Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:36 pm  

TrinityIHC wrote:

Yeah but Child Tax credits for the unemployed start at £3125pa for a single child, slightly bigger nut - this is where our football team raising jockey is getting her money from.

Him - no state pension should definitely be cash, as they are unable to work and therefore no need for the disincentive to avoid employment/reproduce ad nauseum.

Do the "unemployed" get tax credits or is it bacause she has a child under 7 so does not need to look for work (know the rules were changing so that age may now be lower).

As far as I was away the "unemployed" get about 70 a week which to be fair does equate to more than the figure quoted but is the sum of the figure not on top of other things as must happen in this case (Housing Benefit and Family Allowance excepted).

The tax credit system is a joke and deflates wages and just boosts big business profits and it is totally wrong that someone doing 28 hours can not claim it but someone doing 30 hours on more money can.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:38 pm  

TrinityIHC wrote:

Him - no state pension should definitely be cash, as they are unable to work and therefore no need for the disincentive to avoid employment/reproduce ad nauseum.

So, those on state pension, even the w@nkers who are getting it, the idle fookers who haven't done any graft for the last 20 years, should be paid in cash?
The cheeky old b@stards who are down the pub, having a pint and a game of dominos?
Down the bookies, having a quid each way on a donkey?

You'd pay them in cash?
Even though they haven't grafted for the last 20 years?

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:40 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Thanks for the link.

Seems The Telegraph have been sending their reporters to the Rupert Murdoch Memorial College for Shoite Reporting too - the outrage in that article is over the FACT that someone in receipt of state benefits can have the temerity to spend £200 of those benefits EVERY MONTH on what they call in their article "a nag".

And how do we know all this ?

Ah yes, an unknown, un-named stable hand who says "They must spend at least £200 a month on her" and even goes on to explain how she jumps to that conclusion (if indeed the unknown stable hand is a real person) by informing us that the family pay £65 a month to leave the horse in their fields and the vet visits "quite often" so thats at least £200 EVERY month then.

"They bought the horse eight months ago" she helpfully adds, "horses are expensive, I know, I've had them all my life"

But hang on, "it has breathing difficulties", so its not a horse anymore, or even a pony (which is what it looks like), its "a nag" and she bought it from a previous owner who had kept the horse in the same paddock - bought ? Are we sure she bought it , and for how much, well the unknown stable hand doesn't know that, doesn't know whether the previous owner just gave it to the family, doesn't know how much they pay to keep it there really, doesn't say how often the vet visits or how much the bills are, doesn't really tell us anything at all other than gossip.

But still, its a bloody disgrace isn't it, call the Taxpayers Alliance and see what they think, just don't ask them what they'd do about large families with parents out of work or you might find that they have an Ultimate Solution which involves these brood b1tches being force to pick just two of their litter and have the rest handed over to decent tax paying folk like you would with a litter of mongrel dogs - that'd learn 'em.

Love the way the papers in particular trot out the phrase "hard working taxpayer", I've had jobs where I did not work hard at all and still paid tax and I am sure many people can think of well paid and cushy jobs that do not involve hard work or toil (journalism in the age of the internet and twitter being a prime example).

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:41 pm  

espanyolswan wrote:

... Or is that too cynical?????

Nope.

[DaveO]

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:54 pm  

TrinityIHC wrote:

I agree with most of your points, but in reality if someone is being given money to spend on her children then I feel that the taxpayer, who is footing the bill should be able to dictate that the money is spent in that fashion.

And how would they do that? There are literally millions of people on various benefits and unless you stop giving them cash there is no way you can police what they spend their money on but the thing is, nor should you. If people are daft enough to own expensive pets be it a huge dog, horse or whatever then they must be sacrificing something else given benefits are not exactly a lot of money. If they want to do that more fool them but you just can't be so prescriptive about peoples private lives even if they are on benefit. It's totally impractical anyway.

I recently subbed a mate to allow him to travel down to London to see his ill mother, if I found out that he had in fact been to the pub with the money, I would go spare.

