If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News4 mins ago
Is there an answer to the ever growing social underclass.
Highlighted recently by the Mathews case, what can be done about the whole swathe of society that have developed into a parasitical layer, an underclass, contributing nothing and living on an ever more generous benefits system. How can we get people away from the idea that you can make a career out of having children. What is the answer to the section of society that's only ambition is the aquisition of a life funded by the hard working tax payer? Where they have no aspirations for themselves and where their own children are largeky the tools by which the extract money from the state to maintain the standard lifestyle of fast food, fags and Booze. Is there no system where by this behaviour can be deterred? This is not a poitical rant but a real cross party issue. I think it's a problem that would take a generation to solve not a parliament of one colour or the other.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
in my job all of my customers are on benefits, most of them do cash in hand work and know we can't prove it.
I had a case once where the parents of a little girl were separated and the mum had found herself some shiftless loser and the giro money went on booze or heroin every fortnight without fail. The absent dad paid his child support every week and also bought his daughter clothes and toys, but every time he sent his daughter home with a new coat or a new pair of shoes the mother was taking them straight back to the shop for a refund so she could spend the money on more booze or smack. When we sent someone out to the house there was a shiny BMW on the drive, satelite, massive Plasma TV, games consoles -all the mod cons, but no food in the fridge and the "stepdad" of the girl was passed out on the sofa with sick on his vest.
Terrible. it's been several years and the thought of it still brings tears to my eyes.
I had a case once where the parents of a little girl were separated and the mum had found herself some shiftless loser and the giro money went on booze or heroin every fortnight without fail. The absent dad paid his child support every week and also bought his daughter clothes and toys, but every time he sent his daughter home with a new coat or a new pair of shoes the mother was taking them straight back to the shop for a refund so she could spend the money on more booze or smack. When we sent someone out to the house there was a shiny BMW on the drive, satelite, massive Plasma TV, games consoles -all the mod cons, but no food in the fridge and the "stepdad" of the girl was passed out on the sofa with sick on his vest.
Terrible. it's been several years and the thought of it still brings tears to my eyes.
Nobody here is denying that we need more children, but we need children who are cared for, nurtured, educated and allowed to develop into responsible citiizens. Restricting child benefit will not stop responsible people having children because they will be working for their money and will have more children if they can afford it and can afford to look after their children properly. This doesn't only apply to the rich - plenty of less well off people manage perfectly well to bring up quite large families by managing their money.
Just dishing out more and more money so that some people can live on benefits and rake in more if they have more children is of no benefit to this country. It is not economically viable.
However, anybody who has fallen on hard times or genuinely needs benefit should get it and should get enough to support their family regardess of the number of children they have.
What we are talking about here are people that continue to breed whilst they are sponging on society. Their children will continue in their footsteps unfortunately - is this what you want for society Brionon?
No we are not THICK! We think things out and are able to write constructive replies without insulting others!!
Just dishing out more and more money so that some people can live on benefits and rake in more if they have more children is of no benefit to this country. It is not economically viable.
However, anybody who has fallen on hard times or genuinely needs benefit should get it and should get enough to support their family regardess of the number of children they have.
What we are talking about here are people that continue to breed whilst they are sponging on society. Their children will continue in their footsteps unfortunately - is this what you want for society Brionon?
No we are not THICK! We think things out and are able to write constructive replies without insulting others!!
It may sound harsh, but I think it's time that social housing and child benefits were stopped for all single parents under the age of 21. That'd be a start. Education comes a close second. If the children aren't taught properly, their chances of getting decent jobs are virtually nil. the trouble is, factories are closing down, and many local jobs've disappeared - such as when the pits closed down. There are one or two generations out there who can't work to bring in enough to support a family, because they're unskilled.
It's probably going to keep getting worse too, unfortunately as the kids of 10 and 11 now see there upbringing as the way to live their lives and it will continue on like that. The idea of food and clothes vouchers is the only real idea anyone has put forward and to me it's very valid. Less sky tv, more education. Saying that its not a good time to be job searching.
OMG. Right, I firmly believe that the state should not pay for kids, i.e Child Benefit should be scrapped. Basically, if you cannot afford to have kids - don't have them. Next, you should not be paid to sit at home on your arse when everyone else is working. Dole should be scrapped, able bodied people need to find work even if, in their minds, the job is beneath them.
The exceptions to the rule, must be those who're genuinely unable to work, for mental or physical reasons. On the other hand, I've seen so many women stressed out with trying to do a job as well as look after their children. It's a pity that women don't really have the option of staying at home to raise their families if they want to. Perhaps the government should be looking at ways of giving those who choose this option a proper, living, taxable wage - until perhaps the child leaves schol?
I wouldn't have a go at them either, because just raising a family properly's difficult enough, let alone doing anything else, but I DO sometimes wonder why couples take on huge debts and mortgages, which forces the woman to go out to work. It might keep their heads above water, but at what cost? I think sometimes that having less, but knowing that your children are happy and cared for, is far better than anything material. I have the utmost admiration for women who WANT to go out to work though, and who still do a splendid job as a mum.
