# Online petition for IDS



## sydney greenstreet (Apr 2, 2013)

So he says he can get by on Â£53 a week, I have signed to see if he will prove it.
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week


----------



## brendy (Apr 2, 2013)

He was asked if he could, he replied "I would *if I had to*", so would I, or anyone else for that matter.
That is black and white so why are people challenging it? This really sounds like a red top mentality challenge.


----------



## Cherry13 (Apr 2, 2013)

I think we know the answer to this!!  

Anyways, the issue isnt the amount of money, (or at least shouldn't be) its the mindset that goes with it, I can't begin to imagine the feeling of holding very little hope that you may never get out of such a predicament. 

IDS doing this for a week then coming out 'enlightened' would be a bit of a cheap political shot.


----------



## sydney greenstreet (Apr 2, 2013)

brendy said:



			He was asked if he could, he replied "I would *if I had to*", so would I, or anyone else for that matter.
That is black and white so why are people challenging it? This really sounds like a red top mentality challenge.
		
Click to expand...

Lead by example !


----------



## BrizoH71 (Apr 2, 2013)

Gideon Osborne has also stated that 'Â£71 a week JSA is 'generous'.


----------



## brendy (Apr 2, 2013)

JSA is not generous but I know that when I was a lad living at home, I got JSA for around a month while I got myself a full time job, I gave a third to my parents as housekeeping, the rest I spent on luxuries as it were. 
Probably sounds rather patronising but moving out of home to start a new one is not a god given right, you have to work for it, while at your parents home and not working, you do not have anywhere near the same bills.
 It all depends on the individual and their circumstances but Id dare say those already away from the family home and are on JSA probably get other allowances too.


----------



## chrisd (Apr 2, 2013)

Of course he could live on Â£53 a week, he's got a Mastercard as well!


----------



## brendy (Apr 2, 2013)

Minimum repayment Â£21 per month  then go bankrupt!



chrisd said:



			Of course he could live on Â£53 a week, he's got a Mastercard as well!
		
Click to expand...


----------



## scratch (Apr 2, 2013)

Â£53 a week?

Hmmm tough one...... Â£12 for a sleeve of ProV's leaves Â£41 to get to a course, pay green fees, have coffee and bacon roll then get home again.

You can't play decent courses for that.....the guy has my sympathy.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 2, 2013)

A lot of the left wing howling is propaganda.  It's not that he is even cutting down on the welfare bill, they are only reducing the increase to beter reflect what people in jobs have to put up with.

Hardly anyone lives solely on JSA, most people get housing benefits, council tax relief, tax credits, family allowance etc.   I cant see whats wrong with a young person living with their parents living on JSA, the objective is for them to get out ann do a job, there are jobs out there if you are prepared to do them, just see what happens when people come here from Romania, they will manage to find work.

Labour are spouting a lot of hot air, how would they del with the National debt, they have voted against every cost reduction so far.  They were the ones not long ago talking about forcing old people to move to smaller properties to open room for young pople, now they are bleating about the so called Bedroom tax which isn't a tax at all.


----------



## SyR (Apr 2, 2013)

I'd like to see live for a year on Â£53 a week. I think it's a shame the condems have brought in a 5% tax reduction for the top rate given the situation in our economy isn't improving and they are cutting spending all over the place.


----------



## stevie_r (Apr 2, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			A lot of the left wing howling is propaganda.  It's not that he is even cutting down on the welfare bill, they are only reducing the increase to beter reflect what people in jobs have to put up with.

Hardly anyone lives solely on JSA, most people get housing benefits, council tax relief, tax credits, family allowance etc.   I cant see whats wrong with a young person living with their parents living on JSA, the objective is for them to get out ann do a job, there are jobs out there if you are prepared to do them, just see what happens when people come here from Romania, they will manage to find work.

Labour are spouting a lot of hot air, how would they del with the National debt, they have voted against every cost reduction so far.  They were the ones not long ago talking about forcing old people to move to smaller properties to open room for young pople, now they are bleating about the* so called Bedroom tax which isn't a tax at all*.
		
Click to expand...

I think we are all aware that what is referred to as the Bedroom Tax isn't actually a tax, it is however an unfair reduction in housing benefit for a lot of people.

By way of example:  

A couple (no kids) require somewhere to live and register for council/ housing association property.  I'll point out at this stage that occupying a council house isn't actually a criminal offence.  They are eventually offered a two bedroom property which they accept rather than being penalised for not doing so.  Due to redundancy, business going bust, long term incapacity and any other no fault of their own reason they end up in receipt of housing benefit.  As of yesterday this benefit would have been reduced due to having a bedroom more than they need - through no great fault of their own.  

Not wholly fair in my opinion.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 2, 2013)

SyR said:



			I'd like to see live for a year on Â£53 a week. I think it's a shame the condems have brought in a 5% tax reduction for the top rate given the situation in our economy isn't improving and they are cutting spending all over the place.
		
Click to expand...

Thats another Labour sound bite.   They kept the top rate of tax at 40% all through their term in office and only introduced the 50% rate one month before the election.    Regarding them cutting spending all over the place they are borrowing more each year, would you like us to be facing the same problems as Greece and Cyprus?   Just how do you expect us to survive if we dont cut the deficit, if it's not done now we will be leaving it for our children to pay for it.

Please tell me how the country can keep spending at the present rate without going bankrupt?


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 2, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			I think we are all aware that what is referred to as the Bedroom Tax isn't actually a tax, it is however an unfair reduction in housing benefit for a lot of people.

By way of example:  

A couple (no kids) require somewhere to live and register for council/ housing association property.  I'll point out at this stage that occupying a council house isn't actually a criminal offence.  They are eventually offered a two bedroom property which they accept rather than being penalised for not doing so.  Due to redundancy, business going bust, long term incapacity and any other no fault of their own reason they end up in receipt of housing benefit.  As of yesterday this benefit would have been reduced due to having a bedroom more than they need - through no great fault of their own.  

Not wholly fair in my opinion.
		
Click to expand...

I see your point and it can be hard for someone living in a house for many years to give it up when their children move out, but what about a family with two children living in a one bedroomed flat when there is a three bedroomed next door with one person in it.   We must also remember this accommodation is tax payer subsidised.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Apr 2, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			I see your point and it can be hard for someone living in a house for many years to give it up when their children move out, but what about a family with two children living in a one bedroomed flat when there is a three bedroomed next door with one person in it.   We must also remember this accommodation is tax payer subsidised.
		
Click to expand...

So how about you only get your benefit reduced if offered a smaller property which you decline? Pretty tough at the moment if no smaller property is available.


----------



## SyR (Apr 2, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Thats another Labour sound bite.   They kept the top rate of tax at 40% all through their term in office and only introduced the 50% rate one month before the election.    Regarding them cutting spending all over the place they are borrowing more each year, would you like us to be facing the same problems as Greece and Cyprus?   Just how do you expect us to survive if we dont cut the deficit, if it's not done now we will be leaving it for our children to pay for it.

Please tell me how the country can keep spending at the present rate without going bankrupt?
		
Click to expand...

How can they give a tax cut to the richest earners at this moment in time? No sound bite needed, no cheat sheets required about what labour did on their watch. It's simply outrageous that they have the gall to do it at a time when cuts are happening all across the public sector. 

If you must compare past actions to now then you could start with the 'right to buy' scheme eroding the social housing stock. There isn't enough now due to that...


----------



## stevie_r (Apr 2, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			I see your point and it can be hard for someone living in a house for many years to give it up when their children move out, but what about a family with two children living in a one bedroomed flat when there is a three bedroomed next door with one person in it.   We must also remember this accommodation is tax payer subsidised.
		
Click to expand...

But this is in no way anything to do with forcing people to relocate into different properties in order to get the number of bedrooms right; it is an exercise in reducing the benefit bill.  This clearly needs to happen but this new measure is ridiculous.

Yes this accommodation is tax payer subsidised, having paid PAYE since 1979 I understand that.  Would I be right in assuming that during this lengthy recession you haven't suffered redundancy?  Many have, several times (myself included).  There are a significant number of people currently on benefits who really did wish that they were tax payers.

I think we would all agree that where we need to make reductions in terms of benefit provision is the 3rd generation of a family who have no idea what a P60 is.


----------



## LIG (Apr 2, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			So how about you only get your benefit reduced if offered a smaller property which you decline? Pretty tough at the moment if no smaller property is available.
		
