taxman Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 IMO thats just excuses, if you can get a non-paid job i'm sure you can get a paid one, but as you said in another thread 'that would mess my benefits up'. On what do you base that opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 On what do you base that opinion? I'm assuming the poster means if you're capable physically and mentally to do voluntary work the same would apply for paid work. The point with voluntary work is it tends to cater for the disability and the severity of it. Most companies don't..even though there's discrimination law to prevent it. The idiotic belief that employment is sitting waiting ready to be filled by the disabled is just that..idiotic. There aren't enough jobs for the able. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonjon Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 I'm assuming the poster means if you're capable physically and mentally to do voluntary work the same would apply for paid work. The point with voluntary work is it tends to cater for the disability and the severity of it. Most companies don't..even though there's discrimination law to prevent it. The idiotic belief that employment is sitting waiting ready to be filled by the disabled is just that..idiotic. There aren't enough jobs for the able. There are most certainly people who will use this as an excuse, many companies cater for the disabled, these days you can get on disability if your an Alcho. If people wanted work they would get it, if benefits suddenly stopped they would find work. But lets be honest with how high benefit payments are who would want to work?? One poster already admitted in another post that if he took full time employment it would mess up there benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuy Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Disability isn't a lifestyle choice, but choosing to use it as an excuse not to work is. Was it you the other day that was complaining about Sheffield Universtiy's policy on encouraging disabled people to work there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Enoch Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Have to agree with her,if you are on benefits and want big families don't expect the taxpayer to pay for it. Exactly! I go to work to support my family. Why should I have to pay taxes to support Tina Towerblock popping one out every year? If you can't afford them, don't have them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonjon Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Was it you the other day that was complaining about Sheffield Universtiy's policy on encouraging disabled people to work there? Nope, why would I discourage something to get people to work instead of claiming benefits?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Have to agree with her,if you are on benefits and want big families don't expect the taxpayer to pay for it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15790806 It's a bit rich coming from someone who played a direct role in the credit crunch though her position as MD of Morgan Stanley Chase London Branch until 2008 though. So rich in fact, that it makes me want to throw up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 should be a larger "benefit" cap on mps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Benefits are meant as an hand up …………… not a handout ………… some people need that printed in bold on their claims forms. £500 a week is far too generous and way above the average working man, when someone on benefits gets more than a working man something is wrong ……………. Very wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Large benefits families should certainly be discouraged, however, it is not moral nor ethical t punish the children for their parents' feckless lives and irresponsibility. I would suggest that after 3 children, all existing child related and further benefit is payable only in food and children's clothing vouchers; multiple births should be exempt of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.