Having a go at the wrong person/people.

nilagin

nilagin

Daniel-san
Suspended / Banned
Messages
15,804
Name
Neil
Edit My Images
Yes
Its a tough one, I agree on the false promise. But on the other hand, if she is running a business and can't make enough money that way then why should the tax payer make up the shortfall? Perhaps time to do something else?

However I have sympathy for those caught out by the changes in such a short period of time which gives them little notice to make alternate arrangements.
 
dejongj said:
Its a tough one, I agree on the false promise. But on the other hand, if she is running a business and can't make enough money that way then why should the tax payer make up the shortfall? Perhaps time to do something else?

However I have sympathy for those caught out by the changes in such a short period of time which gives them little notice to make alternate arrangements.
Click to expand...
False promise or not, it doesn't matter who she voted for. But there is a father to the 4 kids somewhere, not paying his dues whilst the rest of us are picking up the tab. I agree about the time thing, but how much notice is suitable, what is suitable for some families, still won't be suitable for many more. She isn't in need of benefits, she is in need of an ex partner paying more and probably some business advice, so she can be less reliant on the benefits.
 
Without knowing the details it is difficult to comment on this case.

But surely people must see how wrong it is to disproportionately hit the poorest in society in the austerity measures.
 
Rapscallion said:
Without knowing the details it is difficult to comment on this case.

But surely people must see how wrong it is to disproportionately hit the poorest in society in the austerity measures.
Click to expand...
Sorry, butI fail to see how £400 a week in benefits, plus what she earns from her business and gets in maintenance puts anyone even remotely into the realms of poverty.
 
nilagin said:
Sorry, butI fail to see how £400 a week in benefits, plus what she earns from her business and gets in maintenance puts anyone even remotely into the realms of poverty.
Click to expand...

As per the post title, I think you are blaming and directing your ire the wrong people.
 
Rapscallion said:
Without knowing the details it is difficult to comment on this case.

But surely people must see how wrong it is to disproportionately hit the poorest in society in the austerity measures.
Click to expand...
I agree, so it is a good thing that that is not what is happening (y)
 
TCR4x4 said:
She earns more than me and I don't consider myself anywhere near poor.
Click to expand...
And that's the problem with a lot of people, they think they should be handed out a 6 figure sum!
(where does the queue start? :D )

Google says the average wage is £26.500
so she's not hugely under that, (£400 x 52 = £20.800) plus whatever she earns from the salon,
I bet it takes her over the national average.
Granted 4 kids can't be cheap to run, but that was her choice ( and done to death recently in another thread)
 
Cobra said:
And that's the problem with a lot of people, they think they should be handed out a 6 figure sum!
(where does the queue start? :D )

Google says the average wage is £26.500
so she's not hugely under that, (£400 x 52 = £20.800) plus whatever she earns from the salon,
I bet it takes her over the national average.
Granted 4 kids can't be cheap to run, but that was her choice ( and done to death recently in another thread)
Click to expand...
And whatever she is receiving in maintenance.
 
Incidentally, does the article mention the number of fathers for these four kids?
 
I'm struggling to feel sorry for her tbh. If she's struggling then she needs to get the ex to cough up. They surely calculated that they could afford 4 kids when they were together. We had 2 kids because we can live comfortably with 2. If the proverbial hits the fan then we would get by with 2 kids.
 
Julie1979 said:
I'm struggling to feel sorry for her tbh. If she's struggling then she needs to get the ex to cough up. They surely calculated that they could afford 4 kids when they were together. We had 2 kids because we can live comfortably with 2. If the proverbial hits the fan then we would get by with 2 kids.
Click to expand...

You should be touring schools teaching that rationale. ..seriously.
 
nilagin said:
Do you think they'd listen?
Click to expand...

It's worth a shot.
Parents of a lot of them clearly failed to get a point across. ..if they tried at all.
 
Julie1979 said:
If the proverbial hits the fan then we would get by with 2 kids.
Click to expand...
But if you had 4 you could have flogged a couple on gumtree if times were hard? ( sorry :coat: )

Seriously though, that was exactly our way of thinking too.

viv1969 said:
Incidentally, does the article mention the number of fathers for these four kids?
Click to expand...
Having seen her picture I'm guessing they are quads ;)
 
Rapscallion said:
Without knowing the details it is difficult to comment on this case.

