Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2012 20:58:04 GMT -1
I KNOW I shouldn't do this, every one of us falling for the propaganda examples so prevalent in the press just now KNOW we shouldn't. BUT... I absolutely do not want people in genuine need of help and support being given less to live on while so many evade paying their taxes. And yes, I KNOW that it's not average cases that are being reported in the press and that vast majority of benefit claimants have nothing LIKE the amount of money quoted in these extreme cases. BUT......when it's reported (by the BBC in this case) that large families can claim £31000 tax free,(31 grand FFS!) I think we've got it all titsup. How did we get to a place where you can be much better off claiming benefits than going out to w*rk, even on the average--not the minimum--wage? Why should people who limit their families to what they can afford pay up for people who just want it all on a plate? OK, in cases such as this, some kids will be crammed two or three to a room. Hardly a great quality of life by modern standards. Hardly life or death though either And then again they have their parent(s) around 24/7 while parent(s) who go out to w*rk don't have that luxury. And I dont know about you guys but I could tell "Raymond' below exactly how to cut his cloth to fit the proposed reduction in his benefits without his kids having to choose between 'eating' and 'heating'. I suppose I should rise above it but you know, some days I just feel like an utter fool. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Feb 1, 2012 21:34:18 GMT -1
I KNOW I shouldn't do this, every one of us falling for the propaganda examples so prevalent in the press just now KNOW we shouldn't. BUT... I absolutely do not want people in genuine need of help and support being given less to live on while so many evade paying their taxes. And yes, I KNOW that it's not average cases that are being reported in the press and that vast majority of benefit claimants have nothing LIKE the amount of money quoted in these extreme cases. BUT......when it's reported (by the BBC in this case) that large families can claim £31000 tax free,(31 grand FFS!) I think we've got it all titsup. How did we get to a place where you can be much better off claiming benefits than going out to w*rk, even on the average--not the minimum--wage? Why should people who limit their families to what they can afford pay up for people who just want it all on a plate? OK, in cases such as this, some kids will be crammed two or three to a room. Hardly a great quality of life by modern standards. Hardly life or death though either And then again they have their parent(s) around 24/7 while parent(s) who go out to w*rk don't have that luxury. And I dont know about you guys but I could tell "Raymond' below exactly how to cut his cloth to fit the proposed reduction in his benefits without his kids having to choose between 'eating' and 'heating'. I suppose I should rise above it but you know, some days I just feel like an utter fool. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185It may sound callous - but fuk him Has he never heard of retraining, learning new software skills and methods should be a piece of pish to him The cigarettes wan tears me up, it's the usual shite, someone else's fault. Mibbe this will encourage him to get his finger out and get a job
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2012 21:54:47 GMT -1
Aye that's all very well, Nota, but even on £26K tax free (the proposed cap) you'd need to be earning £38K just to bring in the same amount net.
So why would someone with loads of kids, even if they were capable of earning that (top 10% of earners) w*rk 40 hours just to bring in the exact same income when you could stay home and have others do it instead?
We need to make work pay. And we seriously, IMHO, need to limit benefits to the first two children only.
