Yay! Looks like Child Benefits are next on Dave's hitlist...

[cupcakesandbunting]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11009535

Speculation, my bum. We all know what's coming, Dave.

Well, yes. Benefits alone won't buy a £600 television. It's usually hooky or on the never, never.

My IL's drive their new car to the bus stop to use their free bus pass to go into town to "get their moneysworth". MIL hasnt worked since she was 21 ..FIL retired at 55 and they live in a 5 bed house that was valued recently at 500,000 .. all paid off of course.

My own mum on the other hand really has worked all her life - a single mum for most of it and nigh on killed herself to stay off benefits when my father left - she retired form a very hugh stress career at 65 and now works part time and volunteers for CAB twice a week,

I cannot get my head around the way there is no direct consequence between what you put in and what you get out of the system ..

I got screwed over completely when DH was made redundant - not entitled to claim any benefit as I has retrained at Uni a few years earlier and apparently that makes all your contributions null and void ..

The state left us a family of 4 in the SE with a mahoosive mortgage on 45 quid a week...

Now of course, because DH was willing to take any job and work anywhere, even overseas he is back in employment and they are taking an extortionate amount of tax off us ..

Its just a screwed up system that encourages people to
not take responsibility for themselves ..

as for the fact that the Benefits are there as a safety net - well when we needed them - after having worked and paid tax for twenty years - the Government were quite hapy to let us lose our house and somehow pay EVERYTHING on just over 40 quid a week ..

Thats not a safety net ..! Thats an insult ...

what a ridiculous assumption cupcakes.....on benefots i can save,a word alot dont know....SAVE...its easilt done for those who can budget

Oh, I am sorry, Dragonfly. I wasn't aware that benefits afforded the people claiming them enough money to actually be able to save for non-essentials. Silly me.

Must remember to tell DH next time he does a 42 hour week so that we can afford a pair of curtains that he is labouring under a misapprehension.

of course they do!! you have plenty left over to save with if you dont fritter it away in primarni or buy booze/cigs!!!

"I cannot get my head around the way there is no direct consequence between what you put in and what you get out of the system .."

Therein lies the problem. It's all chucked into one big pot without any regard to how Much or little you have contributed.

This should be addressed but no politician has the balls for it.

It shouldn't be down to what you have contributed, it should be down to what you need.

So Dragonfly. Because I am dense, please explain to me how someone on benefits (which are there to help you not starve/become homeless) can afford to save? I'm being serious and not at all trying to patronise you. I only ask because we shop in pretty low-rent supermarkets, I think I'm being posh if I buy a top from New Look instead of primark and I have no curtains in my living room until next month, after DH has done some OT at work so we definitely, absolutely, have no cash left to save.

How do you do it?

Why? If mr x pays tax for 15 years and contributed 500k why should he get the same as mr y who worked sporadically and contributed 5k?

Massively unfair. I know who I would want to help, the net contributor not the net taker.

But if it is based purely on what is needed, then how do we root out the people systematically taking the piss out of the system?

Obviously someone in Riven's position needs the little assistance that she gets (and needs a bit bloody more). Would the pisstakers be deemed to "need" assistance because they have no income to speak of? Or would they be identified as pisstakers? It seems like a very grey area-ish way of dealing with this, IMO.

For the record, I don't believe in basing assessment on contribution, either. I seriously think that the fairest way would be on individual needs but that would be too costly and time consuming.

Bah, this is why people cleverer than I are in charge...

I totally agree Ryoko ... and until we found ourselves about to lose everything I was a huge huge supporter of the welfare state and what it stands for and was very glad it was there.. but when you see both sides you realise just how utterly flawed the system is .. and you start to wonder just what is the point ..

Its not an equal playing field at all..

I wonder if the reason that these type of threads get so heated and there is so much benefit bashing generally these days is because in the past two years so many people who were previously unaware ( blissfully) of the way benefits work have found themselves all too suddenly aware and resentful that in their time of need, the system fails ...

its a case of being frugal....and being good with the money you get. i make good use of freezer/bogofs/offers....and grow own stuff too.

feel no guilt if dc have to wait for something....

ds wants a ds for xmas....so £15 put away for 8 weeks will do it.

how much are your curtains?

But, alouiseg, you aren't considering the reasons why someone might have only worked sporadically/not contributed much. Not all people giving a low contribution to the tax system are shirkers.

Wow, I must be going seriously wrong somewhere because I do not have £15 per week to spare :(

My curtains are £79. We have odd sized windows and without getting some made up, they really are the cheapest!

Too be fair my mum used to visit my sister abroad twice a year whilst on benefits, but she walked home from Aldi with her shopping to save on busfare and ate half a tin of soup for her tea, things like that.

As I've said everyones circumstances are so different and hard to prove the system will never be 100%, some people will fall thru the net who need help, and some smart arse will work the system to get way more then they should, thats life.

The tossers are a minority, the dossers the majority, if there is 1 Daily Mail bait living it up in Notting Hill at the expensive of the Tax payer to every 50 real claimants who need the extra help, it's a price worth paying.

You shouldn't begrudge or punish the majority because of the actions of a tiny minority, it just ain't right.

Alouiseg - me too... if you haven't helped yourself by trying to earn the right to a safety net then why the hell should the state help you ?

I am a sahm carer to my daughter now ... I worked for years before she needed me at home ..DH currently works
15 -16 hour days five days a week to keep us afloat ..

Yet the state saw fit to give us nothing because I had the drive to retrain to go back to work ?

It is no wonder people get wound up when things like CB get threatened..

Incidentally, (hope I dont get flamed for this ) but my daughter is entitled to DLA at the highest rate .. until DH got made redundant we had never claimed it because we felt we could cope without it. When he was made redundant we needed it to feed the children .. And now I claim it although there is no way on earth we "need" it and I save it in case we ever become dependant on benefits again..
Because we have been burned and have learned that there is no safety net for MC families like us ..

I would much prefer to leave it all in the pot and rest easy in the knowledge that if we were to end up in that hell hole again the state would support us to keep our home and eat and stay reasonably warm ..

But I know from bitter experience that that would not happen .. and I do think that there are a lot of people out there who will think the way we do now...

That is what it should be a basic safety net but it's not even that because it's a lifestyle choice for so many people.

If I walk through my local town, Colchester, I see staggering drunken tramps, clusters of teenagers hanging off a buggy being chatted up by moronic youths with stupid shapes shaved into their hair.

Where do all these fuckers come from and why won't they get a job?

And why should they get the same amount of money, more if they have children, than a family man who's worked and contributed. I'll tell you why because they can, because they choose to and because our wannabe safety net provides them with health, education, housing, money, social workers and health visitors to pander to them.

If You pay people to be poor they will be poor.

Daily Mail................Daily Mail.............Daily Mail.

Change the record.

How about 'I don't pay my taxes' not had that in a while

Riven capable of work is not the same as able to work, my sister has blind spots in her vision and is totally 100% diabetic, produces no insulin at all she doesn't count as disabled so she has been on JSA since 1989 and my brother has a club hand and foot (also not classed as disabled).

I got my first job 3 years ago at the age of 28, Employers have a massive choice of who to employ they can pick and choose from hundreds of applicants, the longer you are unemployed the less likely you are to be employed.

Plenty of disabled people are just as capable of working as the long term unemployed so why should they get a fare amount while the long term unemployed get only enough for bread and water?.

Thats hardly far, being unemployed for years does not mean you are happy in your position and not even trying.

We really need a flat screen tv emoticon on here...