ANGELFIRE1 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Aye, scroungers most of them. They would not know a days work if they tripped over it barefooted. The most alarming part was the foreign (very nice family) who went to Spain, got Spanish citizenship, then hopped on the boat over here, as Spain is part of the EU our laws cannot stop them coming. The welfare state was NEVER designed to cover this kind of a dabacle. This foreign family came over on camera as a very nice family unit, even though non seemed to have a word of English. But translated by the film unit the Father seemed to know the "English law". As he said they deserve the same treatment as any one else. The main problem with that is, many of us have given a lifetimes work before claiming assistance from the State. This family just turns up and - Bingo, full benefits without paying one penny into the pot. It just cannot be right. Regards Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxster Posted October 28, 2011 Author Share Posted October 28, 2011 Why did the family HAVE to live in Islington. They could move out a few miles and get the tube in... Perhaps the Beveridge report was spot on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
love_rat Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 I think we need to take a step back, in order to take a step forward. We then have a starting point. Lets look at the issue of housing benefit, if it is cut any further then people on housing benefit will not be able to live in areas like Harrow, and so in effect there will be an dividing system in place based on money. I for one think that to cut housing benefits to a maximum of 20k per annum is obscene, how can a family live in a 2million pound house if the maximum they can get is 20k per years? What about familys with lots of kids, we would be punishing the children and its not their fault. So less of this talk of "they get this" and "they get that", the people on the minumum wage should pay more in taxes, so we can pay for more in housing for people who do not choose to work. Lets not forget, going to work is a lifestyle choice and so people should not complain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
love_rat Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Aye, scroungers most of them. They would not know a days work if they tripped over it barefooted. The most alarming part was the foreign (very nice family) who went to Spain, got Spanish citizenship, then hopped on the boat over here, as Spain is part of the EU our laws cannot stop them coming. The welfare state was NEVER designed to cover this kind of a dabacle. This foreign family came over on camera as a very nice family unit, even though non seemed to have a word of English. But translated by the film unit the Father seemed to know the "English law". As he said they deserve the same treatment as any one else. The main problem with that is, many of us have given a lifetimes work before claiming assistance from the State. This family just turns up and - Bingo, full benefits without paying one penny into the pot. It just cannot be right. Regards Angel. Foregn? Are you Adolf Hitler by any chance? When you say foregn, what do you mean? Who is foregn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Child benefits should be paid for first 2 children, the rest after that should not count towards any increase in benefits. It's a lifestyle choice these days, and if you can't afford to have children then I am not happy to support them. I would go further. Anyone who has more than 2 children should pay a child tax for each additional child they breed so it actually makes people worse off the more kids they have. I would also only pay child benefit to married couples only to dissuade feckless single mothers who have kids so they can get given a free council flat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxster Posted October 28, 2011 Author Share Posted October 28, 2011 I would also only pay child benefit to married couples only to dissuade feckless single mothers who have kids so they can get given a free council flat. I can see that working; good idea. Lets not forget, going to work is a lifestyle choice and so people should not complain. Another good point being raised; work really doesn't suit some people's lifestyle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 What incentive would someone have to rent out a property at a loss? None. So perhaps he'd sell it. But it wouldn't be as worth as much as it currently is, if it wasn't for housing benefit propping up prices. The landlords would have to take a haircut. The working man would be better off, the rents would be driven down, along with houseprices. Money would have to be invested into productive business instead. Let's remove the subsidy. The landlord may go bankrupt, but who gives a toss. That's capitalism for you, he should have never got into debt in the first place, expecting for other people to pay his debts and more!, we have a welfare state to pick up the pieces and provide for him, whilst he finds something productive to do with his life. Currently the landlord is a very privileged being. And that ain't fair. I'd rather he was on the dole, than sucking the blood out of the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukdobby Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Numerous people said going to work would cost them money,money which is not theirs:loopy:end of the day benefits are too high,drop these and a lot would love to be on minimum wage.What we should do id pay a sum for every year they have contributed starting from bearly managable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 None. So perhaps he'd sell it. But it wouldn't be as worth as much as it currently is, if it wasn't for housing benefit propping up prices. The landlords would have to take a haircut. The working man would be better off, the rents would be driven down, along with houseprices. Money would have to be invested into productive business instead. Let's remove the subsidy. The landlord may go bankrupt, but who gives a toss. That's capitalism for you, he should have never got into debt in the first place, expecting for other people to pay his debts and more!, we have a welfare state to pick up the pieces and provide for him, whilst he finds something productive to do with his life. Currently the landlord is a very privileged being. And that ain't fair. I'd rather he was on the dole, than sucking the blood out of the economy. Why is housing benefit paid above market rates, that's the problem in the situation you describe. The landlord cannot set whatever price they want. Maybe in Islington but not in Sheffield, and why do the family have to live in Islington, if they can't afford to live there, they should move elsewhere, there are plenty of areas very close to Islington which are much cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Numerous people said going to work would cost them money,money which is not theirs:loopy:end of the day benefits are too high,drop these and a lot would love to be on minimum wage.What we should do id pay a sum for every year they have contributed starting from bearly managable. No start at a decent amount, to ensure they can get by comfortably while they search for another job. Then reduce the amount every 6 months or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.