Click to expand...

+1 :thup:
That would be a FAIR step which every reasonable, caring human being would take, but we're talking about politicians here! 
They only want to *get power* and, once in power, *stay in power*, and they can only do that by blaming everyone else - the other lot/the previous lot/the ancient lot/the overseas lot (take your pick!) - for all the current problems faced by people!  "It wurn't me, Guvn'r!"


----------



## sev112 (Apr 2, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			I see your point and it can be hard for someone living in a house for many years to give it up when their children move out, but what about a family with two children living in a one bedroomed flat when there is a three bedroomed next door with one person in it.   We must also remember this accommodation is tax payer subsidised.
		
Click to expand...

And many of those people have lived in that house for circa 18+, and probably 25+years, (in my parents' case 52 years) have paid the equivalent of a mortgage all that time, as tax payers,  and in my humble experience paid for substantial maintenance and decoration throughout that period that should be the responsibility of the landlord.  Then their 2 sons grow up and leave home, and the mother passes away.
Go on, take away the home from the remaining 80 year old parent.

I can see the logic, without doubt ; the humanity of the overall idea I'm not totally convinced by yet. The idea needs a lot more development to make sure the wrong decisions are not made in cases of this ilk.
Having said thatbinwould love to get my dad out of his flat in London to something more suitable, possibly near me, and there would be a chance ofna young family making a home there.  But he can't imagine leaving his home and I understand making him move aged 80 and start a new life will probably not be great.
Shows that some ideas have good and bad points, and so be careful what people wish for.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 2, 2013)

sev112 said:



			And many of those people have lived in that house for circa 18+, and probably 25+years, (in my parents' case 52 years) have paid the equivalent of a mortgage all that time, as tax payers,  and in my humble experience paid for substantial maintenance and decoration throughout that period that should be the responsibility of the landlord.  Then their 2 sons grow up and leave home, and the mother passes away.
Go on, take away the home from the remaining 80 year old parent.

I can see the logic, without doubt ; the humanity of the overall idea I'm not totally convinced by yet. The idea needs a lot more development to make sure the wrong decisions are not made in cases of this ilk.
Having said thatbinwould love to get my dad out of his flat in London to something more suitable, possibly near me, and there would be a chance ofna young family making a home there.  But he can't imagine leaving his home and I understand making him move aged 80 and start a new life will probably not be great.
Shows that some ideas have good and bad points, and so be careful what people wish for.
		
Click to expand...

I am sure the bill only applies to working age tenants claiming housing benefit.
Also a good way to get back to keeping a good old fashioned lodger


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Apr 2, 2013)

It doesn't matter how many people sign up it will never happen. Not in the party's interest to conduct the experiement and nor will it do his image any good


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 2, 2013)

I think we all know the people that deserve the state to look after them and the ones that are just on the take, unfortunately there are just too many of the later.

A problem I see is that so many people have been given benefits they should never of had in the first place and now it's almost impossible to take them back.   The massive increases in tax credits that pushed the welfare bill up by 60% in a time of relative prosperity has created this malaise of an entitlement culture.

The idea of a safety net to help the genuinely disabled and those that fall temporarily on hard times is exactly what the system was designed for but how people earning good wages can expect state handouts is slightly bizarre.   There are so many that have no intention of working and make a career of creating children as a safety shield to deliver money they would never be capable of earning.

Lets face it, the welfare system is no longer fit for purpose.


----------



## stevek1969 (Apr 2, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			I think we all know the people that deserve the state to look after them and the ones that are just on the take, unfortunately there are just too many of the later.

A problem I see is that so many people have been given benefits they should never of had in the first place and now it's almost impossible to take them back.   The massive increases in tax credits that pushed the welfare bill up by 60% in a time of relative prosperity has created this malaise of an entitlement culture.

The idea of a safety net to help the genuinely disabled and those that fall temporarily on hard times is exactly what the system was designed for but how people earning good wages can expect state handouts is slightly bizarre.   There are so many that have no intention of working and make a career of creating children as a safety shield to deliver money they would never be capable of earning.

Lets face it, the welfare system is no longer fit for purpose.
		
Click to expand...

Good post, correct the welfare system needs a massive reform, The Disability Living AlLowance (DLA) is a joke, you hear various people who get it and top whack as its split into 3 levels of payment, and what they get it for is shocking, there are people who generally need this allowance but don't get it as they are not good at playing the system


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 2, 2013)

stevek1969 said:



			Good post, correct the welfare system needs a massive reform, The Disability Living AlLowance (DLA) is a joke, you hear various people who get it and top whack as its split into 3 levels of payment, and what they get it for is shocking, there are people who generally need this allowance but don't get it as they are not good at playing the system
		
Click to expand...

They are making new health checks for people claiming this allowance.  800,000 have not reclaimed it as they know they wont pass the check.


----------



## stevek1969 (Apr 2, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			They are making new health checks for people claiming this allowance.  800,000 have not reclaimed it as they know they wont pass the check.
		
Click to expand...

About time to,just shows how many scroungers there are out there,its a pet hate of mine ,we tried unsuccessfully to get it for my son who has a heart condition and were knocked back at a tribunal and yet someone got it for back problems.


----------



## Iaing (Apr 2, 2013)

If IDS _was_ to rise to the challenge, he'd probably just pay a pleb to do it for him.


----------



## viscount17 (Apr 2, 2013)

LIG said:



			+1 :thup:
That would be a FAIR step which every reasonable, caring human being would take, but we're talking about politicians here! 
They only want to *get power* and, once in power, *stay in power*, and they can only do that by blaming everyone else - the other lot/the previous lot/the ancient lot/the overseas lot (take your pick!) - for all the current problems faced by people!  "It wurn't me, Guvn'r!"
		
Click to expand...

The difference here is that this will be one of those necessary but deeply unpopular actions (in some sectors) that are almost guaranteed to lose you an election. Michael Heseltine got it right today when he said in effect that Labour were blowing smoke but, no matter what they say now, whoever got in will not change the policy.
This is unusally, a case of a government having the spheroids to make an unpopular decision. Doubtless there could be improvements, and penalties only coming in if you turn down a reasonable offer is one, but limiting state aid to Â£26K doesn't go far enough.


----------



## Colin L (Apr 3, 2013)

It is a fallacy to say, as I think is being suggested in places in this thread, that a benefit reform such as the "bedroom tax" is justified because the country is vastly in debt.  It is fair to say that the financial situation justifies measures to reduce the deficit, but within that justification one measure might be entirely reasonable and another grossly unjust.

I remain puzzled as to what an individual in social housing is supposed to do about it if he/she has a spare bedroom.  Move elsewhere? Why should the individual be penalised if there isn't anywhere else to go?  Take in a lodger?  I suspect you aren't allowed to.  Have someone imposed on you by the local authority to share?

The injustice that hits me most of all, is the way in which everyone in genuine need is affected by measures which  are taken because of a wish, which is no doubt admirable, to deal with skivers, shirkers, chancers, cheats and the like.   It simply reminds me of the old classroom injustice of issuing a punishment to an entire class because some were misbehaving.  For the honest to be penalised because of the dishonesty of others simply stinks of injustice.


----------



## Tommo21 (Apr 3, 2013)

Iâ€™ll tell you what tax should come in, SKY tax.  I know a few people who are on benefits and they have their rent paid, motobility car..not just any car but a 27 grand Volvo, full sky package multi room, two dogs and the car very rarely leaves the house, because they donâ€™t have any money left to put fuel in it. Oh, I phoneâ€™s as well, not just the parents but the kids as well. 
SKY tax...anyone on benefits that have sky should have the appropriate reduction in their benefits. That would be a popular start in the right direction.   
Years ago if you struggle you made do without.............today its get in the mire, we canâ€™t pay for it anyway, who cares. Lets have another kid.


----------



## Shaunmg (Apr 3, 2013)

I am 61 and never received a penny unemployment pay or benefit of any kind other than the universal child benefit everyone got with kids. I bought my own house. My next benefit, god willing, will be my retirement pension at  65. Iâ€™ve worked paid in for it and I still doing so

 But we have got it all wrong

The government have got it wrong because the posh boys in charge are so out of touch with reality

The so called bedroom tax is supposed to be designed to encourage people to move into smaller properties. The smaller properties are a figment of the posh boys imagination, they donâ€™t exist.