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Feb 1, 2012 22:48:58 GMT -1
Aye that's all very well, Nota, but even on £26K tax free (the proposed cap) you'd need to be earning £38K just to bring in the same amount net. So why would someone with loads of kids, even if they were capable of earning that (top 10% of earners) w*rk 40 hours just to bring in the exact same income when you could stay home and have others do it instead? We need to make work pay. And we seriously, IMHO, need to limit benefits to the first two children only. Yes I agree, but as time goes on, I grow more heartily sick of hearing about the folk on benefits and their travails It is a safety net, it is not and nor should it be a lifestyle choice The only folk it should be all encompassing are those who are totally incapable of doing any work through health issues. Anyone else is going to have to get used to the "free" ride being either over or not free any more. For example 1) unemployed, after 13 weeks they get their benefit cut if they don't take a job, within reason that is offered, if they choose to do voluntary work in the community, whilst unemployed, they get extra benefits - stuff like odd jobs for elderly and disabled, helping with youth organisations The type of jobs were a normal business provided service can't be afforded and are normally voluntary. 2) no jumping the queue on coonsil hoose waiting list, just coz yer up ra duff and under 20 3) nae extra benefits fur merr than 2 weans 4) any anti social behaviour means a loss in benefits
|
|
|
Post by maggie on Feb 1, 2012 23:09:50 GMT -1
I aggree with you 100% Nota, benefits are supposed to be a safety net for essentials, not Sky tv and fags
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2012 0:51:28 GMT -1
Yes I agree, but as time goes on, I grow more heartily sick of hearing about the folk on benefits and their travails It is a safety net, it is not and nor should it be a lifestyle choice The only folk it should be all encompassing are those who are totally incapable of doing any work through health issues. Anyone else is going to have to get used to the "free" ride being either over or not free any more. For example 1) unemployed, after 13 weeks they get their benefit cut if they don't take a job, within reason that is offered, if they choose to do voluntary work in the community, whilst unemployed, they get extra benefits - stuff like odd jobs for elderly and disabled, helping with youth organisations The type of jobs were a normal business provided service can't be afforded and are normally voluntary. 2) no jumping the queue on coonsil hoose waiting list, just coz yer up ra duff and under 20 3) nae extra benefits fur merr than 2 weans 4) any anti social behaviour means a loss in benefits 1)I don't agree with paying extra for volunteering. There are thousands of people volunteering all over the country, why should the unemployed get paid for doing the same? No, if people refuse reasonable offers of work three times running say, they work on community projects in exchange for their benefits. Not paid extra over and above. 2) Social housing; it's too easy for parents to 'pretend' they won't support their teenage pregnant kids because they know it'll get them a house. No queue jumping it's totally unfair on those who're on the waitlist, sometimes for years on end. 3) I have said for years now, two kids tops for benefits. After that, you're on your own. Just like working people who cut their cloth according to their income. Contraception is free and readily available in this country--- which may come as a surprise to some 4) Nice idea re anti-social benefit loss but it's gonna end up costing fortunes in admin and probably court cases/appeals and the like. Counter productive, I think, sadly. "Raymond' is everything that's wrong about the benefits system. When you can't afford 'luxuries' such as multiple mobiles, internet, Sky, fags and booze they're the first things to go. The last four are more about the parents' needs than the kids' If anything his example's backfired because he could, by his own budget, feed and heat his children on far less than his current tax free 31K. Can we not build a better fairer Scotland? We need job creators, we need to invest in the skills of our people, take care of the genuinely needy and sick, and re-instil a work ethic where people are proud to contribute and do their share. Just saying, like,
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Feb 2, 2012 7:33:44 GMT -1
Let me see if I can clarify a bit
1) When I say extra, I don't mean a fortune - benefit topped up to what it was before 13 weeks, getting back what they had before If they are volunteering before that time, well they should be encouraged financially to do so If they have skills, joinery, plumbing etc they should be out fixing stuff for the elderly or any community group requiring those skills
carrot & stick approach
2) social housing There are many many people who work but don't earn enough to qualify for a mortgage or afford a decent home either It's time social housing started treating them better, why should they be leap-frogged in the waiting list by some lazy fekker, junkie or daft lassie up ra duff
