Poor Raymond :(

[d000hg]

These people need not have been on benefits in the first place.

And that's your solution to the problem, a time machine?

For the record:

• I agree with you - contrary to your assertion - that it's unacceptable families like this are on benefits for a decade.
• I disagree that the Welfare State is worse than its absense.
• My opinion is IF someone is going to be on benefits, allowing a tiny amount of disposable income is not inappropriate. By which I don't mean Sky or mobile phones, but being able to afford a pack of crisps or a Coke as a treat.

[DodgyAgent]

And that's your solution to the problem, a time machine?

For the record:

• I agree with you - contrary to your assertion - that it's unacceptable families like this are on benefits for a decade.
• I disagree that the Welfare State is worse than its absense.
• My opinion is IF someone is going to be on benefits, allowing a tiny amount of disposable income is not inappropriate. By which I don't mean Sky or mobile phones, but being able to afford a pack of crisps or a Coke as a treat.

You may agree that it is unacceptable but do you agree with my reasons as to why they are there in the first place? and do you agree with my assertion that too many people have a vested interest in maintaining this huge welfare state?

I dont need a time machine to see what is happening every day. At least the Torys are trying to do something about it

[TimberWolf]

At least the Torys are trying to do something about it

I don't see what the Tories can do about having lots of kids. All anyone in the UK needs is a willing partner and they need never work or save for a house. Why would anyone not have lots of kids and go straight to the front of the house queue, when otherwise they'd likely never be able to afford a house? I wonder how other (1st world) countries manage this problem.

[xoggoth]

that guy is NOT going to be able to get a job which pays enough even if they cut out the booze and fags and fripperies (note their rent is far beyond market rate). So either the family would still require a top-up

I agree with that. It seems reasonable to provide that top up, especially given the bloke is taking care of someone else's kids and they would be costing the state even more if with a single mother or in care. However, it is correct that they should first do whatever they can for themselves, take poorly paid jobs if need be, and only when they have done that or be seriously trying to do so should the state be providing any extra they may need.

As DA says, if we do not expect that everyone does as much as they can it is not only costly and disincentivising (is that a word?) to the rest of us but damaging to their own sense of worth. It must also be having an effect on their children who can see it is not necessary to work.

[d000hg]

Since I think the WS is a good thing in principle, and that [many] people are lazy in principle, the situation we find ourselves in doesn't strike me as surprising.

I'm not sure I agree about the vested interest thing. Clearly many jobs revolve around it, but then fixing it and administering it properly would also provide a huge number of jobs. As a political tool I suppose so - but then "being tough on benefits scroungers" is a good vote-winner for the middle classes who think anyone on benefits is a scrounger.

I don't envy anyone trying to fix the system.

[DodgyAgent]

disincentivising (is that a word?).

Agentspeke

[DodgyAgent]

Since I think the WS is a good thing in principle, and that [many] people are lazy in principle, the situation we find ourselves in doesn't strike me as surprising.

I'm not sure I agree about the vested interest thing. Clearly many jobs revolve around it, but then fixing it and administering it properly would also provide a huge number of jobs. As a political tool I suppose so - but then "being tough on benefits scroungers" is a good vote-winner for the middle classes who think anyone on benefits is a scrounger.

I don't envy anyone trying to fix the system.

I do not think it is a question of laziness. People take the path of least resistance and if the path of least resistance is to live off welfare they will take it. Remove the welfare and make working the path of least resistance people will take it - no one is going to sit around for long doing nothing if they have'nt got any food.
The vested interest is not necessarily a conscious thing just an acquiescence and an assumption that voting labour is virtuous because it supports welfare. The assumption that giving poor people money for being poor is a good thing is wrong.

Cruel to be kind that'll fix it (where's Jim when you need him?)

[d000hg]

Remove the welfare and make working the path of least resistance people will take it - no one is going to sit around for long doing nothing if they have'nt got any food.

That is true, but then you get the opposite problem - people slogging their guts out to stay 1 meal ahead of starvation, and many of them failing to do so. No time for education or anything because your entire waking life is spent rummaging through bins or begging for coppers.

I would imagine crowds of starving street urchins are slightly worse than groups of chavs. Maybe not my much though.

[xoggoth]

Cruel to be kind that'll fix it

Even relatively normal people have some time in their lives where nothing is going right. Easy to fall into a rut, sometimes we all need a bit of a push to get back on track.

[vetran]

Rich Raymond, better off than most.

All good points.

My solution is make them work for benefits and make benefits insufficient to afford Sky etc.

'Benefits cheats' exposed as HALF of all claimants fail to turn up for work placements | Mail Online

we might even halve the benefit bill this way.

They have no incentive to retrain or look for work as DA says make them.


Looking at those figures they have about £150 = £200 a week non essential expenditure. 200 B&H £65 , Booze 24 cans of Stella £24 , Sky £15, Mobile £32 (we as a family of 4 go through less than £20 a month), Entertainment and £90 of undisclosed considering as they are on benefits they get reduced school meals and trip costs looks suspect. So £10,000 less is not a struggle.


Not sure why the Tories are pursuing the cap, it would be easier and more effective to manage it as there are only 15,000 over the cap level. Just tell the benefits office / job centre they get a bonus for everyone they get below the cap and fired for every 100 still on. Pretty much what private industry would do.

Change the rules so you can move claimants out of expensive areas and insist same sex kids share rooms. We shared when we were young and we were never on benefits, many of my colleagues in large families also shared with their siblings. Not everyone can afford a 5 - 7 bedroom house even if their parents both work.

Of course we can afford it:

Benefit payouts will exceed income tax revenue - Telegraph