Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Child Benefit to be scrapped for higher earners
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
You've missed the point Barley. The point being not everyone is a scrounger. In Pops example they certainly aren't. So the option there would be what? Take the kids into care?
Take another example. You're out for a ride. The worse thing in the world happens and you end up in a hospital bed. You're told you'll only leave it in a chair. Your insurance pays out to provide, but you've under insured. You still need a place to live, care and food. Your choice to go for that ride - should you be cared for by the wider society?
BDB, to me the point is that that type of situation is where benefits should be available. But I don't think blanket, non-means tested benefits are good for anyone.
Having a cycling accident is completely different to someone who chooses to have 7 kids and lives in Kensington.
Good point Womble.
And you would be cared for Barley. Just as someone who finds themselves in dire shite, having worked and lost their job or become bereaved disabled etc. I'm not talking about some mythical baby shitting chavvett.
BB- my grandad was one of 12 and yes there were no benefits etc. Kids were reduced to selling marbles out of bottles to sell for bread. Their dad got 6 months for nicking a chicken to feed them. Do we need to go back to that?
The system we have demands consumption of it's goods by as many as possible. It has created the need and demand for tellys, cars , gadgetry etc and an "expected" standard of living. When folk are denied that they are up in arms. If folk stopped consuming there would be more unemployment given the economic model we have. We seem to just want to selfishly (another symptom of capitalism) hold onto our jobs rather than share the available work among all of us, for example all having a 25 hour working week and consuming less.
Unemployment can be got rid off if we all stopped "pigging out" on consumer goods and thus worked less.
I'm doing my bit to up this by nicking their jobs...
I think that point that has been made, in that noe of us know when or if this could suddenly apply to us, given the changes in the economy, is a crucial one -
This isn't a case of looking down on a sub-class, its a question of policy towards those who are without employment.
This attitude towards people who apply for unemployment benefit is utterly disgraceful. If some of you were referring to a race or sexual orientation you'd be hounded out of here.
I've paid hundreds of thousands in tax in my working life, I've re-built a career through sheer hard work from literally being in the gutter, homeless with nothing.
I even started my own company to provide for my familly after being made redundant with little prospect of being employed in my specialised industry.
Now I find myself queing up to sign on for a measly amount of money each week and no support to keep the roof over our heads and I'm being catagorised a chav with kids I shouldn't have had (coz I can see into the future can't I) spending my 'benefits' on alcho pops and McD.
Have some consideration when generalising, it's unpleasant to be considered another lazy benefit cheat.
Peeeewidee not all of us have this attitude and you are exactly the reason we should have the safety net of benifits etc to help you when you need it the most.
When I was 12ish my dad got laid of from the steelworks with very little employment around. He did eventually find a job and has spent the last twenty odd years working in food factories but when he needed it the help was there.
Three years ago I had cancer and was a student nurse at the time so had a hard time getting anything because I could still get my bursary (i could go into uni for lectures but not onto the wards etc due to my immune system or lack of one) however the social wouldn't take into account I used to have to work 30 hours a week or so to top this up to support the kids. I am still catching up finacially from this. ASt the time it was a stress I could have done without.
Hope you find something and I know how you feel about the gereralising
I've just come back from an interview that looks hopeful and I'm sure we will get back on top, I always do.
I'm aware not everyone was generalising but for the few that made some comments you should consider that you might offend some one who has frequently worked 100 hour weeks, often worked 36hrs straight in one go and without any sleep all in order to provide for a familly.
I'ts far to easy to sit behind a desk in your 9 to 5, feeling secure and make stupid ar$e comments. Do you know how belittling it feels to have to accept benefits if your a decent hardworking person.
Rant over
I worked from Hartlepool to Hull, Blyth to Bradford even went as far South as Watford once. The course was all about how to crib together a winning CV, how to score a job at interview, how to search effectively etc...
I got to see lots of CVs and the employment history of many people - non of whom fitted the generalisation of 'unemployed benefit scrounger'. Most of the ones over 50 had periods of unemployment; most of them had retrained at least once during their careers; most of them had a cat in hells chance of finding employment again in a similar role to the one they'd left - but we bashed away at those closed doors and had some successes.
I got out - because it became soul destroying watching people through no fault of their own find themselves yet again the victims of economic forces they have little input in creating...
Problem is come April - that's probably going to be me... and there is a storm brewing on the horizon.
sorry to quote from miles back, but it was such conspicuous shite that popsider wrote i couldnt leave it alone.
i have not implied that all those who are struggling economically are lazy scroungers, and it is incredible that you have inferred it. I believe those who expect jobs to be "provided" and those who consider 20 miles of comuting to be too much trouble to go to get a job to be lazy scroungers, because they are fcking lazy scroungers!
i work for a cleaning company, there has not been one week in the last 10 years where i have not had a member of staff leave a job or refuse a job because it will interfere with their benefits.
obviously there are lots of hard working dedicated people who are desperate and actively searching for work, but that doesnt mean that there are not also lots of people who are claiming benefits without any intention of ever contributing to society.
