making work pay", the answer isn't to squeeze those on benefits whether they want to be on them or not.

Jobs start appearing and you'd be surprised how many realise that they want one. All this talk of "making work pay", the answer isn't to squeeze those on benefits whether they want to be on them or not.

 

Jobs start appearing? To find a job you have to look for one......

Jobs start appearing? To find a job you have to look for one......

Just because they're on benefits, doesn't mean they don't talk to other people / pay attention to the news.

Create jobs for those that want to work yes, but we are talking about the irresponsible section where generations have never worked & choose "alternative" lifestyles.

A lot of people love to talk about these families where nobody has worked for generations. However, when they are asked for examples, they go all quiet. All the evidence suggests that there is a very small number of families where two generations have not worked. Nobody has yet come up with a credible, verified example of a family where three generations have not worked (apart from certain branches of the Windsor line).

A lot of people love to talk about these families where nobody has worked for generations. However, when they are asked for examples, they go all quiet. All the evidence suggests that there is a very small number of families where two generations have not worked. Nobody has yet come up with a credible, verified example of a family where three generations have not worked (apart from certain branches of the Windsor line).

 

OK how many are the very small numbers? Do you ever watch tv? On BBC news a few weeks ago, I saw there were I think 40,000 (or similar, that's from memory so may be wrong but it was a lot and I remember being shocked.) on benefits claiming for 4 children or more. And also I came from a very large family and my uncles and aunts all behaved like this, which Is why I have no respect for them and am the way I am today. The aunt I spent most of my childhood with had 8 children and never worked (three different fathers) and 4 of her children have never worked at all and have more than 3 children each.

 

Oh and I agree about the Royal family. Glorified spongers the lot of them.

 

When I met my ex husband at 19 and moved away and bought my own home, they all told me "I thought I was above myself", funny I've seen this attitude here too from some posters about people who try and make something of themselves being somehow in the wrong. Interesting.

Edited May 14, 201312 yr by torresgirl

What's wrong with giving people support though? If it wasn't for the obvious reason, I'd be happy for the authorities to do that.

OK how many are the very small numbers? Do you ever watch tv? On BBC news a few weeks ago, I saw there were I think 40,000 (or similar, that's from memory so may be wrong but it was a lot and I remember being shocked.) on benefits claiming for 4 children or more. And also I came from a very large family and my uncles and aunts all behaved like this, which Is why I have no respect for them and am the way I am today. The aunt I spent most of my childhood with had 8 children and never worked (three different fathers) and 4 of her children have never worked at all and have more than 3 children each.

 

Oh and I agree about the Royal family. Glorified spongers the lot of them.

But that's not the same as a family where generations have never worked. And how many of them are families who have paid plenty of tax and NI over the years but have had a change of circumstances? That's what National Insurance is for. There's a clue in the name.

I refer back to the point, is getting a few grand for no work at all any worse than getting several million for manipulating some numbers, and several million more as a bonus for doing it horrifically badly?

 

Has it ever occurred to you that people saying "what's the point in working anyway?" might come from the fact that some of the most deplorable people in society are some of the richest, and many of the hardest working get next to nothing?

I refer back to the point, is getting a few grand for no work at all any worse than getting several million for manipulating some numbers, and several million more as a bonus for doing it horrifically badly?

 

Has it ever occurred to you that people saying "what's the point in working anyway?" might come from the fact that some of the most deplorable people in society are some of the richest, and many of the hardest working get next to nothing?

 

I don't see how one thing is related to another to be honest. Its common decency to want to support your own isn't it? And surely the argument being applied that bad examples are few at the "poor" end of society can be applied at the richer end too. Also we can't all be millionaires what kind of logic is this? I won't bother because people in the city earn million? Excuses once again.

I don't see how one thing is related to another to be honest. Its common decency to want to support your own isn't it? And surely the argument being applied that bad examples are few at the "poor" end of society can be applied at the richer end too. Also we can't all be millionaires what kind of logic is this? I won't bother because people in the city earn million? Excuses once again.

