turtles Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 I'm afraid you are the one missing the point. The point is that the cost of benefit scrounging parents is far more than just what they directly take out of the welfare budget. Their lifestyle choose mean they also contribute nothing towards education, the NHS, law and order, local authority services, repaying debt, defence etc, etc. If the welfare system returned to it original intention of being a safety net then people would be forced to behave more responsibly (which includes not having kids you can't afford) and we would see reduced burden and more contribution across many different budgets. What is the actual cost of these "benefit scrounging parents"? While there are parents like this out there, I would think it's a very small minority. If we are talking about what people contribute, why don't we attack pensioners too? They do not work yet receive benefits, and use a lot of NHS money. My grandmother for example, typical of her age, worked in a mill for a few years then got married, she is now disabled after having a stroke, and receives a pension as well as money to pay for carers to come four times a day. Where does it end? What if you are on low income, and you need surgery or long term medical aid, should we deny them because they aren't paying enough in taxes to cover the cost of their care? There are very few parents who would have a net contribution to society if we counter in costs of schooling, NHS and so-on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Just how comfortable is life in the welfare hammock then? Comfortable enough to have a house to live in, own TV's, mobile phones, microwaves etc. To buy new clothes,smoke, drink and have the central heating on. The kids schooling is all paid for by others, as is the hospital and doctors bills. Fairly comfortable I'd say. They certainly get a lot for nothing. And have you ever looked at how the welfare cost breaks down? See above - the cost is far more than just what they take out of the wefare budget. And, getting right back on topic, it is also about the kids. We need to inspire kids by showing them work pays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted May 6, 2014 Author Share Posted May 6, 2014 Whoa, you missed the point entirely from your first sentence. This debate is not about welfare in general but about the idea that a big proportion of tax revenue is spent on benefit scrounging parents. It isn't. That's not really what this thread was supposed to be about. People having kids in order to get benefits is bad on so many levels. Maybe this is common, or maybe it's not, but there's no doubt it goes on. I can't see how we deter it without making the kids suffer. I really would like to find a way though as freeloading offends me. What offends me even more is innocent kids being used in this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 What is the actual cost of these "benefit scrounging parents"? While there are parents like this out there, I would think it's a very small minority. If we are talking about what people contribute, why don't we attack pensioners too? They do not work yet receive benefits, and use a lot of NHS money. My grandmother for example, typical of her age, worked in a mill for a few years then got married, she is now disabled after having a stroke, and receives a pension as well as money to pay for carers to come four times a day. Where does it end? What if you are on low income, and you need surgery or long term medical aid, should we deny them because they aren't paying enough in taxes to cover the cost of their care? There are very few parents who would have a net contribution to society if we counter in costs of schooling, NHS and so-on. Government spending costs each household £27,000 each year, so some one on benefits and claiming £15,000 a year also gets an additional £27,000's worth of government provided services. If they worked not only would they not be receiving the £15,000 they would also be contributing something towards the £27,000 each household as spent on them. NHS costs each household £5000 Education cost for each household £3350 Defence cost for each household £1650 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 What is the actual cost of these "benefit scrounging parents"? While there are parents like this out there, I would think it's a very small minority. If we are talking about what people contribute, why don't we attack pensioners too? They do not work yet receive benefits, and use a lot of NHS money. My grandmother for example, typical of her age, worked in a mill for a few years then got married, she is now disabled after having a stroke, and receives a pension as well as money to pay for carers to come four times a day. Where does it end? What if you are on low income, and you need surgery or long term medical aid, should we deny them because they aren't paying enough in taxes to cover the cost of their care? There are very few parents who would have a net contribution to society if we counter in costs of schooling, NHS and so-on. Do we need to calculate the exact cost to know we don't want to be paying it? As for pensioners, they had their time when they paid the bills and now it is our turn. I don't mind supporting pensioners. I also don't mind supporting low earners providing they are putting in effort (e.g. working full time) and I don't mind supporting people who have hit hard times and need some help whilst they get back on their feet. What I do mind is paying to support feckless, selfish and irresponsible people. Is that wrong? ---------- Post added 06-05-2014 at 14:19 ---------- That's not really what this thread was supposed to be about. People having kids in order to get benefits is bad on so many levels. Maybe this is common, or maybe it's not, but