freudstheory Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 So people are saying, people should work and get themselves into debt when they're better off on benefit? No. I'm just voicing my opinion, which as stated above, is that benefits should be cut to those who are able to work but choose not to. And to avoid getting into debt....don't live beyond ones means. Been there, done that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxster Posted October 28, 2011 Author Share Posted October 28, 2011 So people are saying, people should work and get themselves into debt when they're better off on benefit? Not sure anyone suggested getting into debt. Definitely get a job and live within their means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 No. I'm just voicing my opinion, which as stated above, is that benefits should be cut to those who are able to work but choose not to. And to avoid getting into debt....don't live beyond ones means. Been there, done that The problem isn't the benefits, it's the rate at which they are withdrawn, and the cost of living. Somebody on JSA can earn £5 without losing a penny, but then the next £53.45-67.50 they'll lose £1 for every £1 earned. Doesn't matter if benefits are 1p or a trillion $. These people aren't better off for working. They are worse off, when they lose 100% of the money earned and have additional expense. they lose out on the extras such as leisure time, not having to pay bus fares to get to work in the first place, free dentist etc. Universal credit should solve this problem. But what when there aren't any jobs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxster Posted October 28, 2011 Author Share Posted October 28, 2011 freudstheory is the problem more to do with people's attitude towards work. Individuals should really want to work first and foremost not consider benefits part of the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freudstheory Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Doesn't matter if benefits are 1p or a trillion $. These people aren't better off for working. They are worse off, when they lose 100% of the money earned and have additional expense. they lose out on the extras such as leisure time, not having to pay bus fares to get to work in the first place, free dentist etc. Universal credit should solve this problem. But what when there aren't any jobs? True, the government should cut benefits but should then introduce something to assist people working on minimum wage that helps maintain a certain standard of living? Contributing something to rent maybe? Or council tax? Or discounts on products and services as an incentive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freudstheory Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 freudstheory is the problem more to do with people's attitude towards work. Individuals should really want to work first and foremost not consider benefits part of the process. Yes Maxster, if people have the mindset that they can have a better lifestyle from benefits, do what they want all day and believe there is no point of working in a job you hate, for less money. Then there will always be people who will not want to work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 The bit that really annoyed me was the woman complaining about "why should she work all day at minimum wage". Answer; because that's all you're going to be worth love and you'd get less than that if it were allowed. She went on to say she'd be worse off. Translation - she gets paid more now to do nothing than a working person. She then complained about not getting enough Child Benefit. It gets me so mad Was it the queen or some other member of the monarchy who are the worst spongers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 As well shining a spotlight on those that won't work, did the programme give equal amount of time to: The people who are in work but have to top their low wages up through benefits The people who don't claim benefits even though they're entitled to claim them The people who save the welfare state a fortune by looking after sick and elderly relatives, and give their time voluntarily The amount of tax that is unpaid to the treasury because of tax evasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Peter Oborne summed up Labours approach and legacy on this issue perfectly: "Gordon Brown developed a social security system that entrenched dependency and trapped the unemployed in poverty. Certainly he gave them more money – the benefits to which a single mother is entitled rose by 85 per cent under New Labour. But he made one crucial mistake as he set out to create a Labour client state. He did not give people hope or self-respect. Indeed, as Iain Duncan Smith, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, is starting to discover, Brown made it economically irrational for many people to seek work, thus turning unemployment into a way of life. I would guess that many of the young men and women drawn into last week’s frenzy come from families where there have been no jobs for generations" Peter Osborne is a numpty. And so is Gordon Clown IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freudstheory Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 As well shining a spotlight on those that won't work, did the programme give equal amount of time to: The people who are in work but have to top their low wages up through benefits The people who don't claim benefits even though they're entitled to claim them The people who save the welfare state a fortune by looking after sick and elderly relatives, and give their time voluntarily The amount of tax that is unpaid to the treasury because of tax evasion. Didn't see that Mister M as I turned it off after about 15 minutes. My opinion on that; The first group of people named above, deserve more given to help them. The second group of people must already be comfortable or well off. The third group of people should be given more. The forth, tax issue, well not much you can do about the forth cos they're all wealthy people that evade tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.