It's not excuses in the slightest.

 

The point is that if society isn't at all meritocratic, it kills all desire for social mobility.

But that's not the same as a family where generations have never worked. And how many of them are families who have paid plenty of tax and NI over the years but have had a change of circumstances? That's what National Insurance is for. There's a clue in the name.

 

Are you seriously saying you have never seen those documentaries where this is the case? Or are these cases cases made up in your eyes? Its just a part of a general point I'm making. I don;t know the exact numbers none of us do. My point is a growing trend for fecklessness. Do you think that the 40k or however many it was claiming with 4 children or more who haven't worked are entitled to what they get? I'm genuinely interested. I just don't understand why people jump to the defence of such people. It makes no sense to me.

 

As for paying in and getting out there are many examples of people who work all there lives being shafted. Just look at the Elderly who have to sell their homes to pay for care, while of course if you don't own your home or savings you get the care anyway. I'm NOT saying these people should be left to rot but where's the incentive to look after yourself in this country.

 

I already said that people who have gotten divorced or separated from long term relationships are not who I'm talking about. I lost my job after 19 years and I was treated with distain as my previous posts on this topic.

Edited May 14, 201312 yr by torresgirl

It's not excuses in the slightest.

 

The point is that if society isn't at all meritocratic, it kills all desire for social mobility.

 

I'm sorry I think that's nonsense.

 

 

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.

 

Despite the right-wing media's spin, the French economy despite it's many imperfections has actually overtaken the UK's economy over the past 5 years, and it's growth rate now is better than ours. And then of course there's Germany, widely viewed as the ideal economic model right now since their economy is vastly outperforming the UK on every measure even DESPITE having the disadvantage of being in an ailing currency, and Germany also has....much higher wages than the UK.

Despite the right-wing media's spin, the French economy despite it's many imperfections has actually overtaken the UK's economy over the past 5 years, and it's growth rate now is better than ours. And then of course there's Germany, widely viewed as the ideal economic model right now since their economy is vastly outperforming the UK on every measure even DESPITE having the disadvantage of being in an ailing currency, and Germany also has....much higher wages than the UK.

Yes and I wonder how much longer Germany will be footing for the bill for the poorer EU countries but that's a different argument. As for the relative annual GDP growth performances of the UK and France since Hollande took over last May (which is the period I was referring to) france and Britain UK tells its own story.

Are you seriously saying you have never seen those documentaries where this is the case? Or are these cases cases made up in your eyes? Its just a part of a general point I'm making. I don;t know the exact numbers none of us do. My point is a growing trend for fecklessness. Do you think that the 40k or however many it was claiming with 4 children or more who haven't worked are entitled to what they get? I'm genuinely interested. I just don't understand why people jump to the defence of such people. It makes no sense to me.

 

As for paying in and getting out there are many examples of people who work all there lives being shafted. Just look at the Elderly who have to sell their homes to pay for care, while of course if you don't own your home or savings you get the care anyway. I'm NOT saying these people should be left to rot but where's the incentive to look after yourself in this country.

 

I already said that people who have gotten divorced or separated from long term relationships are not who I'm talking about. I lost my job after 19 years and I was treated with distain as my previous posts on this topic.

Many of the cases cited in the press are either grossly distorted or represent such a tiny fraction of the population that it isn't worth getting hot and bothered about the cost.

 

You still haven't explained why it is so bad for people to have children and think "someone else will pay" but it is perfectly acceptable for companies to pay pathetically low wages and think "someone else can top it up" when the latter costs many times more than the former.

 

Every government has tried to make sure that people are better off in work than out of it. However, apart from the minimum wage, they have always concentrated on the level of benefits rather than low pay. Surely anybody in full-time work should be entitled to expect a reasonable standard of living for themselves and their family (within reasonable size limits) without having to rely on benefits?

 

Legislation based on a few exceptional cases is almost invariably bad legislation. That's what this lot are doing on the subject of benefits.