To wonder what the govt has planned to punish those NOT on benefits?

[Glitterknickaz]

News link

This is not the first time cutting benefits has been suggested as a punishment. How are the government proposing to punish parents who don't tackle truancy efficiently that aren't on benefits exactly? Just like the assertion that the rioters should lose benefits, yes because they were ALL on benefits weren't they?

Once again the government fuels the totally untrue daily mail esque belief that all of society's ills lie at the feet of benefits claimants. Apparently they are the root of all evil, eh?

Not one of the policies publicised has said what would happen to those who do not claim benefits.

Money designed for basic sustenance should not be removed imo. At the end of the day it is the children that will suffer from these measures.

I think the word you are avoiding is 'entitled' LOTM. We are 'entilted' to expect the govt to use taxes to ensure people can feed and clothes themselves, adequately. This thread is about removing that expectation if your children fail to attend school, an issue utterly dislocated from benefit payment.

The exploitation of 'the system' is far removed from school attendances.

Factual evidence available, or just the slobbering ravings of the DM enthusiast?

"If people don't like the fact that other people work and don't claim then that's tough...my problem is with people who exploit the system, not with those that use it."

Interesting then that the amount of money in unclaimed benefits far outweighs even the governments' own estimates of the amount lost in benefit fraud. But then you'd know that being a hardworkingtaxpayer and all, wouldn't you?

Unless you mean some other form of 'exploitation' of the system, such as claiming benefits you are entitled to whilst displaying a sense of entitlement?

"No one is entitled to anything"

Not again.

LOTM, what on earth is your PhD in? Lifting and Carrying?

yeah I thought that's where there is a difference. People are entitled to a lot of things, in my view. And no, 'entitled' isn't a Labour word - saying that just makes you sound absurd(er). and benefits are used to live on, for basic sustinences.

but no more internet table tennis, eh? Bit pointless.

'and let's be honest, most benefits aren't used to feed and clothe children adequately.'

That phrase jumped out at me LOTM. Where do you get your ideas from? I am bemused by your opinions.

It's just jumped up statistical bullshit people like her and her friends come up with whilst congratulating themselves on how amazing they are and feeling hard done by because they pay taxes.

The child benefit policy is a mess. The idea that you can cut it from a family earning 42k but keep paying it to a family earning 80k is sheer insanity. And to then remove it as a punitive measure from other families sends a TERRIBLE message to those families who have lost the CB through no fault other than falling into an anomaly.

Child benefit never used to be a paid benefit, it was a tax allowance. A recognition that an income of, say, 42k to support a family with children has to stretch a whole lot further than an income of 42k to support a single person, or a couple with no children. So it is reasonable to keep a little bit more of it. It was then turned into a payable benefit, and now that is being taken away from some people and not from others who are wealthier.

LOTM, we are all taxpayers. If you think people on benefits don't pay taxes, then you are the ignorant one - do you think people on benefits get VAT off their purchases?

Just to underline the unfairness of the current proposals, they are taking CB away from families who are, according to the IFS, on the 30th centile of standard of living - ie 70% of people have a higher standard of living, whilst allowing families on double the income to retain it. This is not fair.

LOTM - your comment - 'and let's be honest, most benefits aren't used to feed and clothe children adequately. With what evidence do you quantify that?

Despite the fact that I start a new job tomorrow, I will still be in receipt of some benefits - Tax credits, to help with feeding my dc, and my extortionate childcare costs, some CTB, and some HB. Without which, I would be WAY below the poverty line, i.e. being unable to afford to house myself or eat.

Does that mean that the benefits I will be being paid will not be used to feed and clothe my dc adequately? I would appreciate an answer to that. Or am I going to spend it all on fags, wkd and a widescreen telly, simply because I won't earn enough to support myself because most retail employers think that £5.93 a hour is a living wage?

AND I will still be paying 20% tax on any of my income that is over my personal allowance.