Why don't you go back and quote what you did write then and people can judge for themselves - for my money what I accused you of is what you are guilty of - obviously touched a nerve.
original post in full, was clearly a direct response to Seren's assertion that jobs should be provided. At no point does it say "that those who are struggling are lazy wasters"
but feel free to make up any more things that i havent said and then argue against them if you like, everyone needs a hobby i guess.
You've missed a bit Oxy.
As you can see my comment about people not being lazy wasters was in response to your response above - not the quote you've copied.
People can judge for themselves but when looking again at what you wrote I don't see why you think you have been misrepresented.
To use the example of a few immigrant millionaires to imply that anyone can do that if only they were willing to work hard is naive.
I still don't see that Oxy called anyone a lazy waster - that's your phrase.
There are plenty of people who have the attitude that he describes, just as there are plenty who do not.
You are both right to an extent - the two are not mutually exclusive!
It's not so much a feeling of antagonism towards parents and children, (in my case, anyway).
It's more that people who have chosen to have children then also get tax credits, child benefit, priority seating on aircraft, special parking spaces, time off work, the expectation that colleagues will be understanding about not taking time off in August, at Easter, Christmas....
It does sometimes strike the childless as a bit one-sided.
I am signing on at the moment and struggle to get lower paid work because no matter how hard I try to hide it most employers for those jobs consider me to be over qualified. However the agencies I am registered with know that if they need someone this afternoon, even for 2 days work despite the mess it makes of claiming benefit I will do it.
I am stuck between a rock and a hard place like thousands like me - I have applied for and will be doing a part time degree as a retraining exercise in something I want to do and will be good at. I will probably get some funding for that. In the mean time I will take any job offered. This year I have been a cleaner, an administrator, a door stepper, a filing clerk I haven't quite reached as low as minimum wage yet but I will if its offered. A few years ago I was on 30K
But that is just me and yes there are thousands like me but that doesn't change the fact that there are also thousands for which benefits and large families are a lifestyle choice of some people who have no intention of working and thats not right. Some young people know no different and really do have kids young to get a house on the social its not a fantasy its real.
I used to live in a flat below a guy who looked down on the sort of work I have done over the last 2 years but had no steady work ethic or qualifications he thought the world owed him. twats like him SHOULD NOT get any benefits he is abusing the system
I have no problem with people with kids and yes I am childless but I don't see why the well paid who can afford their children should get government money as well when there are thousands who are genuinly struggling sometimes for mistakes they have made sometimes for reasons that they struggle to take control of
"I have no problem with people with kids and yes I am childless but I don't see why the well paid who can afford their children should get government money as well"
When this all started, the idea was two-fold. One, reward and incentivize those bringing up the coming generation, and two, ensure that everyone has a stake in the system - the latter being to avoid stigmatizing benefits and getting the better-off to understand the value of a welfare state (in case they decide that welfare is only for the poor and try to opt out altogether, I suppose).
It's worked but maybe the time has gone. As bazza points out, the concept of society is not grasped by all, and that is a shame. We are individuals fending for ourselves now - except and until we need society's help, of course.
Yeah, agree with JWrun. Oxy clearly and obviously replied to Seren's specific proposition that 20 miles is too far to travel for work, and therefore jobs need to be provided. Popsider either deliberately missed the point, or is a bit dim.
Christ, I used to commute around 50 miles to London when I lived in Cambs... and that train was always standing room only. 50 miles to travel to work? Ridiculous! Those people should SUE the government, for not providing jobs they could do in their villages.
Wilkie, can't you pretend that your "no child benefit" of £200 a week has just been scrapped by the government? Then you don't have to feel aggrieved at being treated differently to breeders.
I thank you.
i never understood why you wouldn't get a job due to being over qualified (from Maddy's post). is it an assumption by the prospective employer that you'll get bored and leave at the first opportunity? Do they refuse to interview you based on the CV?
The lazy wasters comment is in response to Oxy using the phrase:
"its like sitting at home on your arse having never so much as walked further than from the sofa to the corner shop and moaning that other people are able to run a marathon when you are not."
Is lazy wasters not a fair summary of what he is describing there ?
You may agree with him - personally I think to expect someone to travel 20 miles each way for a minimum wage job when they can't even afford the travel - which was Seren's example - when they have spent decades working which is what I added - does not equate to someone sitting at home on their arse moaning. If you are working full time it is unreasonable to expect to be able to live off the wages ?
I used to travel 120 miles each way 3-4 days a week but it wasn't leaving me worse off than I would have been on the dole, I didn't have dependents and there were reasonable prospects of advancement. It's all about circumstances.