But surely people must see how wrong it is to disproportionately hit the poorest in society in the austerity measures.
Click to expand...

No I don't actually. All austerity is a reduction of spending other people's money on other people.

I think the poorest in society get proportionally too much spent on them and the richest in society proportionately too much taken from them.
 
Cobra said:
Having seen her picture I'm guessing they are quads ;)
Click to expand...

Are you insinuating no one could be that brave four times :naughty:. :whistle: :naughty:
 
viv1969 said:
You should be touring schools teaching that rationale. ..seriously.
Click to expand...

Especially with the school leaving age increasing, I'm sure it won't be long before schools will have to provide crèche's for the young mums, so you'll be able to start by educating their kids. :D
 
OldCarlos said:
Especially with the school leaving age increasing, I'm sure it won't be long before schools will have to provide crèche's for the young mums, so you'll be able to start by educating their kids. :D
Click to expand...

Some already do.
 
dejongj said:
However I have sympathy for those caught out by the changes in such a short period of time which gives them little notice to make alternate arrangements.
Click to expand...

Got to agree with that. (especially when the PM denied the changes would occur)
It's a bit like changing the rules of a game half way through.

If changes have to be made, plenty of warning should be given. Changes as they stand should be phased in. New claimants first.


I'm all for supporting the needy and that includes helping those who are trying to help themselves, by providing support until they are fully on their feet & stable for a certain time.

What really hacks me off/infuriates me, are the single Mums spending as if they are working/earning on getting their hair & nails done, going on regular nights out, foreign hols, buying designer gear ......:rage:
 
viv1969 said:
You should be touring schools teaching that rationale. ..seriously.
Click to expand...
Years ago I saw a BBC TV programme which showed a school age mother touring schools talking to girls about the evils of being a school age mum. All the kids wanted to know was did she have her own flat! It gave me pause to think as prior to that I had believed that pouring money onto poor kids would solve many of society's problems but actually I now think it has the opposite effect.
 
With young mums it's breaking the cycle, too often they'll be following the example of the mother/parents. Swindon was the worse place in the country for young mums, had huge resources put into the issue, but 1/3 of the girls my daughter went to school with were mums before 20. We've a very good friend of hers, mum at 17, gets housing in a nice rented flat, money, all sorts of free training with childcare whilst they try to encourage her back to work. Some take it, some don't. Trouble is the cycle is there, see how easy it is, work the same way.

It really is too easy at the moment for some to work the system, £600 a week plus housing payment isn't unknown around here for a couple. Not a bad lifestyle not having to get up, work etc.
 
I pay plenty of tax and I honestly do not lose a wink of sleep about "my" tax money going into welfare for the poor and needy. I don't even care if there are a few who exploit the system so they don't have to work. Small price to pay for a real safety net for the underprivileged. I don't worry about it a single bit.
In fact, I'd gladly pay more tax for better social services.

I do grudge my tax contributions being used to fund pointless military excursions into other countries, however. I grudge it being used to subsidise big business.
 
Byker28i said:
With young mums it's breaking the cycle, too often they'll be following the example of the mother/parents. Swindon was the worse place in the country for young mums, had huge resources put into the issue, but 1/3 of the girls my daughter went to school with were mums before 20. We've a very good friend of hers, mum at 17, gets housing in a nice rented flat, money, all sorts of free training with childcare whilst they try to encourage her back to work. Some take it, some don't. Trouble is the cycle is there, see how easy it is, work the same way.

It really is too easy at the moment for some to work the system, £600 a week plus housing payment isn't unknown around here for a couple. Not a bad lifestyle not having to get up, work etc.
Click to expand...
I thought it was limited to £500 for many years now :confused:
 
ghoti said:
I pay plenty of tax and I honestly do not lose a wink of sleep about "my" tax money going into welfare for the poor and needy. I don't even care if there are a few who exploit the system so they don't have to work. Small price to pay for a real safety net for the underprivileged. I don't worry about it a single bit.
In fact, I'd gladly pay more tax for better social services.

I do grudge my tax contributions being used to fund pointless military excursions into other countries, however. I grudge it being used to subsidise big business.
Click to expand...
I begrudge others determining I should pay more. Always such a lovely concept to make others pay more.

Also have no issue with the milligary funding at all. If anything we should do more. If only people knew the sick stuff these boys and girls in the military, security services, police etc have to deal with.
 
dejongj said:
I begrudge others determining I should pay more. Always such a lovely concept to make others pay more.