3) anti-social behaviour It may create some admin issues but peopel have to learn responsibility for their own actions - they can arrest people benefits just now to pay fines etc - just arrest them by a larger amount
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2012 19:15:08 GMT -1
Let me see if I can clarify a bit 1) When I say extra, I don't mean a fortune - benefit topped up to what it was before 13 weeks, getting back what they had before If they are volunteering before that time, well they should be encouraged financially to do so If they have skills, joinery, plumbing etc they should be out fixing stuff for the elderly or any community group requiring those skills carrot & stick approach 2) social housing There are many many people who work but don't earn enough to qualify for a mortgage or afford a decent home either It's time social housing started treating them better, why should they be leap-frogged in the waiting list by some lazy fekker, junkie or daft lassie up ra duff 3) anti-social behaviour It may create some admin issues but peopel have to learn responsibility for their own actions - they can arrest people benefits just now to pay fines etc - just arrest them by a larger amount 1) There are unemployed plumbers and joiners? Ever tried getting one within 6 months of enquiring? They're like gold dust these guys ;D If anything we should be investing in more trade apprenticeships rather than the Labour party policy that all must go to University. Equal access to HE for school leavers that want it, yes. But feeling like a failure and having few training options other than training for a life on the dole's hardly constructive either. Seriously though, I get your point. I don't agree with paying a wage for volunteering but yeah, some travel and subsistence money rather than having people out of pocket for helping out, that'd be fair. 2) We should never have sold off council houses without a programme to replace them with similar amounts of social housing. 3) I'm still a waverer on the arrestment of benefits thing, Nota. In time such a policy might change attitudes, I agree--- but in the short term it's only going to lead to more homelessness, possibly further criminal behaviour, and worst of all, young children being caught up in deprivation that's none of their making. All of that has a cost, either financially or socially. I think one answer is to start to build a country where the population feels it has a stake in society, that everyone's efforts matter and that they have a voice that will be listened to. Thatcher single-handedly created an underclass 30 years ago and the wasteland and breakdown in the social fabric (sorry!) we have in some areas now is testament to that.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Feb 2, 2012 20:52:23 GMT -1
Our plumber is from Clydebank. Been here a year. Came out on a trip after finishing his apprenticeship liked it went home then applied for permanent residence here. Wont go back. Likes the $$ and the weather, not having to work outside in the freeezing cold. Nice young guy got a local girl friend You train em, we employ em,
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2012 21:45:12 GMT -1
HAH! Some might say our truly dire weather is partly to blame for the fact we spend so much time indoors INVENTING everything Not for us endless languishing on beaches, giving it manana, spaced out on cocktails and the odd game of volleyball..ohhhh no That way lies ruin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2012 22:19:33 GMT -1
Yes I agree, but as time goes on, I grow more heartily sick of hearing about the folk on benefits and their travails Well in order to avoid cardiac arrest you probably shouldn't listen up to the bleeding hearts who're shrieking about the 'unfairness' of the suggestion that people who no longer need 3/4 bed council houses are asked to consider downsizing. Working people rent or buy their homes according to what they can afford, don't they? Spare rooms are a luxury. Could someone please explain to me why it's ok for a couple or single person to live in a big subsidised home after their children have left? While so many families are on the waitlist? Taking it further, there are cases of MPs on a salary of £65K still occupying council housing. There are cases of multimillionaire Lottery winners living in council housing. It's commonplace--- yes it IS!--for people with a good income buy another home yet retain the subsidised council house and let it out. Yet all we hear is bleat bleat, we can't uproot people from their communities. It's so fucking naive it beggars belief. Except of course those who bleat the loudest tend to be recipients rather than donors. Nothing focusses the mind more on what's fair and what's not than seeing thousands disappear from your paypacket every year to be spent in unaccountable ways by a Westminster government that has no mandate to rule in Scotland.