So would I in that situation but unless you bought him the train tickets directly you are relying on your mate not to be so irresponsible. As we do with benefit claimants but as I pointed out previously many people behave irresponsibly and you just can't legislate against it.

I have absolutely no problem with the state providing assistance to the poor and needy, but it should be assistance and not allow people to enjoy a lifestyle beyond the means of the people who provide.

What evidence is there that this is generally happening? As the article pointed out there are only 190 families in the UK with 10 children or more and we don't even know if they are all claiming benefit.

There is also the risk of a race to the bottom.

Things like tax credits brought people who were working up to a higher living standard but someone who works at my wife's place of work who is a teaching assistant saw her families income drop by £200 a month due to changes in tax credits that came in recently. She works, her husband works but yet they just lost this wadge of income. So if you think because they lost this money benefits should also go down for the unemployed so they do not enjoy a lifestyle superior to that this working family has, where does that lead?

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:56 pm  

WIZEB wrote:

1700 apparently, desperate for 5 minimum wage jobs, and 3 advanced positions at Costa yesterday.
Great Britain 2013.
It nearly makes you proud!

I recently contemplated getting back into applying for a load of jobs again but the thought really depressed me. It's unreasonable for the government to expect me to be interview fodder when there's an unemployment crises going on and that only 15% of people with my disability are in full time work.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:23 pm  

Damo-Leeds wrote:

I recently contemplated getting back into applying for a load of jobs again but the thought really depressed me. It's unreasonable for the government to expect me to be interview fodder when there's an unemployment crises going on and that only 15% of people with my disability are in full time work.

On a bigger scale there are alot of people totally out of the system who do not claim any benefit but could well be one of those thousands after every job.

The true picture of the job market is far from what the official unemployment figures show and whilst not costing the taxpayer directly some people out of the loop are likely to be costing in other ways through crime and social issues. Others can survive off eBay, Betfair, Poker Sites, prostitution etc as well as the ones in the black economy and cap in hand work (though probably as hard to find as legitimate employment) but the more you push people away from any system the more they are likely to turn against it.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:55 pm  

espanyolswan wrote:

The true picture of the job market is far from what the official unemployment figures show and whilst not costing the taxpayer directly some people out of the loop are likely to be costing in other ways through crime and social issues. Others can survive off eBay, Betfair, Poker Sites, prostitution etc as well as the ones in the black economy and cap in hand work (though probably as hard to find as legitimate employment) but the more you push people away from any system the more they are likely to turn against it.

Very very true.
Seeing as I'm unfortunately unemployed at present I'm more than willing to prostitute myself to any needy females on the Sin Bin.
PM me.
Free estimates and quotes given.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:59 pm  

TrinityIHC wrote:

Yeah but Child Tax credits for the unemployed start at £3125pa for a single child, slightly bigger nut - this is where our football team raising jockey is getting her money from.

Him - no state pension should definitely be cash, as they are unable to work and therefore no need for the disincentive to avoid employment/reproduce ad nauseum.

If having a football teams worth of children and sponging of the state getting a big house and loads of benefits is such a life of luxury, have only 190 families in the entire country done it? Why does this type of benefit only make up £11m out of a £100b welfare bill?

Why do we need such a disincentive from something that only 190 households out of 23million would do anyway?

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 6:31 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

If having a football teams worth of children and sponging of the state getting a big house and loads of benefits is such a life of luxury, have only 190 families in the entire country done it? Why does this type of benefit only make up £11m out of a £100b welfare bill?

Why do we need such a disincentive from something that only 190 households out of 23million would do anyway?

It's not a life of luxury - would you fancy bringing up 11 kids? (and a horse) I know I wouldn't, so I don't envy her. The point is that everyone else has to foot the bill for her choice of lifestyle.

If the overly generous welfare state we have didn't exist, would she have had 11 kids? Of course not, she's taking the mickey imo.

It may be only 190 families that have that number of kids, but how many have say 6 or 8?

I like the mooted idea of child related payments being limited to 2 children.