Harming children for no good reason

[big-all]

Yep, afraid so.

Particularly the paying rent benefit to the tenant - laughingly, I seem to recall, to instill in them a sense of responsibility. Ha.

yes exactly the point
if people are careful without debt and in control then the rent will payed
if they are in finacial poverty they will not or short pay on the rent
if they are feckless they will not or short pay on the rent
if they are without ability they will not or short pay on the rent
in other words paying the housing costs direct to the people on benefits has no other benefits other to demonize them by inflating the amount they have in the pocket even though that amount is not for there direct use unless they spend it without passing it on

 

[securespark]

Sorry if it disturbs the fluffy little bubble you live in.

It doesn't.

I'm not the least bit perturbed, mainly because I know this kind of thing isn't as rife as you believe.

Whereas you seem most wound up about it. Chill man, and keep your BP down.

 

[SirGalahad]

dare say if she was a refugee or could play the race card she would get help ????

lol.

So you are railing against people who are abusing the benefits system and then object for not giving benefits to whom you consider a worthy recipient because the benefits system is being abused by a certain coloured variety of claimant.

 

[SirGalahad]

Well its not really a scandal is it?
The scandal was 17 years of labour government nearly busting the country and another political party then had to pick up the pieces.
That's the real scandal.

You really are so badly informed it's unreal. The real scandal is that you have NO IDEA ON ECONOMICS -none whatsoever.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/...the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

If you bother to read the whole article, there is a link to the source data from House of Commons Library.

 

[Doggit]

this was further exacibated by the tories giving the housing costs directly to the tenants rather than the landlords

Gordon Brown enacted this bit of stupidity. He felt that if he gave the tenants control of their money, it would teach them to manage it better.

It failed spectacularly. Tenants either couldn't handle it themselves, or aided by the housing benefit depatment decided they didn't need to - when I asked HB to pay the rent directly to me when the tenants were in arrears, I was told that they didn't actually have to pay it to me, it was the tenants choice if they did or didn't.

GB also made things worse by increasing the amount of housing benefit the tenants go, and so rents rose, because in the past, tenants on housing benefit often couldn't (or more often wouldn't) make up the shortfall between the rent, and what HB paid.

Work is the best way to raise living standards, and many parents with young children are employed

Main points

• Of the 20.7 million households (where at least one member is aged 16 to 64) in the UK, 11.9 million (57.6%) had all household members aged 16 and over in employment, up 160,000 or 0.7 percentage points over the past year.
  
  
• There were 5.7 million households (27.6%) with a mix of at least one working and one workless adult, down 70,000 or 0.3 percentage points over the year.
  
  
• There were 3.1 million households (14.9%) where no member of the household was in employment, down 80,000 or 0.4 percentage points over the last year.

So basically, 80,000 people came off benefits because of the benefits cap (I'll find the data tomorrow) but that still means that there are 3.1 million households where no one is employed, and I hate to think how many children and adults that equates to. I doubt if the average of 2.4 children per household applies, as most people on benefits tend to have 3-5 kids.

But otherwise yes, fortunately there are many more parents with young children are employed, except the benefits families expand faster.

 

[Doggit]

If you bother to read the whole article, there is a link to the source data from House of Commons Library.

And I wonder why that is. Oh yes, Labour spend more than the country can afford, and then (stupidly) the Conservatives have to borrow money to get the economy going again.

Except when the Tories get kicked out of power because of austerity measures, they leave the country in a strong position, and when Labour get kicked out because the middle england are getting hammered left right and centre, and the unions are controlling the government, they leave the economy in a worse state.

They're both uselss at economics, but I still maintain that the Tories are the lesser of the two evils, although I'm not so sure at the minute.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

.... Trump could help out by bombing that kim il watsit from north korea

Is this really a responsible comment?
There are only about 25,000,000 people in North Korea.
Genocide? What genocide?

We have already discussed our approach to foreign policy.
Is it a sensible suggestion that we "develop" a new front for terrorism?

It is a dangerous and radical (not to mention totally irresponsible) comment.
What if North Korea is monitoring our social media, and detect a suggestion that we encourage Trump to bomb North Korea?
*********

===========
Abuse deleted

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

It wasn't a dig about people on benefits, generally. It was a specific dig about teenage girls who breed profusely to get free housing. They then breed some more to ensure the correct volume/mix of children to ensure the best property available. This is what happens in the real world. Sorry if it disturbs the fluffy little bubble you live in.

Are you suggesting that a human life is only worth what that person can contribute to society?
A human life is a human life irrespective of their status!

 

[big-all]

Gordon Brown enacted this bit of stupidity. He felt that if he gave the tenants control of their money, it would teach them to manage it better.

It failed spectacularly. Tenants either couldn't handle it themselves, or aided by the housing benefit depatment decided they didn't need to - when I asked HB to pay the rent directly to me when the tenants were in arrears, I was told that they didn't actually have to pay it to me, it was the tenants choice if they did or didn't.

GB also made things worse by increasing the amount of housing benefit the tenants go, and so rents rose, because in the past, tenants on housing benefit often couldn't (or more often wouldn't) make up the shortfall between the rent, and what HB paid.