Almost all councils and social housing associations have a chronic shortage of 1 and 2 bed properties. Even if they wanted to move, there are no smaller houses for them, thatâ€™s a fact. Fact 2, the biggest section of housing benefit claimants are in work 

Reductions in benefits are to encourage people into work. What work?

Fact 3; most people in receipt of benefit are in work. The UK currently has 3 million under employed, that is; people trapped in part time employment and unable to get full time work. Then 2.5 million unemployed and receipt of benefit. along with 0.5 million unemployed and not geting benefit

A total of 6 million unable to earn a living wage, and that doesnâ€™t include those not working and on DLA.  So why are we surprised at our benefits bill?

As far the government is concerned 15 hours a week on minimum wage is a job, not in my book its not.

How do we get out of debt and reduce deficit? By following the Iceland example. Punish those who caused the crisis and not the victims. The Iceland crash a few years ago  was spectacular. They jailed the bankers who caused it and bailed out the people who were the victims, not the other way round  

The measures Iceland put in place has seen a dramatic reduction in personal debt and huge rise in employment. They are currently enjoying a growth rate of 2.5%. They did not take the austerity root.


----------



## don72 (Apr 3, 2013)

Shaunmg said:



			I am 61 and never received a penny unemployment pay or benefit of any kind other than the universal child benefit everyone got with kids. I bought my own house. My next benefit, god willing, will be my retirement pension at  65. Iâ€™ve worked paid in for it and I still doing so

 But we have got it all wrong

The government have got it wrong because the posh boys in charge are so out of touch with reality

The so called bedroom tax is supposed to be designed to encourage people to move into smaller properties. The smaller properties are a figment of the posh boys imagination, they donâ€™t exist.

Almost all councils and social housing associations have a chronic shortage of 1 and 2 bed properties. Even if they wanted to move, there are no smaller houses for them, thatâ€™s a fact. Fact 2, the biggest section of housing benefit claimants are in work 

Reductions in benefits are to encourage people into work. What work?

Fact 3; most people in receipt of benefit are in work. The UK currently has 3 million under employed, that is; people trapped in part time employment and unable to get full time work. Then 2.5 million unemployed and receipt of benefit. along with 0.5 million unemployed and not geting benefit

A total of 6 million unable to earn a living wage, and that doesnâ€™t include those not working and on DLA.  So why are we surprised at our benefits bill?

As far the government is concerned 15 hours a week on minimum wage is a job, not in my book its not.

How do we get out of debt and reduce deficit? By following the Iceland example. Punish those who caused the crisis and not the victims. The Iceland crash a few years ago  was spectacular. They jailed the bankers who caused it and bailed out the people who were the victims, not the other way round  

The measures Iceland put in place has seen a dramatic reduction in personal debt and huge rise in employment. They are currently enjoying a growth rate of 2.5%. They did not take the austerity root.
		
Click to expand...



Look folks; we canâ€™t continue to please everyone all the time.  Or this matrix will crash!

-Something has to be done about social benefit and who is eligible for claim it.
This cash â€˜social security _benefit blanketâ€™ has to be thrown off the bed and a new temporary quilt put on instead; before thereâ€™s no bed at all for any of us to lie on when times get bleak. _

_Iâ€™m not a Tory supporter â€“ far from it. But I understand the premise what IDS is trying to do; but he is going about it in the wrong way. Eg. Bedroom Tax etc, etc. Utter nonsense, wonâ€™t achieve nothing but create a housing shortage and social unrest._

_Getting back to the point though. -Lets not forget was benefit was design to do in the first place. _
_Benefit is a â€˜temporary helpâ€™ that is all, design to help people while they are out of work â€˜temporaryâ€™. Help enough for you to avoid poverty, but a lot, lot less for you to live a comfortable life sustainably. _

_It is like McDonalds. McDonald is designed for you to get a quick snack or an in-between meal during the day or night. It is not designed for you to have breakfast, lunch and dinner there. (Although there people who use like that and wonder while health problems plague their lives. No, you go home and have your 3 square healthy meals a day there. -McDonalds is temporary. _

_As such Social benefit is temporary. It was not designed for it to be lived off permanently. But again, there are those who claim it who harbour the clear intent to live of the fat of the land of however long that is for. Perhaps a lifetime!_

_-This social group cannot continue to continue. They are scroungers and bone-idles who out numbering the genuine in need. -That includes disability people too who do not want to work and young mothers with cricket score amount of kids. _

_*Life owes no one a living. YOU make your living and hopefully in the process you add something back to society.*_

I have proposal to end this farce for *Ian Dunce Duncan Smith* to use to combat this benefit parasite paradise problem:

â€¢ Ok. Everyone *born* in the UK is eligible to: Jobseekers Allowance, Council Tax and Housing benefit and Disability benefit.

â€¢ *But,* you are only eligible to apply for these benefits for only *12 years* -from the time you are *18* to the retirement age of *65*.

â€¢ The moment you make a claim for benefit and are accepted by the system to be paid benefit, the clock starts from there. You have 12 years to find work. 11 of those years, you benefit will be paid benefit at current rate. In your twelve year, your benefit is cut down by 25%. (I will explain later whyâ€¦)

â€¢ Case point example, If you were claiming benefit and you found work two year later, then you have taken off two years off your allocated 12 years benefit, leaving you with 10 years.

â€¢ If this same person was to work for 5 years or more and then became unemployed and went back to claim benefit, he or she would have their clock reset back to 12 years, because they worked *5 years *or more.

â€¢ If they worked *less* than 5 years, then their benefit clock would pick up where it last left off at 10 years and would continue to run-down until they found work before the 12 year allocation was up.

â€¢ If said person was still claiming benefit up to 11 years, then in the twelve year it would be cut by 25%. This benefit payment year would be called an â€˜end of cycle hardship fundâ€™. At this stage the said person would have 12 months to find work and only 12 months of 25% less benefit paid for 12 months too.

â€¢ At 12 years, if the same person was *still out of work* whether he/she made great efforts or not they would be *excluded from benefit completely,* *no exceptions*. However mothers with children under 13 years would get support for their children in the form of tokens for child maintenance only.

â€¢ Any foreign national from overseas who settled in the UK for less than *10* years will not be eligible of benefit â€“ full stop. No excuses No exception.

â€¢ *All* benefit payments paid would not be in the form of money anymore.
These payments would not longer be paid straight into bank accounts or cash Giros given from Post Offices.

â€¢ *All *claimants now would be given a single card, which acts just like a debit or credit card. This has their NI number encoded in it. (It is useless to anyone who is not issued it (working folks) or anyone who finds one in the street. Their Jobseekers Allowance would be paid on this card.

â€¢ The card can purchase anything but you cannot draw cash from an ATM machines to buy drugs or purchase items such as, beer, wine, spirits, pay for bets in Gambling casinos or establishments such as Ladbrokes bookie shops or gamble online. Everything would be *barcoded* to safe guard this. (You can however purchase (if by choice) a Lottery Ticket, (as everyone deserves the chance of better life) but this would be restricted to only *4* Â£1.00 purchase tickets in any one month.

â€¢ This *SSBC* (Social Security Benefit Card) is a clear way to make sure that claimants, who are given benefit, spend their allowance on what they truly need to survive, for them and their familyâ€™s. This action hopes to instil responsibly, and not wastefulness, and to endear the claimant on the value of money. As you are â€˜out of workâ€™ it is you duties to get a mind-set of prudence.


- The jobless can avoid all this, - and just get a *job!*


That is my proposal to IDS.


----------



## don72 (Apr 3, 2013)

Look folks; we canâ€™t continue to please everyone all the time.  Or this matrix will crash!

-Something has to be done about social benefit and who is eligible for claim it.

