• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Benefits

P.S. She turned down the C&W offer

So if any of you lazy slags fancies a job in Maidenhead (25 minute drive from Reading)

I suggest you pull your head out of your arse and make something of your life

Before its too late........
 
Klinsmania said:
My two cents worth, benefits should never be more profitable than working. If you can earn more on benefits than you can earn in a minimum wage job then the system is fudged up. I don't know if this is true, I haven't researched the stats but you often here people saying it's not worth them working because they get more money by not working. That is patently wrong.

I also have very strong feelings on child benefits too, but then I don't have kids and have no desire to have kids, so accept I'm probably in the minority. I think child benfit should be scrapped. Why should those of us who decide not to have children support those who do? If you can't afford to have kids then you shouldn't have them and then expect the state to support you. Child benefits were brought in following the war when people had no money, and the government introduced the system to encourage people to produce the next generation. That is no longer the case, we are already over-populated so don't need to incentivise people to have children. If they do want children then fine, but they shouldn't expect the rest of society to support them.

If I did decide to have kids, I could comfortably afford it, including all nursery costs etc so I shouldn't be entitled to child benefits. But I would certainly take them, I'd be a fool not to. The system allows people to drain money from the state even when they are not dependant on that money and that has to be fundamentally wrong.
Click to expand...

I have a kid and I completely agree re: child benefit. Why would the state give you extra money to have kids?

I couldn't believe it when I was told I qualified!! I thought it would be at least means tested!
 
southstand1882 said:
P.S. She turned down the C&W offer

So if any of you lazy slags fancies a job in Maidenhead (25 minute drive from Reading)

I suggest you pull your head out of your arse and make something of your life

Before its too late........
Click to expand...

I'll blame it on getting up at 3.30 to watch spurs and being slightly tired but what is c&w?
 
Leeds Spur said:
I have a kid and I completely agree re: child benefit. Why would the state give you extra money to have kids?

I couldn't believe it when I was told I qualified!! I thought it would be at least means tested!
Click to expand...

The problem with child benefit is that by taking it away from poorer families you are hurting the children the most. Agree completely that it should be means tested though.

When it comes to how much you should get, I think people should be able to house, clothe and feed their families, and thats it. If you can afford to smoke, go down the pub, have sky, buy take aways etc... while on benefits then you are receiving too much.

I look at rationing during WWII as an example for the kind of benefits people should have: what they need and not a lot more. The country was never healthier than when on food rations, so if there are healthy people of working age not in work that's what they should get
 
Richie said:
The problem with child benefit is that by taking it away from poorer families you are hurting the children the most. Agree completely that it should be means tested though.
When it comes to how much you should get, I think people should be able to house, clothe and feed their families, and thats it. If you can afford to smoke, go down the pub, have sky, buy take aways etc... while on benefits then you are receiving too much.

I look at rationing during WWII as an example for the kind of benefits people should have: what they need and not a lot more. The country was never healthier than when on food rations, so if there are healthy people of working age not in work that's what they should get
Click to expand...

My point is that if people can't afford to have children then they shouldn't have them. The children won't suffer if they don't exist. I don't wish to generalise but we all know of people who have kids, don't work, feed the kids beans on toast 7 times a week and spend the child support money on fags, booze and Sky TV. If scumbags like that know they are not going to get child support, then maybe they won't have kids. Here's hoping!
 
Spursalot said:
That's fair enough. I've been accepted for the AAT course, but haven't yet paid for it, so there is always the possibility of pulling out and trying to get into the ACCA course..


Thanks for the advice, nice to know someone has been through the same kind of thing and made it out the other side.
Click to expand...

I moved from an Accounts Payable role to an Accounting role, and was advised to do AAT. Assuming my employer knew what they were talking about I went down that route.

Did my AAT, 8 or 9 exams, only to find it was essentially worthless when being considered for better roles as they wanted everyone to be at least part qualified in ACCA or CIMA.

AAT gives me exemptions to the first year of either, but took two and a half years to achieve!

If I could go back to that time I would have just gone straight into ACCA/CIMA and accepted I had the first year to manage as well.

Ive moved over to Finance Systems now so havent gone back into accountancy study, but Ive given this same advice to so many people.

Get a few (ACCA/CIMA) exams under your belt and you sell yourself as part qualified - much more appealing to employers and is essentially a fast track to qualification (as in its will save you at least 18 months on AAT)
 
Richie said:
The problem with child benefit is that by taking it away from poorer families you are hurting the children the most. Agree completely that it should be means tested though.

When it comes to how much you should get, I think people should be able to house, clothe and feed their families, and thats it. If you can afford to smoke, go down the pub, have sky, buy take aways etc... while on benefits then you are receiving too much.

I look at rationing during WWII as an example for the kind of benefits people should have: what they need and not a lot more. The country was never healthier than when on food rations, so if there are healthy people of working age not in work that's what they should get
Click to expand...

I'm not having the emotional blackmail angle.

Just take the kids into care and be done with it. Seperating these kids from their qunt parents will probably give them a decent shot in life.
 
Leeds Spur said:
I'm not having the emotional blackmail angle.

Just take the kids into care and be done with it. Seperating these kids from their qunt parents will probably give them a decent shot in life.
Click to expand...


Assuming this discussion is from the fiscal point of view, that's not going to help the Country reducing the benefits bill.


