Benefits

Teddy · 07-10-2003, 11:17 PM

Just watched wife swap and something struck as rather amazing.

The two familys are quite different as one is a 2 adults (working) and 2 kids the other both are unemployed and have 8 kids.

In wife swap it has a manual for the swapping wife and it details there income.

Familiy one was around 28K after tax and family 2 was ..... 38K.

OMFG 38K for being unemplyed !!!!

I have heards of this before and to be completly honest it things like this that make me really grudge having a benefits system where I pay tax to support other people.

I just wondered what people views and maybe some ideas for the future?

My personal view is to scrap benefits as we know it (phase out) maybe even replace the NHS as well with a similar system to the one in USA where u have insurance instead. I use private health care so why should I pay for others to have free care?

Its a harsh viewpoint but I am really interested to see what others think

Ritz · 07-10-2003, 11:36 PM

If you got kicked out on your arse and lost your job, I bet you'd like the NHS if you needed a liver transplant!

s0ck · 08-10-2003, 12:26 AM

here here

Teddy · 08-10-2003, 12:48 AM

Thats what health insurance is for so no i wouldnt

Bobster · 08-10-2003, 12:55 AM

well Rae would b dead...

s0ck · 08-10-2003, 01:44 AM

i swear when im 18 im leavin home, goin to the home office and claim asylum, that way i get a house and loadsa cash

FusioN · 08-10-2003, 02:18 AM

if people complain theyre paying tax for peoples benefits, give em a penny.. there you go, paid back in full+extra for a lifetime worth of their tax that went towards your benefits.

some people do mooch, with no intention of ever finding work or working towards getting better qualified, but not everyone does.. its like saying all black men steal your car radio, all asians set up corner shops, all white people cant dance.. incomist!

either way, at the end of the day, your tax = very little over a lifetime towards peoples benefits, and granted, why should you have to pay a penny at all.. but you do, and even if you didnt, you'd still be taxed the same cos the government gives with one hand and takes with the other.

plus the fact if you ever did loose yer job, you'd sing a different tune.. probobly along the lines of:

o/~
benefits, o benefits.. why are they so incredibly low and shite..
benefits, o benefits.. couldnt pay the electric so i cant see at niiiiiiight.... o/~

maybe add in a chrous about punching out some kids to get a sh1tton of extra benefits.. there definetely should be (and might be dunno) a limit on how many kids you can claim benefits for, cos wife swap tonight (or yesterday for the an4l around) was a perfect example of benefit exploit.

Bobster · 08-10-2003, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FusioN
cos wife swap tonight (or yesterday for the an4l around) was a perfect example of benefit exploit.

mayb they're no longer on benefits after that then...

Milky · 08-10-2003, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by s0ck
i swear when im 18 im leavin home, goin to the home office and claim asylum, that way i get a house and loadsa cash

I KNEW HE WAS FRENCH TOO!!!

Teddy · 08-10-2003, 09:43 AM

I dont mind paying my tax most of the time but i think there needs to be better control so things like the family in wife swap cant happen.

I dont mind helping to support people who are temp out of work but look at it this way

The famility in wife swap needs around 32 - 35K a year to survive. The husband and wife will never be able to do that as they would need a combined income of over 50K which is more than your average household. This is where I agree with Fusion about limits on familty size and maybe we even need to consider birth control to stop people having so many kids that they can never support them.

ShoX · 08-10-2003, 09:48 AM

That is the single most opressive, and nazi like statement I've ever heard. Who is to say who can and cant have kids? I'm aware it happens in places like Japan, but jesus.

Education yes, free prescriptions for the pill and condoms, yes a letter asking them to come into the clinic to be chemically sterilised ?

monger · 08-10-2003, 09:57 AM

i hate people like take take take. ive been a tax payer for about 6 years so i know that if something happens to me, im ok to claim benefits for the time it takes me to get a better job. that i see as fine use of benfit. also, when our sprog is due next may, our joint income will drop for a few months while my wife cannot work. she will however go back to work after about 6-9 months of maternity leave. this again is ok use of benfit cos its only short term and its things that you cant really help. im sure if noone was given any type of benefit towards children, then noone would have kids :P well at least not intentionally.

but.... i hate wot you guys are saying you saw on that show. people that have too many kids that they can NEVER support them. like you say, they need to earn 50k+ between them AND still look after 8 kids which is never gonna happen cos i bet they have been out of work for many years and are unskilled. my wifes mum and dad are just like this. they had 7 kids and never done a days work between them since the kids arrived. even now most of the kids have flown the nest, her mum's job is to try and sue everyone everytime she gets hurt (daytime tv claims direct stylee). they my family and everything but it makes me mad....

i have no real suggestions how the system can be made better cos its not like you can have a time limit on how long you can claim job seekers allowance but i think they should try to sort sommat.

now, if anyone still reading. ul

NBK · 08-10-2003, 12:01 PM

/me strokes his 43 quid a week

Teddy · 08-10-2003, 01:01 PM

ok then moving on a bit what would be your suggestions to fixing the problem of benefit abuse?

These would need to be long term.

Dr.BLiND · 08-10-2003, 01:03 PM

I think that there should be tests when you want to have a child.

Firstly a test to make sure your not a complete idiot... which would stop about 50% of the scallies poppin them out.

Second a test to see if you can even hope to support the child... which should sort the rest :-)

Shox, even though I agree birth control is very dictatorship... in the long-run, its the only way we're going to survive on this planet.

Just look at China.

ShoX · 08-10-2003, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr.BLiND
I think that there should be tests when you want to have a child.

Firstly a test to make sure your not a complete idiot... which would stop about 50% of the scallies poppin them out.

Second a test to see if you can even hope to support the child... which should sort the rest :-)

Shox, even though I agree birth control is very dictatorship... in the long-run, its the only way we're going to survive on this planet.

Just look at China.

So if a woman didnt have this test, and got pregnant, you'd back mandatory abortion, Blind ?

Birth control isnt the only way we will surivive on the planet, mother nature has her own methods, when we run out of food people start to die. Droughts, Famins all work to keeping the equilibrium.

I wouldnt propose that we do anything to stop benefit abuse Teddy, abuse happens in all walks of life, its a huge injustice and we would be better without it but thinking that you can stop people didling the government out of money is idealistic, and not realistic. Shit happens gentlemen.

Rob

Dr.BLiND · 08-10-2003, 01:39 PM

No Shox... birth control, not aborsion.

I think this is preferably to mass-starvation & death.

Teddy · 08-10-2003, 01:51 PM

ate side effect of mass stravation ect are disease and more work cleaning up the mess they leave.

ShoX · 08-10-2003, 01:52 PM

I'd rather starve to death than have my basic human rights taken away from me.

Dr.BLiND · 08-10-2003, 01:56 PM

being able to bring a child into the world without taking responcibility for it is hardly a human right.

Don't get confused here Shox... I believe in people being allowed to have children who can support them & bring them up independently from the state. Not people who just have babies as slaves and to look after them when they are older, or who are not responcible for their children.