Am I being too generous ? Or am I too tight ?



  • Nick Windsor 4 wrote (see)

    I would like to see zero child benefit for anyone out of work, that will at least stop them breeding like rabbits to earn more money for their lousy tattoo, animal and child collections. Grow up and see it for yourselves

    Would it, though?

    Or would there still be families with many more children than they can afford to have, but now those children have to suffer more than they would if the family was at least getting paid benefits?

    I'm not dismissing the existence of benefit scroungers and people who see benefits as easy money with no intention of finding work (though I tend to think there are fewer than the Daily Mail would have us believe), but I think people who tend to have large unaffordable families will STILL have large unafordable families.

    And an underclass of destitute and poverty-stricken children can only be detrimental on society as a whole.


  • It's a personal choice, if you want to give then give if you don't then don't.......... Simples!!
  • I suppose we could go back a hundred years or so and pay nothing and let the kids go into institutions to be abused or go into service to be abused.....

    and those rich people doing it can get even cheap labour to make their wealth as the people will be happy to work for food.........

    so thery can do fuck all and get very rich and fat for themselves and their fmilies for ever

  • Wow scroungers vs bankers, tough call, but at least the bankers pay more tax in than they take out so I'm afraid they edge it for me.

  • So hypothetically Nick, you loose your job for whatever reason. No fault of your own, let's say, but maybe the company you work for goes bust, requires redundancies or whatever.

    You're educated (obviously), but it's not easy to find work in your field.

    So you go for something temporary and lower paid while you're looking.

    You redundancy and savings start getting abit low and you've still not found a 'better' position in your field.

    The company you took the temporary job in then makes some cut backs. You were last in, so the first to be layed off. And it was a short term temporary contract this time, so no redundancy.

    Again, you're eager and looking for work, but you've been out of your original field of work for some time now and it's getting harder to compete. So you're now competing with other people looking for lower paid temporary jobs... but emplyers are claiming you're 'over qualified'.... it's becoming a vicious circle and harder to find work, even though you're clearly keen and eager.

    You are now one of "These People" you mention.

    I'm not denying the benefits system is flawed, and there are certainly people claiming far more than their fair share, but it's not all malingerers and scroungers.


  • I don't have a problem with bankers (generally) or other highly paid people, including politicians for that matter, either.

    But get annoyed whith the blanket definition of anyone on benefits as 'scroungers'.... it could happen to any of us given unfortunate circumstances.

  • I don't see many hands in the air!

  • I missed your question Wilkie, but Yes *sticks hand in air*

    I'll qualify that by saying, not 'regular' in a direct debit kind of way, but in the sense of 'regular ad-hoc donations'... to tin-shakers, sponsor requests, charity shop donations (direct to local shops, rather than the bags that come round), ad-hoc donations direct to particular charities and so on.

    Some humanitarian in nature and some not, so it includes animal charities, voluntary work with the National Trust and so on.

  • Eggyh73Eggyh73 ✭✭✭


    Nick Windsor 4 wrote (see)

    These people are not educated and don't understand what they are doing, they just do the best they can to get money by any means, and if we as a society give them £200 for sitting at home, why would they work for £250, if they have two children and can increase their money with a third they will do. We are sending out the wrong message, stop this crap and there will be ample money in the kitty. 

    By the way I don't read papers at all.

    This has to be the biggest pile of tosh I've read on the internet and that's going some. Plus taxation is not charity. The fact you view it as such says an awful lot about your character.

    Wilkie - Raises hand. Although I personally think taxation should be increased and the State pay for these things and not have a requirement for charities to provide these services.

  • I do as well.........and agree with eggys post above

  • Eggyh73Eggyh73 ✭✭✭

    Living on benefits with children is not equal to planning births to gain benefit. Plus you might discover kids ain't cheap, even if you are on benefit.

    New year same issues. The rich and powerful who hoard the wealth turn the people against the poor and those that can't defend themselves as the problems of the common man.



  • Wilkie wrote (see)

    I don't see many hands in the air!

    Sorry, been busy working to pay for all the scroungers....

    Yes we have DDs for 5 charities/good causes a month (not vast amounts) plus occasional additional lump sums and I can't pass an RNLI collection tin without popping some money in.