This cash â€˜social security _benefit blanketâ€™ has to be thrown *off* the bed and a new *temporary* quilt put on instead; before thereâ€™s no bed at all for any of us to lie on when times get bleak! _

_Iâ€™m not a Tory supporter, â€“ far from it. But I understand the premise what IDS is trying to do; but he is going about it in the wrong way. Eg. Bedroom Tax etc, etc. --Utter nonsense, wonâ€™t achieve nothing but create a housing shortage and social unrest._

_Getting back to the point though. -Lets not forget what benefit was design to do in the first place? _
_
Benefit is a â€˜temporary helpâ€™ that is all, design to help people while they are out of work â€˜temporaryâ€™. Help enough for you to avoid poverty, but a lot, lot less for you to live a comfortable life sustainably. _

_It is like McDonalds. McDonald is designed for you to get a quick snack or an in-between meal during the day or night. It is not designed for you to have breakfast, lunch and dinner there. (-Although there are people who use it like that because they are too lazy to cook and wonder why health problems plague their lives. -No, you go home and have your 3 square healthy meals a day at home -McDonalds is temporary. _

_As such Social benefit is temporary. It was not designed for it to be lived off permanently. -But again, there are those who claim it who harbour the clear intent to live of the 'fat of the land' for however long that is for. >Perhaps a lifetime!_

_-This social group cannot continue to continue. They are scroungers and bone-idles who are out numbering the genuine in need. -That includes disability people too who do not want to work and young mothers with cricket score amounts of kids. _

_*Life owes no one a living. YOU make your living and hopefully in the process you add something back to society.*_

I have proposal to end this farce for *Ian Dunce Duncan Smith* to use to combat this benefit parasite paradise problem:

â€¢ Everyone *born* in the UK is eligible to: Jobseekers Allowance, Council Tax and Housing benefit and Disability benefit.

â€¢ *But,* you are only eligible to apply for these benefits for only *12 years* -from the time you are *18* to the retirement age of *65*.

â€¢ The moment you make a claim for benefit and are accepted by the system to be paid benefit, the clock starts from there. You have 12 years to find work. 11 of those years, you benefit will be paid benefit at current rate. In your twelve year, your benefit is cut down by 25%. (I will explain later whyâ€¦)

â€¢ Case point example, If you were claiming benefit and you found work two year later, then you have taken off two years off your allocated 12 years benefit, leaving you with 10 years.

â€¢ If this same person was to work for 5 years or more and then became unemployed and went back to claim benefit, he or she would have their clock reset back to 12 years, because they worked *5 years *or more.

â€¢ If they worked *less* than 5 years, then their benefit clock would pick up where it last left off at 10 years and would continue to run-down until they found work before the 12 year allocation was up.

â€¢ If said person was still claiming benefit up to 11 years, then in the twelve year it would be cut by 25%. This benefit payment year would be called an â€˜end of cycle hardship fundâ€™. At this stage the said person would have 12 months to find work and only 12 months of 25% less benefit paid for 12 months too.

â€¢ At 12 years, if the same person was *still out of work* whether he/she made great efforts or not they would be *excluded from benefit completely,* *no exceptions*. However mothers with children under 13 years would get support for their children in the form of tokens for child maintenance only.

â€¢ Any foreign national from overseas who settled in the UK for less than *10* years will not be eligible of benefit â€“ full stop. No excuses No exception.

â€¢ *All* benefit payments paid would not be in the form of money anymore.
These payments would no longer be paid straight into bank accounts or cash Giros given from Post Offices.

â€¢ *All *claimants now would be given a single card, which acts just like a debit or credit card. This has their NI number encoded in it. (It is useless to anyone who is not issued it (working folks) or anyone who finds one in the street. Their Jobseekers Allowance would be paid on this card.

â€¢ The card can purchase anything but you cannot draw cash from an ATM machines to buy drugs or purchase items such as, beer, wine, spirits, pay for bets in Gambling casinos or establishments such as Ladbrokes bookie shops or gamble online. Everything would be *barcoded* to safe guard this. (You can however purchase (if by choice) a Lottery Ticket, (as everyone deserves the chance of better life) but this would be restricted to only *4* Â£1.00 purchase tickets in any one month.

â€¢ This *SSBC* (Social Security Benefit Card) is a clear way to make sure that claimants, who are given benefit, spend their allowance on what they truly need to survive, for them and their familyâ€™s. -This action hopes to instil responsibly, and not wastefulness, and to endear the claimant on the value of money. As you are â€˜out of workâ€™ it is you duties to get a mind-set of prudence.


But you can avoid all this, - and just get a *job!*

That is my proposal to IDS.


----------



## sydney greenstreet (Apr 3, 2013)

don72 said:



_Benefit is a â€˜temporary helpâ€™ that is all, design to help people while they are out of work â€˜temporaryâ€™. ._

Click to expand...

_
Yes but there are not enough jobs out there for everyone on Benefits_


----------



## don72 (Apr 3, 2013)

>There is jobs out there for sure.
If someone can travel the length of the globe, can't utter a word of English with nothing in their pockets, ends up here and finds work. -Then we all can!

Get a grip now, before they pull the plug on the whole thing. Then we'll see who can't find work!


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 3, 2013)

sydney greenstreet said:



			Yes but there are not enough jobs out there for everyone on Benefits
		
Click to expand...

Lets get this straight!!  It's not the governments responsibility to create jobs, all they can do is reduce taxation on business so that they have a chance to prosper and create work.  Jobs are created by businesses and people prepared to put them selves on the line and take a chance starting a business. 

If people really have the sphericals and grit to do something about their lot then they can always become self employed or start a business.  It's so easy for people to blame the government or business for their lot when they have no drive themselves and expect someone else to sort their lives for them.

There are jobs out there if you are willing to do them, cleaning, fruit picking, care work etc.  Poles and others from abroad seem to do these jobs and be better off than if they were in their home countries.  I would agree that we need to limit the number of people coming into the country and get the long term unemployed doing these jobs.

Just look at this disgusting cretin Philpott, he epitomises the worst of the benefit culture that has been growing for the last decade.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 3, 2013)

Colin L said:



			I remain puzzled as to what an individual in social housing is supposed to do about it if he/she has a spare bedroom.  Move elsewhere? Why should the individual be penalised if there isn't anywhere else to go?  Take in a lodger?  I suspect you aren't allowed to.  Have someone imposed on you by the local authority to share?
		
Click to expand...

If people having their rent paid by benefit and the house is too big then moving people with bigger families into their homes will release smaller properties for them to live in.    And!! It's not a Tax.


----------



## stevie_r (Apr 3, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			If people having their rent paid by benefit and the house is too big then moving people with bigger families into their homes will release smaller properties for them to live in.    And!! It's not a Tax.
		
Click to expand...

So someone who is temporarily unemployed for what ends up being a short period and is in receipt of housing benefit should move out of their family home?  

Given I don't particularly want an infraction or ban I will refrain from giving my full opinion of your idea; words fail me, they really do.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 3, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			So someone who is temporarily unemployed for what ends up being a short period and is in receipt of housing benefit should move out of their family home?  

Given I don't particularly want an infraction or ban I will refrain from giving my full opinion of your idea; words fail me, they really do.
		
Click to expand...

No, they dont have to move out of their home, they get around a 14% reduction in their housing benefit if the house is too big for them and there are a number of exceptions to cover many special needs.

I would suggest you read the bill rather than base your opinion on what the media say.


----------



## stevie_r (Apr 3, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



*If people having their rent paid by benefit and the house is too big then moving people with bigger families into their homes will release smaller properties for them to live in. *   And!! It's not a Tax.
		
Click to expand...




SocketRocket said:



			No, they dont have to move out of their home, they get around a 14% reduction in their housing benefit if the house is too big for them and there are a number of exceptions to cover many special needs.

I would suggest you read the bill rather than base your opinion on what the media say.
		
Click to expand...

I am fully aware that they don't have to move out of their home, I am fully aware of the details of this legislation.  It was you however who suggested that they should move out - look, there's the quote


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 3, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			I am fully aware that they don't have to move out of their home, I am fully aware of the details of this legislation.  It was you however who suggested that they should move out - look, there's the quote
		
Click to expand...

Yes!  That's the objective to ease overcrowding  and help reduce the overall benefit bill.  These things will be unpopular and tough but the fact is we are broke.


----------



## SyR (Apr 3, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Yes!  That's the objective to ease overcrowding  and help reduce the overall benefit bill.  These things will be unpopular and tough *but the fact is we are broke.*

Click to expand...

Yet they are reducing the higher tax rate from 50% to 45%.:thup:


----------



## stevie_r (Apr 3, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Yes!  That's the objective to ease overcrowding  and help reduce the overall benefit bill.  These things will be unpopular and tough but the fact is we are broke.
		
Click to expand...

It has precisely nothing to do with overcrowding.  It does have a lot to do with reducing the benefit bill.  Unfortunately rather than targeting appropriately it will force hardship upon a substantial number of genuinely vulnerable people.  It is too broad brush.  

