Grandad.Malky   11 #13 Posted June 30, 2009 It's still incredible that the cost of the benefit system is so high. It needs to be scrapped and made back into what it's supposed to be, a last ditch security net for those who can't find any work.  :clap::clap:   An hand up, not a hand out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
oldprune   10 #14 Posted June 30, 2009 How on Earth is this happening?  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5651825/Benefit-payouts-will-exceed-income-tax-revenue.html  I'm starting to wonder who the mug is here. Me; works like a dog and has worked his way up the ranks to a decent job with reflected salary or Johnny dole claimant with his free house and money for Sky TV and fags?  I wouldn't worry about that. This will bankrupt you way before that does.  http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/pensions/article.html?in_article_id=407513&in_page_id=6  It is a little out of date. The last figure that I heard being bandied about was £1.9trillion due to the falling markets. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Reg Reader   10 #15 Posted June 30, 2009 If you knew anything about the asylum seeking system then you'd realise that an AS gets 2/3rds of standard benefits and isn't legally allowed to take any work. Maybe you're confusing AS with people granted asylum or economic migrants (who can't claim any benefits for 5 years).  They seem to have been granted asylum then. No, I'm not 100% familiar with the system but I do know that someone, somewhere is giving them money which likely came from tax payers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
WarPig   70 #16 Posted June 30, 2009 Benefits should only be set at a level to just keep someone off the breadline. They shouldnt be high enough for someone to be able to live their lives on.  In my job I often visit houses where the occupants are on benefits. Often a couple with two kids are claiming well over £1000 per month. This includes payments for incapacity etc. Its funny how the parents seem pefectly fit and healthy to me. And they often work cash in hand as well.  They will often have a disability car for driving their 'invalid grandma' around! And their heating is on constantly all year round.  It infuriates me that there are so many people who are happy to live their lives on benefits, without a proper job.  Surley, benefits should be low enough to keep them going temporarily, but encourage them to seek employment.  (Genuine ill/disabled folk excepted) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Grandad.Malky   11 #17 Posted June 30, 2009 (edited) Surley, benefits should be low enough to keep them going temporarily, but encourage them to seek employment. (Genuine ill/disabled folk excepted)  As a relative newcomer just a word of warning, such a common sense and forthright post will have the PC brigade descending on you like a plague of wasps. Edited June 30, 2009 by Grandad.Malky Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
RonJeremy   10 #18 Posted June 30, 2009 Benefits should only be set at a level to just keep someone off the breadline. They shouldnt be high enough for someone to be able to live their lives on. In my job I often visit houses where the occupants are on benefits. Often a couple with two kids are claiming well over £1000 per month. This includes payments for incapacity etc. Its funny how the parents seem pefectly fit and healthy to me. And they often work cash in hand as well.  They will often have a disability car for driving their 'invalid grandma' around! And their heating is on constantly all year round.  It infuriates me that there are so many people who are happy to live their lives on benefits, without a proper job.  Surley, benefits should be low enough to keep them going temporarily, but encourage them to seek employment.  (Genuine ill/disabled folk excepted)  This is my experience of many benefit claimants also. A very good post. The problem is the BLOATED welfare and public sector, both fattened up by this awful government to protect their vote. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #19 Posted June 30, 2009 Benefits should only be set at a level to just keep someone off the breadline. They shouldnt be high enough for someone to be able to live their lives on. In my job I often visit houses where the occupants are on benefits. Often a couple with two kids are claiming well over £1000 per month. This includes payments for incapacity etc. Its funny how the parents seem pefectly fit and healthy to me. And they often work cash in hand as well. Do you report these people? £1000 a month with several children doesn't actually seem all that much...  They will often have a disability car for driving their 'invalid grandma' around! And their heating is on constantly all year round.  It infuriates me that there are so many people who are happy to live their lives on benefits, without a proper job.  Surley, benefits should be low enough to keep them going temporarily, but encourage them to seek employment.  (Genuine ill/disabled folk excepted)  Living on benefits shouldn't be an option I agree. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
HeadingNorth   11 #20 Posted June 30, 2009 Aye blame the pensioners.  I'm not blaming anybody, I'm just curious to know how the benefits mountain breaks down.  I don't really think the question of blame serves much purpose. We can't afford the current benefits bill, so it has to be cut; whether or not there is moral value in cutting it hardly matters, since it has to be cut anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
HeadingNorth   11 #21 Posted June 30, 2009 They will often have a disability car for driving their 'invalid grandma' around!  The "disability car" costs the £49.10 a week you get in DLA; you can't have both. (I know; I'm waiting for my wife to be awarded DLA so that we can finally get a car and get her out and about.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
wearetherobots   10 #22 Posted June 30, 2009 Corporate tax avoidance is the biggest loss of revenue in the UK.  Try thinking about who exactly has ripped you off before pointing the finger at those on the lowest "wage" in the country. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
RonJeremy   10 #23 Posted June 30, 2009 Corporate tax avoidance is the biggest loss of revenue in the UK. Try thinking about who exactly has ripped you off before pointing the finger at those on the lowest "wage" in the country.  i should have thought they were the biggest contributors actually. If they try to avoid paying too much tax then that would be sensible business.  I dont think the post was aimed at those who earned a wage, it was the high levels of those not working that is the problem Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
HeadingNorth   11 #24 Posted June 30, 2009 i should have thought they were the biggest contributors actually. If they try to avoid paying too much tax then that would be sensible business.  Avoidance is sensible business; evasion is a crime. Sometimes, given the complexity of business taxation laws, I find it hard to tell the difference.  (For those who don't understand the difference; tax avoidance means making sure you pay no more tax than you are obliged to by law; in other words, making full use of legitimate tax breaks and such. Tax evasion means not paying the tax you are obliged to by law, usually by fiddling the books or claiming tax breaks you should not claim.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...