Taxpayer and on benefits - It does happen!

LOTM - you seem to have a great deal of prejudice against benefits claimants - have you ever found yourself in the situation where you have been left with no choice but to claim benefits through circumstances outside your control? Like, maybe, being an unqualified SAHM whose partner was working, then your partner decided to leave you, thus leaving you with no money to feed and clothe your dc? If you haven't ever been in that situation, then how can you pass judgement on those that have been or are currently?

Sorry I don't mean to be dim but I've been gone from the UK for a while now. Do schools not have school nurses anymore to dish out medicines and take care of poorly kids? Admittedly I went to a public school where we had a whole sick bay wing with a ward full of beds for catching up on sleep while skiving PE lessons, so I'm not familiar with UK state schools so much. My daughter goes to state school here in Sweden and her school has a sick bay with 2 full time nurses, 2 full time counsellors, 1 parttime doctor and several beds for lying down when you're not feeling well.

Jesus, I have said all the way through this thread that it's people that abuse the system that are the problem and that people should be fucking grateful we have such provisions in place.

And value added tax doesn't pay for things like hospitals and education whoever made that ridiculous remark.

Oh and for the record, without looking at statistics, I'm going to have a stab in the dark and suggest the main benefit claimants are;

Men aged between 18-30
Single parents (more than likely women under the age of 28)
The majority of these will either have rent support or a social house.

I'd go as far as to say that out of these people, more than not smoke, more than not drink and that many of them live hand to mouth out of poor budgeting skills and not because the "Government" aren't giving them enough money.

I'd like to add also that in 20 years time you'd be damned to find people on benefits who hadn't paid into it.

Prejudice, yes, unrealistic? No, absolutely not. I'm not suggesting EVERYONE on benefits is like this, I am suggesting that for a social type it has become a way of making a living and not a quick fix between job types (DLA excluded).

No, a lot of schools don't even have a sick bay any more. My DS's school has a chair outside the office. No school nurse, problms dealt with by the office admin staff if they are willing. Which they often aren't. They just phone the parents to come and collect, or expect the parents to go in to administer medication, except for epi-pens. which is, apparently, the only 'life-saving' medication.

Which it isn't - inhalers can be life-saving medication, but schools won't accept that. Neither will they accept that when my DS2 is taking prednisolone 4 times a day when his asthma is bad, that I keep him at home to make it possible to administer his medication at the times it is needed. Because I live over 1.5 miles away from the school, when I walk to school,I am already walking 6 miles in a day. If I had to go back twice to give him the prednisolone, I would be walking 9 miles a day. Not physically well enough with epilepsy to put that much strain on my own body. As that often makes his attendance drop below 89% for the year, the EWO is automatically contacted...

"Most benefits aren't used to feed and clothe children adequately"

PREJUDICE.

Where is your evidence?

value added tax doesn't pay for things like hospitals and education

It doesn't? :o

What about the taxes on smoking since you think 'THEY' all smoke they must be paying in huge amounts for hospitals.

Poor budgetting skills?? So if you got £65 a week to pay your water bill, electricity bill, gas bill, all food and clothing, furniture, transport AND anything else you need - are you telling me YOU could make that money stretch that far?? I don't drink, most people I know that are on benefits don't drink ANY more than those of you with money that think nothing of having half a bottle of wine of an evening - should they get NO enjoyment from life? Because you are talking about the working poor too - that also receive some benefits.

Most people I know that claim benefits either work PT, FT or are unable to work due to lack of qualifications and no money to go back to college. Or have disabilities, or their dc do.

"I'd go as far as to say that out of these people, more than not smoke, more than not drink and that many of them live hand to mouth out of poor budgeting skills and not because the "Government" aren't giving them enough money."

Walk a mile in their shoes, and then we'll think about taking your opinion seriously.

Go back to college? College was free to begin with, perhaps they should've taken advantage of it then.

LOTM, what is your PhD in?

How on earth is that relevant?