• Looking for a smarter way to manage your heating this winter? We’ve been testing the new Aqara Radiator Thermostat W600 to see how quiet, accurate and easy it is to use around the home. Click here read our review.

Why bother working?

Me neither. But being self employed I wont get the chance to suck out the trough. :cry:
 
Don't fall for the Bull shine - pizz drops in the ocean compared to scams going down from the echelons of the respected . . . Bankers? Only the tip of the iceberg are they not? If cash is available it will be taken - simple !! Mortgage fraud will again rear it's head if it hasn't already done so... Cannot tell me it wasn't known about - I recall the last property price fall . . . .
 
Me neither. But being self employed I wont get the chance to suck out the trough. :cry:

I wouldn't want to suck out of the trough. :?

The benefit system should be there for the time when you need a bit of support, a financial leg up in times of hardship, such as illness, job loss etc.

There are too many people making a career out of scamming the state. :cry:
 
Is that some sort of human rights law that they must have a bedroom each.

Nope.

There are requirements for what is regarded as the "minimum basic standard of living", but the way I see it, anyone "in need" of handouts should be gratefull for a bed and a meal and has no fundamental right to anything.
 
The benefit system should be there for the time when you need a bit of support, a financial leg up in times of hardship, such as job loss etc.

Thats so right...But Self Employed (class 2 and 4 contributors) dont seem to be included :cry:
 
Which brings us back to the point.....WHY BOTHER WORKING?
Well, for two reasons:

1. self esteem.

2. State handouts in cash (housing benefit is paid directly to the landlord) are usually less than the average wage and never enough to pay for the better things in life; particularly in central London.

Re the mother and kids in question: heres a hypo for you: a married woman has 4 kids at school and comes home to find hubby in bed with another woman. She kicks him out and the rent money goes with him. He pays his maintenance, buts its not enough. The landlord evicts her and the local council has a statutory obligation to house her and the kids, who are a 15 yr old boy, 2 ten yr old girls and one 2 yr old boy. They have to have a 4 bedroom dwelling, by law. The 15 yr old should stay at his school as his exams are soon. This happens all the time across the nation. It could be Newcastle or Kensington; the law is the same.

The timesonline has not published the full story, here.
 
Simple. Change the rules. If I were to live in Chelsea and lost my job I'd have to move out of Chelsea to somewhere cheaper like Luton. Send her to Luton. Why not? Some people quite like Luton.
 
Simple. Change the rules. If I were to live in Chelsea and lost my job I'd have to move out of Chelsea to somewhere cheaper like Luton. Send her to Luton. Why not? Some people quite like Luton.
Do you live in Luton.?
 
Joe, its too simplistic, not to mention morally wrong, to send people to cheaper towns just to save public money. Are you suggesting that the government should move people (at the taxpayer's expense, by the way) out of London every time they claim housing benefit above a pre-determined rate?

We are a socially conscious country, which makes us one of the best. Occasionally we have to bite the bullet for the greater good of being part of a caring society.
 
My mate's sister is single with two kids, she gets a home paid for and £180 a week spending money plus help with the council tax.

I recon she can manage very comfortably from the taxes we pay for her lifetime. After I am log dead and gone she and thousands like her will be weighing you lot down.

My burden shall at last be lifted.
 
Hear here!
Next door neighbour has his single mum daughter at home with her two sprogs. (The Dad is obviously not wanted nor needed)
He has claimed unemployment benefit all his life (mid fifties) and has always held down a steady job.
As the title of this thread says, "Why bother working?"
If you can't beat em join em. :roll:
Im from Northern Ireland though and the general concensus here particulary amongst the national population is too use and abuse the system as much as possible as British tax payers have too pay up.
I share that view to a certain extent.
But I also evade paying tax wherever possible as I don't like the idea of funding people who abuse the system. (particulary ****** from the mainland)
 
My mate's sister is single with two kids, she gets a home paid for and £180 a week spending money plus help with the council tax.

I recon she can manage very comfortably from the taxes we pay for her lifetime. After I am log dead and gone she and thousands like her will be weighing you lot down.

My burden shall at last be lifted.

Never fall into the trap of thinking that you are directly funding scroungers.

They are not getting your money, they are getting the governments money. Money that the government forcibly 'scrounged' off of you.
Once a government is democratically elected, it can spend it's income on whatever and whoever it likes.

They will tax you for as much as they can get away with (*whether they need it or not*) before they start to think it might hurt their chances at election time.

Maybe you should offer this woman a few hours work cleaning your house or ironing your shirts, offer her a low rate (cash in hand) and see your tax money really work for you. :roll:
 
Joe, its too simplistic, not to mention morally wrong, to send people to cheaper towns just to save public money. Are you suggesting that the government should move people (at the taxpayer's expense, by the way) out of London every time they claim housing benefit above a pre-determined rate?

They did that years ago. That's why Hastings has such a high unemployment rate. It's all denied but it's a well known fact that the London boroughs were shipping people out to seaside towns where the rent is cheaper. They also shipped out a lot of people with mental health problems.

The best one was when a large council housing estate was built. It was to provide living accommodation for all the workers that would be needed for the factories that were to be built on the new industrial estate. All the "workers" moved down but the factories were never built.

Mike
 
Back
Top