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.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

So you didn't sit your exams? You weren't offered another opportunity in which to do so? There wasn't a college or NVQ place willing to take you on? THAT I find very hard to believe.

LOTM so everyone went to boarding school (usually considered a privileged education), inherited a million plus manor house etc, etc. You really think you were on a level playing field with everyone else?

LOTM - where on earth do you think VAT receipts go? Do you imagine the Treasury has a special pot called 'VAT receipts, only to be spent on things that LOTM approves of?' Of course VAT funds health and education and all other areas of government spending! Taxes in this country are not hypothecated.

Oh goody. Please do dispense your wisdom on children in care.

I assume you are well versed in the stats wrt Looked After children and their educational achievement?

Say someone got made redundant from 3 jobs in a row (not unlikely given the way the economy was/is), and then started to suffer from a stress related illness (but weren't considered ill enough for DLA), would you say they'd chosen that life?

Luck plays a major part in life. Hard work helps, but isn't always enough.

Begony, considering everyone on MN assume that public and state school are of similar merit, then yes.

I went through school, a levels, university the same as everyone else...there was nothing odd or different about my upbringing.

Emp, benefits have their place-but they are not a means to be lived on forever...and from what people say they can't possible live on what they're given so how so many do so well from it, I don't know.

So I will work LESS hard than you and your DH because I earn less than you?? WTactualF? I should clarify - 4 different foster homes meant 4 different schools, and 4 different exam boards. My last move was 7 weeks before I was due to sit my GCSE's. I have never been int he exam hall to SIT them, despite passing my 11+ in the top 2% in the County I was resident in at the time. I'm not stupid, I'm not illiterate, but I have NO qualifications, and cannot earn a huge amount.

I DID go back to college, and was halfway through a BTEC in Construction and the built environment when I was diagnosed with epilepsy and told that as I cannot go onto a building site EVER AGAIN (I would be breaking the law), that I couldn't carry on with the course. Because I have done 2/3 of a lvl 3 qualification already, despite the fact that it is now worthless to me, I cannot get any funding help to go back to college.

NOT everyone has the advantages YOU had, LOTM, and I resent the implication that because I (for various reasons) am not qualified to get a well paid job, that I am in some way less than you.

Oh I geddit!

@mapole Gladly! if it reduces our tax bill. I would rather it goes on benefits than bombing Iraqi kids.

Do you think the govt will reduce your tax bill when it slashes benefits? Only if you are a millionaire, hun!

LOTM - you STILL haven't answered my question about people that are working FT but are still in receipt of benefits in the form of TC's, ChB, CTB and HB. Are we meant to gain no enjoyment from life either, because we have the temerity to claim some benefits that we NEED to enable us to LIVE rather than EXIST.

So you know the magic solution for getting off of benefits do you?

Here's one scenario.

-Someone is earning a comfy wage, can afford to rent, and does so.
-They lose their job due to redundancies.
-Now they can't leave their property as they are tied into a contract, plus, they know they'll need their rapidly dwindling savings to pay for things like food, so also couldn't afford to pay a deposit on a new place.
-They end up on benefits.

• They look for work. Due to the recession jobs are a) hard to get, and b) pay less, after all, companies know that there are more workers than jobs, and can't be picky.
• If they take a lower paid job then they can't afford to live. Eg. unable to pay food, rent, or travel to said job.
• They can't move to somewhere with more jobs as they don't have the savings for a move.
• They cannot afford to earn less than they get in benefits, even earning the same amount has problems, because coming off benefits will mean less help with stuff like Council Tax, paying rent, prescriptions, etc.

So what would you say the solution is?

And LOTM - I had arranged to sit my GCSE's at the adult education college, had in writing that they would hold the place for me, When I left FC at 16yo. I presented myself at the college on what was meant to be my first day, only to be told they had 'forgotten' and given my place away. The issued me with a written apology - which didn't help me to sit my GCSE's.

Emp, I'd say that the benefits in place are there for that very purpose, not for earning a living on.

How would I find the money to retrain - there is NO support for that, and I do not have family money behind me as you do. I need to WORK, so how can I afford to work FT AND retrain?

Maybe you could suggest "something that epileptics can indeed do"?

Is your PhD in public relations?

And BTW - 'epileptics' - VERY offensive. I am a person with epilepsy NOT an 'epileptic'.

Only you are talking about people making a living on benefits. While some people might do that, I'd put money on them not being the majority. And, as has been pointed out already, they are unlikely to cost the country more than the amount of benefits which go unclaimed.

Also, you still haven't told me how making the right choices could guarantee a life without ever needing benefits?

Exactly Loudlass. It's oh so very easy for LOTM to provide options that are not really options....sigh.....it must be lovely to have inherited wealth and not really have to worry about money. But when i was 25 perhaps I was that naive too....no actually I wasn't because I had commission and empathy for others.

So despite the fact that I may well be selling you clothes that are too expensive for me to buy myself, whilst I am working, I should gain NO enjoyment from life, as I need benefits to get by, I should be servile towrds you, expect no pleasures in life, and generally live a miserable existance rather than a full, well rounded life?

What do you class as things I am allowed to spend my TC's on then?

Didn't mean to cause offence.

Would you refer to yourself as disabled in that case?

Now Empjusa, that's unfair.

I think LOTM has made it perfectly clear that choosing to inherit thousands of pounds will guarantee a life without ever needing benefits. I'm not sure why you're confused.

Some people, those with severe disabilities 'make a living' on benefits, they have no choices.

Of course Tethers. Silly me