Also have no issue with the milligary funding at all. If anything we should do more. If only people knew the sick stuff these boys and girls in the military, security services, police etc have to deal with.
Click to expand...
I didn't say the military shouldn't be funded. I said I grudge paying for pointless conflicts.

I don't think OTHERS should pay more either. I think I should pay more and people who earn a decent amount, like I do, should all pay more. I think lower-than-average earners should probably pay a bit less.
 
Last edited:
I don't begrudge taxes paid to maintain a benefits system, but I do object to the manner in which much of it is paid.

I believe many benefits should be paid in the form of vouchers to be used only for a specific purpose (groceries, childrens clothing etc), so that it can't be used for other purposes.
I also disagree with tax reductions / "credits" because of having children.
 
viv1969 said:
I don't begrudge taxes paid to maintain a benefits system, but I do object to the manner in which much of it is paid.

I believe many benefits should be paid in the form of vouchers to be used only for a specific purpose (groceries, childrens clothing etc), so that it can't be used for other purposes.
I also disagree with tax reductions / "credits" because of having children.
Click to expand...
I disagree, I'm afraid. I don't mind at all if people down on their luck can be provided with a modest expendable income from the state. It would be useful, however, if work always improved one's lot.

I'm actually a cautious fan of the idea of a citizens income; being trialled in places like Denmark. €15,000 per year to every citizen regardless of their needs and scrap all other forms of benefits. Lifts the poorest citizens from precarity into a situation where they can be economically active - benefiting everyone. It also means that work will always improve your income, so workers will always be better off.
Yet to see how it all pans out but it's a great idea in principle.
 
Last edited:
I don't believe that anyone not prepared to work should be entitled to any funds allowing expendable income.
Want perks? Work for them.
Benefits should never be above a subsistence level.
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
I don't begrudge taxes paid to maintain a benefits system, but I do object to the manner in which much of it is paid.

I believe many benefits should be paid in the form of vouchers to be used only for a specific purpose (groceries, childrens clothing etc), so that it can't be used for other purposes.
I also disagree with tax reductions / "credits" because of having children.
Click to expand...

Great idea
 
viv1969 said:
I don't believe that anyone not prepared to work should be entitled to any funds allowing expendable income.
Want perks? Work for them.
Benefits should never be above a subsistence level.
Click to expand...
Great idea, except most people in receipt of benefits ARE prepared to work. The long-term/cross-generational unemployed are a tiny minority.
It's very sad that the tabloid press and gutter "reality" tv have, through selective representation, been able to convince otherwise intelligent citizens that people on benefits are some strange and homogeneous "scrounger class".
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
Great idea, except most people in receipt of benefits ARE prepared to work. The long-term/cross-generational unemployed are a tiny minority.
It's very sad that the tabloid press and gutter "reality" tv have, through selective representation, been able to convince otherwise intelligent citizens that people on benefits are some strange and homogeneous "scrounger class".
Click to expand...

If they are prepared to work, then why are they not working?
Anyone will have more incentive to work if the benefits they receive provide only the bare basics.

The type of TV you refer to has no relevance to my thinking as I watch very little television, and none of what I do watch us of that genre.
 
viv1969 said:
If they are prepared to work, then why are they not working?
Anyone will have more incentive to work if the benefits they receive provide only the bare basics.

The type of TV you refer to has no relevance to my thinking as I watch very little television, and none of what I do watch us of that genre.
Click to expand...
There are numerous reasons why people who want to work find themselves unemployed.
Do you seriously think that everyone on JSA is just too lazy to get a job? Really?
 
ghoti said:
I pay plenty of tax and I honestly do not lose a wink of sleep about "my" tax money going into welfare for the poor and needy. I don't even care if there are a few who exploit the system so they don't have to work. Small price to pay for a real safety net for the underprivileged. I don't worry about it a single bit.
In fact, I'd gladly pay more tax for better social services.

I do grudge my tax contributions being used to fund pointless military excursions into other countries, however. I grudge it being used to subsidise big business.
Click to expand...
£400 per week plus wages and maintenance isn't poor and needy though. The father(s) of the kids should be picking up the tab not the tax payer, regardless of whether you want to pay more tax.
As for military excursions and subsidising big business, that just means people remain employed and pay tax and national insurance back into the system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top