Likewise the change from Incapacity Benefit to ESA where a vast amount of genuine claimants were reclassified and placed into specific groups within ESA without a medical assessment.  The changes to DLA will also severely affect many with medical assessments using some fairly ridiculous criteria to score people.

The country needs to save money, we all know that, taking money from the most vulnerable in society is not the way to do it - but it is very easy.  A lot easier for example than taking on huge corporations (and indeed ridiculously wealthy individuals) for whom tax avoidance has reached ridiculous levels.  We could also for example reconsider whether we want to spend Â£12.6 billion on foreign aid next year, more incidentally than we will spend on policing our own country.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 4, 2013)

SyR said:



			Yet they are reducing the higher tax rate from 50% to 45%.:thup:
		
Click to expand...

This higher tax rate was introduced by the last Government in the last few weeks of office, they kept the 40% rate through the rest of the period.

Anyhow, why should people be taxed at a higher rate, they already pay more tax if they have high earnings.  I cant see whats wrong with having a maximum 40% rate and if you earn lots of money then you still pay lots of tax, whats the point of punishing people that do well.   The problem is we are taxed too much, if we could keep more of our hard earned money then we would be able to spend it on what we choose rather than the Government spending it for us.  It really gets me when people think the way forward is to punish those that create wealth.


----------



## Shaunmg (Apr 4, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			This higher tax rate was introduced by the last Government in the last few weeks of office, they kept the 40% rate through the rest of the period.

Anyhow, why should people be taxed at a higher rate, they already pay more tax if they have high earnings.  I cant see whats wrong with having a maximum 40% rate and if you earn lots of money then you still pay lots of tax, whats the point of punishing people that do well.   The problem is we are taxed too much, if we could keep more of our hard earned money then we would be able to spend it on what we choose rather than the Government spending it for us.  It really gets me when people think the way forward is to punish those that create wealth.
		
Click to expand...

Tp reiterate on my last contribution we have 6 million plus, either un-employed or under employed. I agree entirely with the view expressed benefits should be a stop gap and not a way of life for the able bodied. Nor should it be subsidy for bad and cheap skate employers. Most benefit claimants are employed

Right now jobs with a living wage simply do not exist for the 6 million in need of them. Itâ€™s no good skirting round every excuse in the book for reason behind un and under employment, when the real reason for such high benefits claim is the lack of living wage jobs. Again I reiterate Living wage jobs.

I hear myself shouting at the telly each week when watching question time, and hear the Posh Tory describing the jobs created in the private sector. Part time at Tesco, Costa Coffee, THEY ARE NOT JOBS!

The way to recovery is to create real jobs and re-dress the damage done in the 80s by Thatcherism. My home town was a thriving industrial town, mining, glass, chemical and engineering. Almost all gone, bar a handful still remaining in what was once booming glass industry. I have witnessed my town go from prosperity to poverty. 

We need to increase public spending and build our way back to employment. Not reduce it so the wealthy pay less tax. We have to speculate to accumulate Create real work, thatâ€™s how we reduce benefits. Those that can, should pay more to achieve it and if that includes me then so be it.

Why should high earners pay more? well as the posh Tory would say â€œwe are all in it togetherâ€ but I think not


----------



## Matty (Apr 4, 2013)

I never cease to be amazed when people from working backgrounds in what we would describe as 'third world nations' are disgusted and astonished at our welfare system. They have been born to nations where if you want anything from life you work for it and you work hard.

They come to the UK to further their ambitions and see British people who have never worked, paid no NI or income tax and yet have enough money given to them to subscribe to Sky and have the latest smart phone!


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 4, 2013)

Shaunmg said:



			Tp reiterate on my last contribution we have 6 million plus, either un-employed or under employed. I agree entirely with the view expressed benefits should be a stop gap and not a way of life for the able bodied. Nor should it be subsidy for bad and cheap skate employers. Most benefit claimants are employed

Right now jobs with a living wage simply do not exist for the 6 million in need of them. Itâ€™s no good skirting round every excuse in the book for reason behind un and under employment, when the real reason for such high benefits claim is the lack of living wage jobs. Again I reiterate Living wage jobs.

I hear myself shouting at the telly each week when watching question time, and hear the Posh Tory describing the jobs created in the private sector. Part time at Tesco, Costa Coffee, THEY ARE NOT JOBS!

The way to recovery is to create real jobs and re-dress the damage done in the 80s by Thatcherism. My home town was a thriving industrial town, mining, glass, chemical and engineering. Almost all gone, bar a handful still remaining in what was once booming glass industry. I have witnessed my town go from prosperity to poverty.   

We need to increase public spending and build our way back to employment. Not reduce it so the wealthy pay less tax. We have to speculate to accumulate Create real work, thatâ€™s how we reduce benefits. Those that can, should pay more to achieve it and if that includes me then so be it.

Why should high earners pay more? well as the posh Tory would say â€œwe are all in it togetherâ€ but I think not
		
Click to expand...

So borrow more, tax more then?   

How do you think enough jobs can be created when 4 Million extra people (growing daily) have come into the country.  I have said previously that the government will never create real jobs, that can only be done by the people with the guts to create and grow businesses, you know the types, those you want to tax more.


----------



## 6inchcup (Apr 4, 2013)

i live in a modest 3 bed semi moved in when they were built 25 years ago,never missed a payment or my council tax,worked hard for everything i have,and so did my 5 neibours( small close),over the past few years 2 of the houses have been sold to private landlords who at first rented them to doctors from the local hospital (whiston),now we have 2 families who do not work,there are 5 adults of working age and 4 school age kids,the properties are paid for by us the tax payers and a far as i can assume so will all the other houshold bills,the state of the properties is a disgrace and we have the police constantly calling to one house or the other because of noise or burning rubbish in the garden(plastic off cable!!!!!),these people have never worked and have no intention of working,the sponge of the tax payer and think it is a right to have the same as everyone else,why should we the tax payer subsidise the likes of these people,they are just scum and leeches,everyone who is in receipt of JSA should be made to do voluntery work to the value of ALL monies recieved NO turn up NO money,this will sort the scum from the unfortinates.


----------



## stevie_r (Apr 4, 2013)

Shaunmg said:



			Tp reiterate on my last contribution we have 6 million plus, either un-employed or under employed. I agree entirely with the view expressed benefits should be a stop gap and not a way of life for the able bodied. Nor should it be subsidy for bad and cheap skate employers. Most benefit claimants are employed

Right now jobs with a living wage simply do not exist for the 6 million in need of them. Itâ€™s no good skirting round every excuse in the book for reason behind un and under employment, when the real reason for such high benefits claim is the lack of living wage jobs. Again I reiterate Living wage jobs.

I hear myself shouting at the telly each week when watching question time, and hear the Posh Tory describing the jobs created in the private sector. Part time at Tesco, Costa Coffee, THEY ARE NOT JOBS!

The way to recovery is to create real jobs and re-dress the damage done in the 80s by Thatcherism. My home town was a thriving industrial town, mining, glass, chemical and engineering. Almost all gone, bar a handful still remaining in what was once booming glass industry. I have witnessed my town go from prosperity to poverty. 

We need to increase public spending and build our way back to employment. Not reduce it so the wealthy pay less tax. We have to speculate to accumulate Create real work, thatâ€™s how we reduce benefits. Those that can, should pay more to achieve it and if that includes me then so be it.

Why should high earners pay more? well as the posh Tory would say â€œwe are all in it togetherâ€ but I think not
		
Click to expand...

I agree


----------



## Shaunmg (Apr 4, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			So borrow more, tax more then?   

How do you think enough jobs can be created when 4 Million extra people (growing daily) have come into the country.  I have said previously that the government will never create real jobs, that can only be done by the people with the guts to create and grow businesses, you know the types, those you want to tax more.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I know the type; Iâ€™m one of the them. Iâ€™ve been MD of the small but thriving business that I helped create 14 years ago. I employed no part timers only full time. 

I donâ€™t disagree about immigration, but you canâ€™t bandy about figures on immigration from a one sided viewpoint, you have consider net migration and Brits working abroad 

My business, that I have recently sold, but remain as a consultant relies heavily work in Europe. You are only seeing one side. When  recently in Poland I was amazed at how many other British workers were working there. 