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Feb 3, 2012 7:13:44 GMT -1
For a fact in Charles Crescent in Drymen well over half the lovely council houses were sole almost as soon as they were available for sale and in the majority of cases it was the children of the people who were living in them who bought them in the parents name. They have since been rented or sold on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2012 0:43:31 GMT -1
So. Gideon (aka George) Osborne, UK Chancellor, Eton-educated heir to the Osborne and Little fortune, has been shamed into a u-turn on child benefit, we hear. His frankly inane proposal was that any household with a single earner on 40% tax (that means earning £42000-odd, before tax) would have the benefit withdrawn. Meaning that a dual income household where each partner earns £41K would still be entitled to benefit. Penalise one high earner in a family while other households can bring in nearly double without penalty? Crazy thinking and patently flawed. It will be interesting to see the solution he's been forced into. I suspect he'll settle on a combined household income threshold of maybe £65K as the upper limit for child benefit. The issue with making it means-tested of course means more expense in administrating it. Swings/roundabouts? Personally I would like to see a universal cap on child benefit beyond two children. Having a big family's a matter of choice--it's hardly inevitable any more--so shirley those that choose that as a lifestyle option should be prepared to shell out for their decision and not depend on everyone else to subsidise that choice? Or is that un-PC? We all pay for those children's schooling and healthcare and that's how it should be. I'm just talking about cash benefits here. It amounts to £20 quid odd per week for the first child and £18 or so for every subsequent one, It's bizarre to me that some spend it on designer outfits/holidays/treats while others desperately need it for essentials. SO titsup. I despise the capitalist system that rewards the already privileged but at the same time, I despise the benefits culture that sees so many with no aspirations other than a life of handouts. The Welfare State was founded on the principle of help for the neediest. A safety net not a longterm lifestyle choice. The Labour party needed to instil the notion of dependency so they'd get votes. The Tories are heartless shits who're perfectly prepared to attack the neediest, their obvious targets. Let us AWAY from this and find a fairer way.
|
|
|
Post by westender on Mar 7, 2012 13:01:50 GMT -1
Could someone please explain to me why it's ok for a couple or single person to live in a big subsidised home after their children have left? While so many families are on the waitlist? Well, it's hardly their fault there are are so many folk on the waitlist.... There's more to life than money. If you're still in the same house in which you have started married life, had your kids, raised a family, I for one would fully support anyone's right to remain in that house for as long as they like, no matter what size the house is. It's their life and contains their memories. NO-ONE has the right to demand that they shift from there. The fact that so many need accommodation is not the fault of residents of family-sized homes, and they should not be the ones made to pay for heinously irresponsible housing policy by successive governments.
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Mar 7, 2012 13:22:13 GMT -1
Could someone please explain to me why it's ok for a couple or single person to live in a big subsidised home after their children have left? While so many families are on the waitlist? Well, it's hardly their fault there are are so many folk on the waitlist.... There's more to life than money. If you're still in the same house in which you have started married life, had your kids, raised a family, I for one would fully support anyone's right to remain in that house for as long as they like, no matter what size the house is. It's their life and contains their memories. NO-ONE has the right to demand that they shift from there. The fact that so many need accommodation is not the fault of residents of family-sized homes, and they should not be the ones made to pay for heinously irresponsible housing policy by successive governments. Hmm almost agree 100% wae yoo there but not quite There's a case for at least encouraging folks to move into housing more suitable in size to their needs and they are capable of managing it Despite the fact that someone may have stayed in a coonsil hoose for 40+ years and no doubt holds memories - it may not be the best hoose fur them as they get on a bit and their physical/mental needs change Am all fur encouraging elderly folk to move into sheltered accomodation, where they can be supported, kept an eye on and have similar folks around them The only example I can think of is not quite 100% similar but gives a jist of it When we stayed in oor last hoose, it was an ex-scottish special semi. Next door was a wee auld wummin who had lived there nearly 50 years - hers was bought too - Scottish Special had been selling their hooses aff long before thatcher. After we had been there about 6 months she went doonhill rapidly wae dementia - we had walls being banged frae 1800, when we got hame frae work until the early hours. Mrs N went in a few times to see what was up - she complained about our never ending parties, yet she had all burners on teh gas cooker going what seemed like 24x7 - complained about her man no sleeping coz of our noise etc - he had been deid 20 years. Anyways we got the polis involved as her family were doing hee-haw to help, as none of teh family would come up at 0200 in teh morning to quiet her doon, teh polis would go doon to theirt hoose and knock them up - much harderto ignore the polis than us. I got social work involved and she was hospitalised for her ain safety - the basturds of a family didnae want her to go intae hospital as that meant they would have to sell the hoose to pay for her keep in hospital they wurnae in the least bit concerned aboot their maw maybe the auld wife was comfortable in her ain hoose - but it was far frae suitable fur her.
|
|