Main points

• Of the 20.7 million households (where at least one member is aged 16 to 64) in the UK, 11.9 million (57.6%) had all household members aged 16 and over in employment, up 160,000 or 0.7 percentage points over the past year.
  
  
• There were 5.7 million households (27.6%) with a mix of at least one working and one workless adult, down 70,000 or 0.3 percentage points over the year.
  
  
• There were 3.1 million households (14.9%) where no member of the household was in employment, down 80,000 or 0.4 percentage points over the last year.

So basically, 80,000 people came off benefits because of the benefits cap (I'll find the data tomorrow) but that still means that there are 3.1 million households where no one is employed, and I hate to think how many children and adults that equates to. I doubt if the average of 2.4 children per household applies, as most people on benefits tend to have 3-5 kids.

But otherwise yes, fortunately there are many more parents with young children are employed, except the benefits families expand faster.

some good point there
buttt if you have children your are automatically on benefits [child benefit'working tax credits'housing assistance 'council tax help ]all benefits for the in work and out off work
only about 2.2% off benefits go on unemployment benefit

 

[Doggit]

the problem started when the tories decided to bribe the working class by giving them a 75% discount on buying there council houses

No it wasn't. It was about the most stupid thing that could have been done, and to not allow the reinvestment was the second stupid thing, but it was Labours incessant drive to tell the supposed poor that they'd be looked after from cradle to the grave if they voted for them, that caused all the problems. Vote for us, and we'll give you benefits, Vote for us, and we'll up your disabled rate. Vote for us, and because you're disabled (even slightly) we'll give you a brand new car. Keep voting for us, and we'll keep giving you handouts, even if it drags the country down to the lowest possible level.

only about 2.2% off benefits go on unemployment benefit

Except by the time that you add in housing benefit, jobseekers allowance, child benefit etc etc etc, it soon mounts up.

https://static.guim.co.uk/sys-image...57739565544/Public-spending-on-Benefi-001.jpg

And those are just the figures from the Guardian, so it'll be a lot worse if analysed properly. As they've added further down the report, these are just

 

[big-all]

No it wasn't. It was about the most stupid thing that could have been done, and to not allow the reinvestment was the second stupid thing, but it was Labours incessant drive to tell the supposed poor that they'd be looked after from cradle to the grave if they voted for them, that caused all the problems. Vote for us, and we'll give you benefits, Vote for us, and we'll up your disabled rate. Vote for us, and because you're disabled (even slightly) we'll give you a brand new car. Keep voting for us, and we'll keep giving you handouts, even if it drags the country down to the lowest possible level.





Except by the time that you add in housing benefit, jobseekers allowance, child benefit etc etc etc, it soon mounts up.

https://static.guim.co.uk/sys-image...57739565544/Public-spending-on-Benefi-001.jpg

And those are just the figures from the Guardian, so it'll be a lot worse if analysed properly. As they've added further down the report, these are just

job seekers is the 2.2 %
pensions is the biggest draw on benefits
[sorry wrongly posted edited to correct]

 

[Doggit]

Not a problem, but as I said, it's all the other benefits that get added in, that don't show the true picture.

 

[big-all]

if you are 16 or 17 you cannot claim any state help unless you have children
i am sure this doesnt help in family situations where you have overcrowding or conflict where the only avenue out is to get pregnant
18-20 year old can claim the lower rate off unemployment benefits somthing just under sixty pounds but no help with housing so again getting pregnant is the only route to get away from your parents without a well paid job
21 years plus get something just under £80 unemployment and restricted housing cost off something a bit less than £100 a week this can cause homelessness or overcrowding in properties to make up the rent again if you have children its a way out
now its impossible to live on about £78 with about £3 going on council tax leaving just £75ish to pay all bills feed and cloth yourself buy all household and cleaning products and travel costs

just to add i havent helped anyone through the benefits system for about 3 or 4 years now so my fact and statistics may be a bit out off date

 

[Deleted member 63160]

Are you suggesting that a human life is only worth what that person can contribute to society?
A human life is a human life irrespective of their status!

Clearly not. My gripe is not with the babies. It is specifically with the breeders.

 

[Doggit]

now its impossible to live on about £78 with about £3 going on council tax leaving just £75ish to pay all bills feed and cloth yourself buy all household and cleaning products and travel costs

Difficult, but not impossible; and it just depends on what sort of lifestyle you want. And benefits shouldn't be a lifestyle choice, it should be a situation you're in till you can get yourself out of it.

But as many on benefits enjoy doing nothing, they do black market stuff to supplement the "I'll stay at home culture". A lot of the single mums, hold Anne Summers parties, do Avon sales and all sorts of things. The younger ones seem to deal in pills and stuff. The pregnancy rate dropped recently, and one thought is that kids no longer get an automatic entitlement to a 2 bed flat. It was also thought that social media had played a part, and there seems to be a slight drop in the areas that don't teach sex education, but I agree, it's a complicated situation.

But I think a telling scenario, is a school friend of 16 year old daughter, who is having issues with her parents, and having heard both sides of the argument it's just normal growing up rebelion stuff; except social services and her councellor have basically told her that if she gets pregnant, then they'd have to rehouse her in her own flat.