there's no doubt it goes on. I can't see how we deter it without making the kids suffer. I really would like to find a way though as freeloading offends me. What offends me even more is innocent kids being used in this way. You can't stop it happen without kids suffering but that doesn't mean we shouldn't still stop it happening. We need to break the cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted May 6, 2014 Author Share Posted May 6, 2014 Do we need to calculate the exact cost to know we don't want to be paying it? As for pensioners, they had their time when they paid the bills and now it is our turn. I don't mind supporting pensioners. I also don't mind supporting low earners providing they are putting in effort (e.g. working full time) and I don't mind supporting people who have hit hard times and need some help whilst they get back on their feet. What I do mind is paying to support feckless, selfish and irresponsible people. Is that wrong? Pretty much what I said. Give it a minute and somebody will call you a fascist. You can't stop it happen without kids suffering but that doesn't mean we shouldn't still stop it happening. We need to break the cycle. There have been some suggestions. My original suggestion (3) was schemes to make sure that the extra benefits could only be used for the children. Feeding them at school was not a terrible idea. Here's an idea. Perhaps the unemployed could be explicitly forbidden from spending benefits on non-essentials. For example: no tobacco, no alcohol and no big screen TVs. They could be expected to provide receipts for their expenditure and required to return unspent benefits. Kind of like the expenses systems that many of us have with our employers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 I'm afraid you are the one missing the point. The point is that the cost of benefit scrounging parents is far more than just what they directly take out of the welfare budget. Their lifestyle choose mean they also contribute nothing towards education, the NHS, law and order, local authority services, repaying debt, defence etc, etc. If the welfare system returned to it original intention of being a safety net then people would be forced to behave more responsibly (which includes not having kids you can't afford) and we would see reduced burden and more contribution across many different budgets. Oh come on, all the things you describe are available universally to all citizens. If the actual amount spent on benefits for these scroungers is small then the number of people involved is small. Not extending universal entitlements to them would not save any money. Identifying the 'offenders' and managing their access to services would require a beuraucratic regime and likely cost more money than it saved. The other thing you need to realise is the system can never ever be perfect. ---------- Post added 06-05-2014 at 16:21 ---------- That's not really what this thread was supposed to be about. People having kids in order to get benefits is bad on so many levels. Maybe this is common, or maybe it's not, but there's no doubt it goes on. I can't see how we deter it without making the kids suffer. I really would like to find a way though as freeloading offends me. What offends me even more is innocent kids being used in this way. Maybe if you and Zamo could in some way quantify the problem it would help you conclude there are other things you should be more concerned about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Oh come on, all the things you describe are available universally to all citizens. If the actual amount spent on benefits for these scroungers is small then the number of people involved is small. Not extending universal entitlements to them would not save any money. Identifying the 'offenders' and managing their access to services would require a beuraucratic regime and likely cost more money than it saved. The other thing you need to realise is the system can never ever be perfect. If people are made to take responsibility then they will stop having kids they can't afford and that will not only reduce the welfare budget but also education, NHS, social services etc, etc. It doesn't require a perfect or overly bureaucratic system. We simply need to limit how long, and how often, we pay benefit to people not working full time when there is work available. Maybe if you and Zamo could in some way quantify the problem it would help you conclude there are other things you should be more concerned about. Why does there have to be nothing else to be concerned about before we deal with scroungers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 If people are made to take responsibility then they will stop having kids they can't afford and that will not only reduce the welfare budget but also education, NHS, social services etc, etc. It doesn't require a perfect or overly bureaucratic system. We simply need to limit how long, and how often, we pay benefit to people not working full time when there is work available. Why does there have to be nothing else to be concerned about before we deal with scroungers? OK, let's take a step back. Quantify the problem you believe exists and convince me that there is a real issue. That might persuade me that you haven't worked yourself into a tizzy based on some rubbish in the Daily Mail. No anecdotes. I want hard evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 OK, let's take a step back. Quantify the problem you believe exists and convince me that there is a real issue. That might persuade me that you haven't worked yourself into a tizzy based on some rubbish in the Daily Mail. No anecdotes. I want hard evidence. You ask the impossible because judging by your posts nothing will ever convince you that a problem exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.