Missed this one - on benefits & proud

[vetran]

It depends how you're defining "willing to rely on benefits". I don't think you can treat the same way people who are not pressured to work and take the easy route, and those who deliberately set out to play the system.

I'm not sure we can really criticise either too much because finding a way to provide for oneself is all those who take benefits are doing. "pride" and "not accepting charity" seem to have no absolute moral value, we're just back with Cameron's "it's only right we all pay our fair share" kind of argument. If you find a way to provide for your family, good on you.

There is no such thing as society hey?

There are a number of levels:

1. Need to depend wholly on benefits for a short while due to hardship.
2. Cannot find a job that is as generous as benefits.
3. Fell into benefits through hardship and find them comfortable, wouldn't mind the 'right job'.
4. Decided that benefits are easier than working .
5. Are on benefits and working illegally.

Most people wouldn't begrudge 1 benefits. 2&3 need assistance. 4&5 need active discouragement.

Last night were 4 & maybe 5 so deserve our disgust.

seen all 5 and there is little in the system to stop the progression from 1->5.

[BoredBloke]

So what, exactly? There are 12/13 people to support, so the story is 12 people earn benefits equivalent to one person on a £60k job.

No the story is 1 benefits scrounger has plopped out 11 future benefits scroungers.

[BrilloPad]

Easy solution, the state pays for the first two children, if they can't afford the rest they get taken away for adoption and their benefits get stopped

Why should state pay for any children?

[vetran]

Why should state pay for any children?

because sooner or later we run out of voters

[amcdonald]

Why should state pay for any children?

Good point, it depends on whether you think we a level of moral obligation or not

[d000hg]

seen all 5 and there is little in the system to stop the progression from 1->5.

I'm not sure many engrained benefits-as-a-lifestyle folk would want to work illegally for extra cash, and they have no skills anyway.

Off the point - you said that it was perfectly reasonable that some people should be allowed to sit on their backsides all day and be paid to do so if that was their desire - do you not think that having this as an option, as a career path if you will, is what is contributing to many of the problems that we have in society?

No.

[BrilloPad]

because sooner or later we run out of voters

voters or debt slaves?

[vetran]

I'm not sure many engrained benefits-as-a-lifestyle folk would want to work illegally for extra cash, and they have no skills anyway.

enough that they made it a 10 year sentence.
BBC News - Benefit fraud could lead to 10-year jail terms, says DPP

Last year, the CPS saw more than 8,600 prosecutions in benefit and tax credit cases, and 4,000 in the first five months of 2013, Mr Starmer said. The current conviction rate is 89.7%, he added.

plenty of them do

BBC NEWS | England | Manchester | Reality TV star cheated benefits

Lizzy Bardsley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

mates of mine were doing general building work, catering and private tutoring. Remember £50 cash in hand for a mornings work is equal to £75/100 after tax. A night as a barmaid etc.

There are plenty of other ways you can abuse it. As last night, she has the house, boyfriend and father of the Kids 'lives' in another council flat and probably sublets.

[vetran]

voters or debt slaves?

both