Of course the difference was, it was British firms winning contracts in Poland, just like my company was, and then taking their employees over to do the work. Itâ€™s not just Poland, I see it in many other EU countries 

As usual there are the comments on this thread about shirkers and scroungers, again I canâ€™t disagree, but they are a minority who should be sorted out. Either no one is listening or ignoring the point, most people drawing benefit are in work, in what I call non jobs. As long as everyone in this discussion continues to ignor that fact, I'll keep repeating it. There are little or no real jobs in the North, most on JSA are doing exactly that; seeking jobs   

If governments canâ€™t create jobs then how did the Iceland government do it. It wasnâ€™t the Iceland bankers who did it, they couldnâ€™t, they are in jail


----------



## 6inchcup (Apr 4, 2013)

Saun,I also live in ST HELEN'S and the town has been made a waste land by the LABOUR council,you mentioned the glass industry in the town this was lost due to the unions demanding more and more,pilks sold out to and a lot of the workers took a golden handshake,we now have the situation were they have moved most of the production out of the country,because it is cheaper,that's business,as reform British workers working in POLAND,that's fine but they will not get free houses or the amount of benefits that POLISH workers get in this country that is the difference,how can it be right that a POLISH worker gets child benefit for his kids who are living inPOLAND,


----------



## Luulox (Apr 4, 2013)

I truly hope that the people making the disgusting comments on here supporting bedroom tax and the savage welfare cuts for "skivers" one day wake up to find themselves in the situation lots of these so called "skivers" find themselves in. It only takes an illness or a redundancy or a business going bust for you to be in the same position as the people that you are denigrating. Lets hope you get shown a lot more compassion than you give out. You are whats wrong with this country not people who care about people worse off than them, you should be ashamed of yourselves. I am not a labour supporter either just someone who as seen both sides of the coin and found that the majority in both worlds are decent people unlike you self righteous right wing people


----------



## 6inchcup (Apr 4, 2013)

Luulox said:



			I truly hope that the people making the disgusting comments on here supporting bedroom tax and the savage welfare cuts for "skivers" one day wake up to find themselves in the situation lots of these so called "skivers" find themselves in. It only takes an illness or a redundancy or a business going bust for you to be in the same position as the people that you are denigrating. Lets hope you get shown a lot more compassion than you give out. You are whats wrong with this country not people who care about people worse off than them, you should be ashamed of yourselves. I am not a labour supporter either just someone who as seen both sides of the coin and found that the majority in both worlds are decent people unlike you self righteous right wing people
		
Click to expand...

yes i am right wing cant see a problem with that,i class skivers as those that have never worked or had any intention of working BUT expect the same lifestyle of those that have,if everyone lived within their means and didnt get themselves into debt to keep up an apperance but saved some money for a rainy day the loss of a job would be less of a shock,how many on this forum knows people who max out their credit cards buy the latest car or golf equipment even though they cant afford it? just to look good,why should i pay for someone to live in a state owned property that is paid for with my tax that is to big for them while a family is living in overcrowded accomodation down the road? choices have to be made and some are tougher than others but that doesnt meen they should be scrapped.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 4, 2013)

Luulox said:



			I truly hope that the people making the disgusting comments on here supporting bedroom tax and the savage welfare cuts for "skivers" one day wake up to find themselves in the situation lots of these so called "skivers" find themselves in. It only takes an illness or a redundancy or a business going bust for you to be in the same position as the people that you are denigrating. Lets hope you get shown a lot more compassion than you give out. You are whats wrong with this country not people who care about people worse off than them, you should be ashamed of yourselves. I am not a labour supporter either just someone who as seen both sides of the coin and found that the majority in both worlds are decent people unlike you self righteous right wing people
		
Click to expand...

Seems to me you haven't read the posts or thought this through, no one is saying genuine people should not be looked after.  You know the difference between who are deserving and who are spongers on the hard working population, you cant be so naive that you believe everyone on benefits are hard done by.   Benefits are supposed to be for genuinely disabled and as a temporary support to those who fall on hard times, not as a life time career for the work shy and unemployable.

You need to face up to the reality of life,  we are not guaranteed a nice life style, if we want that then we have to make it for our selves.   Just look at this disgusting specimen Philpott, he is the result of the way the entitlement system have ruined so many  by encouraging them to live their lives only for greed.

I know what it's like to have nothing, to loose everything but I have never taken a benefit in my life, I have worked very hard, created jobs for others and paid a lot of money into the system.   To reiterate, most people care about the misfortunate but not the spongers who are too lazy to fend for themselves.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 4, 2013)

Shaunmg said:



			nt relies heavily work in Europe. You are only seeing one side. When  recently in Poland I was amazed at how many other British workers were working there. 

Of course the difference was, it was British firms winning contracts in Poland, just like my company was, and then taking their employees over to do the work. Itâ€™s not just Poland, I see it in many other EU countries 

As usual there are the comments on this thread about shirkers and scroungers, again I canâ€™t disagree, but they are a minority who should be sorted out. Either no one is listening or ignoring the point, most people drawing benefit are in work, in what I call non jobs. As long as everyone in this discussion continues to ignor that fact, I'll keep repeating it. There are little or no real jobs in the North, most on JSA are doing exactly that; seeking jobs   

If governments canâ€™t create jobs then how did the Iceland government do it. It wasnâ€™t the Iceland bankers who did it, they couldnâ€™t, they are in jail
		
Click to expand...

The british working abroad are not going there to get better state handouts and are normally self financing.

Regarding most benefits being paid to working people!  I know and have heard many people saying they wont work more than sixteen hours a week because they will lose benefits, this cant be right can it.  Also so many relatively well off people are getting tax credits, surely this is also wrong, it's better to tax people less and let them keep their money than overtaxing them then giving them money back.  

The welfare budget rose by 60% under the Labour government in a relatively boom period, all to buy votes for Gordon Brown.    How ever people look at the situation you cannot get away from the fact that we are funding all this with borrowed money and this cannot continue for long without the country going bankrupt.   savings have to be made and tough decisions will need to be made, everyone that loses a benefit will naturally protest they are being victimised.  It's no good people saying the rich are being given big tax cuts, this amount wont eve scratch the surface of the problem with state overspending.


----------



## stevie_r (Apr 4, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Seems to me you haven't read the posts or thought this through, no one is saying genuine people should not be looked after.  You know the difference between who are deserving and who are spongers on the hard working population, you cant be so naive that you believe everyone on benefits are hard done by.   Benefits are supposed to be for genuinely disabled and as a temporary support to those who fall on hard times, not as a life time career for the work shy and unemployable.

*You need to face up to the reality of life,  we are not guaranteed a nice life style, if we want that then we have to make it for our selves.   Just look at this disgusting specimen Philpott, he is the result of the way the entitlement system have ruined so many  by encouraging them to live their lives only for greed.*

I know what it's like to have nothing, to loose everything but I have never taken a benefit in my life, I have worked very hard, created jobs for others and paid a lot of money into the system.   To reiterate, most people care about the misfortunate but not the spongers who are too lazy to fend for themselves.
		
Click to expand...

You are right, it is a fact that people on benefits are more likely to burn their children to death


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 4, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			You are right, it is a fact that people on benefits are more likely to burn their children to death 

Click to expand...

Cheap shot!


----------



## scratch (Apr 4, 2013)

I have a solution to unemployment and the 'benefits' culture and it is very simple.

Make all those people on benefits work for them. There are loads of things they could be doing to contribute towards society such as litter picking, cleaning off graffiti, assisting the elderly etc. And for those with trades, how about renovating properties so that the homeless have somewhere to live.Basically, all the things that councils can't afford to do because they don't have the funding.

Give the unemployed the choice, full benefits but you earn them or the bare minimum to get by (no booze, fags, Sky TV, xboxes etc).

Oh.....hang on. This might infringe on their human right to lay about on the sofa all day scratching their backside and watching Jeremy Kyle  while the rest of us go out to work to support them


----------



## Luulox (Apr 4, 2013)

6inchcup said:



			yes i am right wing cant see a problem with that,i class skivers as those that have never worked or had any intention of working BUT expect the same lifestyle of those that have,if everyone lived within their means and didnt get themselves into debt to keep up an apperance but saved some money for a rainy day the loss of a job would be less of a shock,how many on this forum knows people who max out their credit cards buy the latest car or golf equipment even though they cant afford it? just to look good,why should i pay for someone to live in a state owned property that is paid for with my tax that is to big for them while a family is living in overcrowded accomodation down the road? choices have to be made and some are tougher than others but that doesnt meen they should be scrapped.
		