Thanks for the answers people. I think The answer is the to follow the example of communsim. (bet you never thought you'd hear that!) They get what they need, food warmth, shelter, everything to survive, baby stuff, electicity, education transport all provided by the state. They will exist, if they get a job and get out great. NO actual money whatsoever, the state can provide, they won't starve. No fags, no booze, no TV, no Xbox, well the bare miniumum. It'll be harsh initially but the the current generation of spongers will be the last, their own kids will drag themselves out of it, it'll take a while but the whole attitude will fizzle out.
people keep harping on about how its the wrong time to be changing benefits because of so many poeple losing their jobs, most of the people losing their jobs are decent hard working people who will take the jobs in warehouses, factories, supermarkets and fast food restaurants just so they have a job and not relying on other people,
why should people be allowed to scrounge off the state because they have kids, when my son was born i earned too much to get any help from the government but we still struggled paying for a newborn, living expenses, running a car paying the mortgage etc so when my wife finished maternity leave she changed jobs and got a job working nights, people do not have an excuse for not trying to work
why should people be allowed to scrounge off the state because they have kids, when my son was born i earned too much to get any help from the government but we still struggled paying for a newborn, living expenses, running a car paying the mortgage etc so when my wife finished maternity leave she changed jobs and got a job working nights, people do not have an excuse for not trying to work
I, unfortunately, have been on incapacity benefit for the last 3 years.
I worked full time for over 20 years until cancer (& being made redundant from my crappy job) made me have to sign on.
Every time a thread like this is started or it is mentioned in the media about people taking liberties I feel two things:
Guilt (even though I have nothing to feel guilty about, I am genuinely ill) and Anger (at being lumped in with everyone else).
Yes there are a lot of ******** people out there (the great unwashed as my Dad calls them).
But, I have also worked with people who were very good at being busy doing nothing and getting paid a damn good salary.
I don't have an answer for this but at a time of recession when every news bulletin has more and more about people being made redundant, how would someone like me get a job? And before you ask yes I am trying to look for work but employers don't seem to like the C word.
I worked full time for over 20 years until cancer (& being made redundant from my crappy job) made me have to sign on.
Every time a thread like this is started or it is mentioned in the media about people taking liberties I feel two things:
Guilt (even though I have nothing to feel guilty about, I am genuinely ill) and Anger (at being lumped in with everyone else).
Yes there are a lot of ******** people out there (the great unwashed as my Dad calls them).
But, I have also worked with people who were very good at being busy doing nothing and getting paid a damn good salary.
I don't have an answer for this but at a time of recession when every news bulletin has more and more about people being made redundant, how would someone like me get a job? And before you ask yes I am trying to look for work but employers don't seem to like the C word.
chickadee i dont think people are lumping everyone on benefits in together we are talking about the fit and healthy people who think the country owes them and have never worked or tried to work and contributed anything to society.
You have worked for 20 years paid tax and NI for 20 years, you have given to this country for a long time and deserve to take somethng back especially when even in the face of adversity when a lot of people would sit back and live on benefits you are still looking for a job.
the majority of people dont begrudge people claiming benefits if they have fallen on hard times and need a little help its the people who want o make a living from it that need sorting out.
Also i read an interesting article about 2 years ago which said approx 60% of under 30's on long term benefits were also receiving income from immoral sources
You have worked for 20 years paid tax and NI for 20 years, you have given to this country for a long time and deserve to take somethng back especially when even in the face of adversity when a lot of people would sit back and live on benefits you are still looking for a job.
the majority of people dont begrudge people claiming benefits if they have fallen on hard times and need a little help its the people who want o make a living from it that need sorting out.
Also i read an interesting article about 2 years ago which said approx 60% of under 30's on long term benefits were also receiving income from immoral sources
Firstly, I don't know what the answer is. And the abuse of benefits is a problem that has to be addressed. But just a thought to chuck in....
The government set a target to end child poverty by 2020. Prioritising this was the reason why many people voted for Labour.
Has concern for child poverty now fallen? Some of you on this thread suggest removing child benefit in the hope that it will make people think twice before popping out a kid they can't afford. Maybe it will. But what if it doesn't? Are you happy to condemn more children to a life of poverty and squalor?
Malnourished kids who can't afford schoolbooks tend not to turn out as well-rounded members of society. When families are poorer, crime goes up and health falls. Both of which are financial burdens as well as human tragedies.
Tough love isn't as straightforward as some of you seem to be suggesting. The reverse psychology you're using ('well, if it was me, I'd find work and not have another kid...') doesn't always play out in real life.
What the solution is, I don't know. But being overly simplistic about it won't help.
The government set a target to end child poverty by 2020. Prioritising this was the reason why many people voted for Labour.
Has concern for child poverty now fallen? Some of you on this thread suggest removing child benefit in the hope that it will make people think twice before popping out a kid they can't afford. Maybe it will. But what if it doesn't? Are you happy to condemn more children to a life of poverty and squalor?
Malnourished kids who can't afford schoolbooks tend not to turn out as well-rounded members of society. When families are poorer, crime goes up and health falls. Both of which are financial burdens as well as human tragedies.
Tough love isn't as straightforward as some of you seem to be suggesting. The reverse psychology you're using ('well, if it was me, I'd find work and not have another kid...') doesn't always play out in real life.
What the solution is, I don't know. But being overly simplistic about it won't help.
Can we stop censoring the word 'f e c k' please, AB Ed?
Even the Advertising Standards Authority doesn't see it as swearing and they're the ones who get their knickers in a twist about the word 'bloody'.
http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/868459/****- off-not-offensive-rules-ad-watchdog/
Even the Advertising Standards Authority doesn't see it as swearing and they're the ones who get their knickers in a twist about the word 'bloody'.
http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/868459/****- off-not-offensive-rules-ad-watchdog/
-- answer removed --
Me thinks vibrashere has been watching to many films
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hard-Target-Jean-Claud e-Van-Damme/dp/B00004I9P6/ref=cm_lmf_tit_2/277 -4450645-1947149
keep taking the tablets chuck and you will soon be better
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hard-Target-Jean-Claud e-Van-Damme/dp/B00004I9P6/ref=cm_lmf_tit_2/277 -4450645-1947149
keep taking the tablets chuck and you will soon be better
-- answer removed --
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.