From a view to the future it would though, plus it might discourage people in such positions from having children.



(Thanks for the advice too guys)
 
Leeds Spur said:
When you factor in the lifetime of benefits and potential jail time I think it's money well spent!!
Click to expand...


True, i oft wonder about how serious different governments are in doing things for such a long term though..


If you only get four years, and then the other group come in and undo all the work you've done then all that's happened is a load of wasted money... They've got four years to make a good impression, setting something up to benefit in 10-20 years won't be taken into account by the average voter..


(Though that's probably a different discussion)
 
I was out of work for four months as a result of being made redundant when the recession kicked off. I went on to JSA and Housing benefit as at the time I had no real savings. What struck me about the entire thing was how poorly organised it was. I organised my own job hunting through recruitment agencies in my sector, but to claim the JSA all I had to do was fill in a sheet of paper with five "activities" I had done in the past week as part of my job hunt. If I had put "attended three interviews" I would have had my allowance cut, but its perfectly legitimate to write something along the lines of "rung about an interview I saw in the paper (they don't check") five times, as long as its the magic five!

When I had found a job and returned to work they continued to pay me the benefit and housing benefit for five months! I had to chase them to stop them paying me the bloody thing! Every time I rang them I had to provide a reference which could only be found on one letter they had sent me 8 months prior, this was due to the fact they had input my NINO and address wrong on their system, without the reference they would refuse to talk to me. The administration of the entire thing is appalling. If it was run with the efficiency of a private sector company I guarantee they would save about 20% without even instigating any legislative change.

To a degree it changed my perspective on the benefits debate. I despise the freeloaders, but the whole system is so poorly run and managed that people are bound to take the tinkle. This is why I am not 100% behind the initiative of means testing the benefit, I just don't think they are capable of administering/policing it adequately.
 
Last edited:
Leeds Spur said:
gonad*s. My wife runs a recruitment agency in Leeds. Employs 10 consultants. So let's stop the flimflam. You want work, you get it. Not the work you want maybe, but work.
Click to expand...

Does your wife recruit for a specific sector / industry or anything in general?
 
Leeds Spur said:
I'm not having the emotional blackmail angle.

Just take the kids into care and be done with it. Seperating these kids from their qunt parents will probably give them a decent shot in life.
Click to expand...

Taking kids in to care once they hit a certain age is definitely detrimental for them and as a knock on effect the country.

I would like to see a policy whereby adults get warned that living solely on benefits with more than two children is unacceptable. For adults who have never worked, if you can't afford to care for the children you already have then further children will be taken away from you immediately. As far as I know, there is high demand for adoption of very young children of less than 6 months as the adoptive parents can raise them.

I find it a disgrace that there are honest, hard working families in this country that would love to have more children but do the responsible thing and choose not to if they cannot afford it, whilst others just keep popping them out and having the state foot the bill.
 
Richie said:
I find it a disgrace that there are honest, hard working families in this country that would love to have more children but do the responsible thing and choose not to if they cannot afford it, whilst others just keep popping them out and having the state foot the bill.
Click to expand...
It is, but what do you do? I can't see the state ever taking children from their birth parents for the reason of them being feckless wasters (even if in the long run it'd probably be saving them from ending up in some "Grandad at 29" story), and if you deny the parents benefits then aren't you punishing the child for the sins of the parents?

My general view chimes with what you posted originally, that benefits should be a safety net to help people out when they need it, and to make sure members of our society who can't provide for themselves (disability etc) are provided for to be able live to a reasonable standard. I'm sure most people see the system that way, and use it that way, but sadly it does leave the door open for scum on the run to abuse it.

Maybe we need to start punishing misuse of the benefits system severly, disproportionately so.
 
Richie said:
Taking kids in to care once they hit a certain age is definitely detrimental for them and as a knock on effect the country.

I would like to see a policy whereby adults get warned that living solely on benefits with more than two children is unacceptable. For adults who have never worked, if you can't afford to care for the children you already have then further children will be taken away from you immediately. As far as I know, there is high demand for adoption of very young children of less than 6 months as the adoptive parents can raise them.

I find it a disgrace that there are honest, hard working families in this country that would love to have more children but do the responsible thing and choose not to if they cannot afford it, whilst others just keep popping them out and having the state foot the bill.
Click to expand...

I hear you mate - and I agree wholeheartedly.

Hell me and my wife are probably in the top 1% and we are thinking long and hard about having another.

In the current UK system having more kids gets you ever increasing access to benefits!
 
Seedy Ron said:
It is, but what do you do? I can't see the state ever taking children from their birth parents for the reason of them being feckless wasters (even if in the long run it'd probably be saving them from ending up in some "Grandad at 29" story), and if you deny the parents benefits then aren't you punishing the child for the sins of the parents?

My general view chimes with what you posted originally, that benefits should be a safety net to help people out when they need it, and to make sure members of our society who can't provide for themselves (disability etc) are provided for to be able live to a reasonable standard. I'm sure most people see the system that way, and use it that way, but sadly it does leave the door open for scum on the run to abuse it.

Maybe we need to start punishing misuse of the benefits system severly, disproportionately so.
Click to expand...

China's 'one child' system worked didn't it?

I'm not condoning forced abortion, but we need to say if you have another child then you get fudge ALL state aid.

Simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back