Click to expand...

your not paying for them to live there the amount of your personal tax that goes to pay welfare is not a lot of your total bill. if the banks had lived within their means some poor mug with a extra bedroom wouldnt have to pay for the bankers greed. Its absolute balls that this government is trying to say the poor put us in this mess. this country is not in the muck because someone has a room free. 
As for socketrocket this quote shows what you are so i wont be wasting my breath with you -
 " You need to face up to the reality of life, we are not guaranteed a nice life style, if we want that then we have to make it for our selves. Just look at this disgusting specimen Philpott, he is the result of the way the entitlement system have ruined so many by encouraging them to live their lives only for greed" 
trying to use the death of 6 kids as justification is sickening. I read your post perfectly well, did you post that on a break from "mien kampf"?
This government is perpetuating a myth that its all because of welfare that we are struggling and selfish ignorant fools are aiding them in their work. Dont spout your big man " i never claimed this" "ive always worked" Some people have not had the life chances and in most part, luck of birth a few in this country have had. May it come back to bite you on the backside


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 4, 2013)

Luulox said:



			your not paying for them to live there the amount of your personal tax that goes to pay welfare is not a lot of your total bill. if the banks had lived within their means some poor mug with a extra bedroom wouldnt have to pay for the bankers greed. Its absolute balls that this government is trying to say the poor put us in this mess. this country is not in the muck because someone has a room free. 
As for socketrocket this quote shows what you are so i wont be wasting my breath with you -
 " You need to face up to the reality of life, we are not guaranteed a nice life style, if we want that then we have to make it for our selves. Just look at this disgusting specimen Philpott, he is the result of the way the entitlement system have ruined so many by encouraging them to live their lives only for greed" 
trying to use the death of 6 kids as justification is sickening. I read your post perfectly well, did you post that on a break from "mien kampf"?
This government is perpetuating a myth that its all because of welfare that we are struggling and selfish ignorant fools are aiding them in their work. Dont spout your big man " i never claimed this" "ive always worked" Some people have not had the life chances and in most part, luck of birth a few in this country have had. May it come back to bite you on the backside
		
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that if someone has a different opinion than you then the best way to debate the subject is with personal insults.    Regarding your misquotation in what I said about Phillpot,  where did I say the death of six kids was a justification?  I said the way he used the beneffit system for his own greed was disgusting.    You really are a bit of a sensationalist who twists things to suit your own left wing beliefs.


----------



## Sweep (Apr 4, 2013)

This petition is a load of utter nonsense. Did anyone ever ask any of the last Labour government (who contributed to this mess) to live on benefit amounts? No. Why? Were benefits too generous? I should remind anyone who is even contemplating signing this tosh that IDS has been unemployed twice. Before he became a politician. Yes, he even had a proper job once. Unlike most politicians these days.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 5, 2013)

Sweep said:



			This petition is a load of utter nonsense. Did anyone ever ask any of the last Labour government (who contributed to this mess) to live on benefit amounts? No. Why? Were benefits too generous? I should remind anyone who is even contemplating signing this tosh that IDS has been unemployed twice. Before he became a politician. Yes, he even had a proper job once. Unlike most politicians these days.
		
Click to expand...

Thats correct.   

Many are also forgetting not long ago that Labour wanted to force old people out of their homes so they could be freed up for younger people  They referred to Older people as 'Empty Nesters' who should be taxed out of their family homes to free up space for younger generations.   Now they seem to be against the idea, I wonder why?


----------



## sydney greenstreet (Apr 5, 2013)

scratch said:



			I have a solution to unemployment and the 'benefits' culture and it is very simple.

Make all those people on benefits work for them. There are loads of things they could be doing to contribute towards society such as litter picking, cleaning off graffiti, assisting the elderly etc. And for those with trades, how about renovating properties
		
Click to expand...

Then why not make them jobs then ? you would rather see someone work 40 hrs for about Â£70 a week ? Then Employers would start laying everyone off and getting those on benefits to do the jobs at a fraction of the price , oh wait the Condems have already started doing that.


----------



## Luulox (Apr 5, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			So what you are saying is that if someone has a different opinion than you then the best way to debate the subject is with personal insults.    Regarding your misquotation in what I said about Phillpot,  where did I say the death of six kids was a justification?  I said the way he used the beneffit system for his own greed was disgusting.    You really are a bit of a sensationalist who twists things to suit your own left wing beliefs.
		
Click to expand...

It was a direct quote about philpott from your post not a misquote. the quote saying "using the death of six kids to
as justification" were my words. Cant see where i got personal either. What was sensationalist about quoting your exact words? sensationalist, would that not be a personal insult?The government and your type of person are trying to justify attacking the weakest in society for the mistakes the strongest in society made and is moral bankrupcy and selfishness Thats not a personal insult,  just the truth. Plus your wrong about me being left wing, i just have a bit of empathy and compassion even if it costs me a tiny bit of cash. Thats where we differ. Cannot see point of continuing this, we will never agree so i wont be adding anything more


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 5, 2013)

sydney greenstreet said:



			Then why not make them jobs then ? you would rather see someone work 40 hrs for about Â£70 a week ? Then Employers would start laying everyone off and getting those on benefits to do the jobs at a fraction of the price , oh wait the Condems have already started doing that.
		
Click to expand...

He didnt mean that.  He was talking of people doing community service, this would be more of a way for people that had not taken out insurance (National Insurance that is) by paying into the pot to contribute towards their state payouts.   Surely its better for someone who has not worked to get up in the morning and do something useful rather than festering at home watching television or playing computer games.  Some of this work could be for charities or helping old people and the infirm.


----------



## scratch (Apr 5, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			He didnt mean that.  He was talking of people doing community service, this would be more of a way for people that had not taken out insurance (National Insurance that is) by paying into the pot to contribute towards their state payouts.   Surely its better for someone who has not worked to get up in the morning and do something useful rather than festering at home watching television or playing computer games.  Some of this work could be for charities or helping old people and the infirm.
		
Click to expand...

Correct, exactly what I meant.

It's not a case of slave labour but an opportunity for the unemployed to contribute something back to society by earning their benefits. And the benefits to the country are enormous, 2.5m people helping make Britain a better place to live. Surely that has to be a good thing?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 5, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			He didnt mean that.  He was talking of people doing community service, this would be more of a way for people that had not taken out insurance (National Insurance that is) by paying into the pot to contribute towards their state payouts.   Surely its better for someone who has not worked to get up in the morning and do something useful rather than festering at home watching television or playing computer games.  Some of this work could be for charities or helping old people and the infirm.
		
Click to expand...

That has been tried but cannot be compulsory. A young graduate who was doing a great voluntary job in a library was told to give it up and work for free with Poundland. She sued the government that it infringed her human rights and won..


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 5, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			That has been tried but cannot be compulsory. A young graduate who was doing a great voluntary job in a library was told to give it up and work for free with Poundland. She sued the government that it infringed her human rights and won..
		
Click to expand...

Yuman Rights, what a joke.   That particular case showed what a mockery it is, too posh to do work experience but OK to keep recieving benefits.  The sooner that stupid convention is tossed out and replaced with something sensible the better.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Apr 5, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Yuman Rights, what a joke.   That particular case showed what a mockery it is, too posh to do work experience but OK to keep recieving benefits.  The sooner that stupid convention is tossed out and replaced with something sensible the better.
		
Click to expand...

The only joke with this case was, IIRC, that she had previously applied and been turned down for work at Poundland who were then only too keen to snap her up when they could get her labour for free. This scheme, while well-intentioned I believe, was a farce.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 5, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			The only joke with this case was, IIRC, that she had previously applied and been turned down for work at Poundland who were then only too keen to snap her up when they could get her labour for free. This scheme, while well-intentioned I believe, was a farce.
		
Click to expand...

My recolection of the case was not that.   I dont believe she had ever applied to Poundland for a job.  I would be interested in seeing some evidence of that.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Apr 5, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			My recolection of the case was not that.   I dont believe she had ever applied to Poundland for a job.  I would be interested in seeing some evidence of that.
		
Click to expand...

I definitely heard of this w.r.t the scheme but might have been getting mixed up with another individual. Don't remember exactly....


----------



## stevie_r (Apr 5, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Yuman Rights, what a joke.   That particular case showed what a mockery it is, too posh to do work experience but OK to keep recieving benefits.  The sooner that stupid convention is tossed out and replaced with something sensible the better.
		
Click to expand...