  • Eggyh73Eggyh73 ✭✭✭

    So those who work and train hard and fail to find employment at some point should be what, left to rot?

  • Eggyh73Eggyh73 ✭✭✭
    kittenkat wrote (see)

    My biggest issue is people on benefits being able to afford luxuries way above what other (2 adult working full time with 2 kids) households, can't.

    Holidays, expensive race entry etc... How the fuck can they do that?

    This is such Daily Mail reader hard of thinking type blurb.

    Maybe because things are not in balance. Maybe The two workers waste money on some luxury items and then complain that the non-workers prioritised other things. I've seen people on the dole with Sky TV. That's a luxury. I've also seen them living off nothing but cheap junk fozen meals that most would turn their nose up at.The list can go on and on.

    What do you suggest treating them like scum that can only use vouchers to buy goods we deem non-luxury?

  • Eggyh73Eggyh73 ✭✭✭
    Nick Windsor 4 wrote (see)

    You miss the point, those who work hard ENOUGH and train hard ENOUGH do not find themselves in that situation 

    No that's just simple minded Tory I'm alright, so those others just didn't work hard enough type thinking. Just because something happens or doesn't happen to you doen't make it fact.

  • I agree with Kittenkat if I'm working and people living off my tax can afford those items then I'm sorry but thats gone beyond caring for their needs that is giving them luxuries at my expense, which is not on.

    I also agree with Nick Windsor 4 work hard and you will be fine, hard times may come your way, although it is unlikely, if you think the world owes you a living,  watch out.

    I do like your suggestion for vouchers though, that would stop the booze and fags, or do you think the unworking should be able to have those as well.

  • Eggyh73Eggyh73 ✭✭✭

    So you want to treat the poor as scum and some sort of under class? I think we should provide them with the money and let them choose what they spend that on. A voucher concept is vile and repulsive.

    It's like a Young Tory convention around these parts. I guess running must attract middle class idiots wanting to blame the worlds ills on the poor rather than directing the blame to those who it should be aimed at.


  • Eggyh73Eggyh73 ✭✭✭
    Nick Windsor 4 wrote (see)
    Eggyh73 wrote (see)
    No that's just simple minded Tory I'm alright, so those others just didn't work hard enough type thinking. Just because something happens or doesn't happen to you doen't make it fact.

    I'm sorry but you are not making sense now, and it seems anyone disagrees with you is either Tory or Daily mail, you are on the old Rock n Roll aren't you

    Maybe you should have educated yourself to read plain old English. Secondly, no I'm not.

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    Working hard and being educated has somewhat tenuous links with financial success.


  • A voucher scheme sounds overly harsh. I don't think the state should be dictating what people spend their benefits on, and people's genuine needs will vary hugely.

    But there was a piece on this morning's news about the fact that many people on benefits don't / can't have bank accounts, which brings with it quite a few disadvantages: They have to 'cash in' their benefits (meaning they suddenly have a lump sum of cash, which is difficult to manage in the way that you can with a bank account); and they can't benefit from cheaper online purchasing that you can with a bank account.

    The suggestion was that they could instrad be given a card which could be used in a similar way to a debit card (presumably with some kind of 'statement'). This could be used to buy pretty much anything, but with some exceptions... so they couldn't use it to buy tobacco, alcohol, Sky TV etc.

    That did seem quite a reasonable idea to me.


  • Nick Windsor 4 wrote (see)

    Julie, I am reasonably educated because I trained whilst working for most of my working life up to the age of 35 at my own expense, I have been in redundancy situations on 5 occasions and yes I've come out well, why? because I am ready, and I am a worker. No one gave it to me, I did it, I am proud of it, I am not lucky, privileged or anything other than hard working and frankly I don't support the idea that it is impossible to work. Sorry if you don't like that but the picture you paint will never be me.

    Never say never....

    So, what if you 'couldn't' work, through sudden illness or disability?

    Another area of huge contention I know, and I'm sure there are plenty of people claiming disability benefit who really shouldn't be.... but the current flawed system surely doesn't mean there should be no system at all?




Sign In or Register to comment.