How did it show that?  The person concerned was working voluntarily in a library; I'm sure that even you would agree that that was of more public benefit than being free labour for a commercial enterprise.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 5, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			How did it show that?  The person concerned was working voluntarily in a library; I'm sure that even you would agree that that was of more public benefit than being free labour for a commercial enterprise.
		
Click to expand...

To be accurate she was doing voluntary work in a museum.  It did not say how many hours she was doing, it may well have been 40 but it could have been 5.

I am not convinced that the public would benifit more by her work.  The appeal didnt say that what she was asked to do was wrong only that their was an infringement of her rights if her benefits were stopped and that Parliament needed to introduce appropriate law to cover this.

IMHO someone of her age with a degree who cannot find paid work seems very wrong.  I think it was more about her being very selectve on what work she does; Is that really a suitable reason for someone to be drawing benefits?


----------



## stevie_r (Apr 5, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			To be accurate she was doing voluntary work in a museum.  It did not say how many hours she was doing, it may well have been 40 but it could have been 5.

I am not convinced that the public would benifit more by her work.  The appeal didnt say that what she was asked to do was wrong only that their was an infringement of her rights if her benefits were stopped and that Parliament needed to introduce appropriate law to cover this.

IMHO someone of her age with a degree who cannot find paid work seems very wrong.  I think it was more about her being very selectve on what work she does; Is that really a suitable reason for someone to be drawing benefits?
		
Click to expand...

What I suggest you do is just for a few days step out of your ridiculous little bubble and try and catch up with 21st century Britain.

There are thousands of graduates in Britain who are unable to find employment appropriate to their educational qualifications.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 5, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			What I suggest you do is just for a few days step out of your ridiculous little bubble and try and catch up with 21st century Britain.

There are thousands of graduates in Britain who are unable to find employment appropriate to their educational qualifications.
.
		
Click to expand...

Another cheap shot.  Try to debate the case and facts rather than immature comments like that please.

I know a number of graduates that have to taken work not associated to their degree.   Thats another issue where so many go to University taking degrees in subjects highly unlikely to produce work.  I think she did Geology.

I have experienced a great deal of life in this country and have formed my opinions based on it.   It would be so easy to reply by character attacks of you but I will not do that as although I disagree with you I believe you have the right to your opinion.


----------



## stevie_r (Apr 5, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Another cheap shot.  Try to debate the case and facts rather than immature comments like that please.

I know a number of graduates that have to taken work not associated to their degree.   Thats another issue where so many go to University taking degrees in subjects highly unlikely to produce work.  I think she did Geology.

I have experienced a great deal of life in this country and have formed my opinions based on it.   It would be so easy to reply by character attacks of you but I will not do that as although I disagree with you I believe you have the right to your opinion.
		
Click to expand...

Countless times now on this thread you have failed to answer simple questions, have constantly changed your opinion on certain matters and have continually shown a complete lack of empathy for those who genuinely need help.  
Your ridiculous assertion that the reduction in housing benefit is a means to overcrowding reduction - it isn't.  
Your belief that individuals should be forced to move home into something smaller if they undergo circumstances that mean they are claiming housing benefit.
Your failure to recognise a difference between the career scrounger and those who are temporarily down on their luck.
Your quote that it is unfortunate but tough measures are necessary (or words to that effect - I can't be bothered reading back through it all), presumably this necessity includes for example disabled war veterans?
Your failure to understand that unfortunately where there are jobs doesn't coincide with the peak areas of unemployment; as highlighted by your post regarding fruit picking.  I don't think there are many fruit picking jobs in what are the areas most savagely affected by unemployment ie what was our former industrial heartlands.
I agree that graduates frequently take work unrelated to their degree, it shouldn't however include slave labour for a commercial concern.  As another poster has already alluded, this is a dangerous strategy which will result in certain unscrupulous organisations cutting their labour costs and therefore yet again reducing the pool of available employment opportunities. Work in the public interest then yes, totally agree.

I asked much earlier in this thread whether you had been unfortunate enough to suffer redundancy during this recession, I take your lack of response to this as a no.  

Please feel free to attack my character, however, ensure you put a bit more thought into it than you have to your posts in this thread.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 5, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			Countless times now on this thread you have failed to answer simple questions, have constantly changed your opinion on certain matters and have continually shown a complete lack of empathy for those who genuinely need help.  
Your ridiculous assertion that the reduction in housing benefit is a means to overcrowding reduction - it isn't.  
Your belief that individuals should be forced to move home into something smaller if they undergo circumstances that mean they are claiming housing benefit.
Your failure to recognise a difference between the career scrounger and those who are temporarily down on their luck.
Your quote that it is unfortunate but tough measures are necessary (or words to that effect - I can't be bothered reading back through it all), presumably this necessity includes for example disabled war veterans?
Your failure to understand that unfortunately where there are jobs doesn't coincide with the peak areas of unemployment; as highlighted by your post regarding fruit picking.  I don't think there are many fruit picking jobs in what are the areas most savagely affected by unemployment ie what was our former industrial heartlands.
I agree that graduates frequently take work unrelated to their degree, it shouldn't however include slave labour for a commercial concern.  As another poster has already alluded, this is a dangerous strategy which will result in certain unscrupulous organisations cutting their labour costs and therefore yet again reducing the pool of available employment opportunities. Work in the public interest then yes, totally agree.

I asked much earlier in this thread whether you had been unfortunate enough to suffer redundancy during this recession, I take your lack of response to this as a no.  

Please feel free to attack my character, however, ensure you put a bit more thought into it than you have to your posts in this thread.
		
Click to expand...

maybe you do need to read through my posts as you have just produced a number of fabrications and references that are completely out of context.

I did explain earlier that I have previously lost everything and started again without any assistance from the state.  I did actually become redundant in 2008 but have taken on a few jobs earning much less that I was previously paid but through hard work and long hours I am on the way back, even though I am in my sixties.

I fail to see where I have changed my opinion, it has remained very consistant.

The jobs in areas like fruit picking was in another thread about immigration and how many Polish people had taken on jobs that British people ar not prepared to do.  Your quote on war veterans is a very cheap exaggeration,  as an ex military person myself I resent that implication.  You also seem to have completely misunderstood what I said about the bedroom tax, I didn't say anywhere that people should be forced to leave their houses, the only implication is that they will have a reduction in their benefits if they are not working and that there were a number of exceptions in cases of special needs.

Please try to get the facts right before going off half cocked with your fabricated and emotive accusations.


----------



## stevie_r (Apr 5, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			I did explain earlier that I have previously lost everything and started again without any assistance from the state.  I did actually become redundant in 2008 but have taken on a few jobs earning much less that I was previously paid but through hard work and long hours I am on the way back, even though I am in my sixties.

I fail to see where I have changed my opinion, it has remained very consistant.

The jobs in areas like fruit picking was in another thread about immigration and how many Polish people had taken on jobs that British people ar not prepared to do.  Your quote on war veterans is a very cheap exaggeration,  as an ex military person myself I resent that implication.  You also seem to have completely misunderstood what I said about the bedroom tax, I didn't say anywhere that people should be forced to leave their houses, the only implication is that they will have a reduction in their benefits if they are not working and that there were a number of exceptions in cases of special needs.

Please try to get the facts right before going off half cocked with your fabricated and emotive accusations.
		
Click to expand...




SocketRocket said:



*I see your point and it can be hard for someone living in a house for many years to give it up when their children move out, but what about a family with two children living in a one bedroomed flat when there is a three bedroomed next door with one person in it.   We must also remember this accommodation is tax payer subsidised.*

Click to expand...




SocketRocket said:



*If people having their rent paid by benefit and the house is too big then moving people with bigger families into their homes will release smaller properties for them to live in. *

Click to expand...




SocketRocket said:



*Yes!  That's the objective to ease overcrowding  and help reduce the overall benefit bill.  These things will be unpopular and tough but the fact is we are broke.*

Click to expand...

doesn't seem to be any fabrication there to be honest


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 5, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			doesn't seem to be any fabrication there to be honest
		
Click to expand...

But you have plucked these quotes out of context to the conversation they were part of, where did I say people should be 'Forced' to leave their houses, those quotes are only explaining how the scheme benefits families living in overcrowded conditions, I did explain a number of times that they can stay but those on benefits will lose some of their housing allowance and there are many exceptions for special cases, you seem to want to ignore that.    You also made a number of accusations that I replied to but have chosen to ignore.


----------

