to think that there are people who choose to live a life on benefits?

[autumnlights12]

the recent threads about George Osbourne made me wonder..
A high number of posters say that people don't choose to live like that, they stumble into it, hate it, what a miserable existence it is, nobody would ever choose it etc..
but if you have two or three children through choice, whilst at the same time having no job to provide for them, or if you turn down the job at the local factory (as I know someone who did) because it pays £7.50 an hour and a full time job there doesn't give you the same unemployment rights and benefits, isn't that choosing to live a life on benefits? Or being trapped on benefits? I'm not talking about people who can't work, disabled people, ill people, women dumped by feckless ex and left to fend for herself etc.. of course they should be protected.
I was watching 999 What's Your Emergency and I know that area. And I know people like that exist. And it's often a second, third generation who have never worked a day in their life, even during times when work was freely available. In the town I live, we have numerous Eastern European immigrants who all seem to be working, but mostly in low paid work the locals wont do
What say you?

Exactly Brycie, we don't want a two tier state education system, so why are you only looking to improve outcomes for one group of children.

I think we should be focussing on the children that leave Year 6 with their level 5's and 4a's, and looking at them to see what we can do to bring others up. What is it that the children who achieve have got that the others don't? Generally nothing, except parents who are supportive.

god why does it always go onto dla

those of you who resent people claiming it so much have obviously not seen how complicated the form is and how difficult it is to get!

Well said, seashore.

The government says we've got no money, yet has already declared giveaways to the rich and big business: the top rate of income tax cut from 50% to 45%, and corporation tax cut from 28% to 24%, with plans to reduce it further to 20%.

These and other tax cuts for the rich and big business ? benefitting the top 1% - so far add up to around £30bn of giveaways.

Coincidentally the same government is cutting welfare by £30bn. Cameron and Osborne are effectively taking money from the disabled, the unemployed, lone parents and those struggling to pay rents to give to the super-rich.

Why do people not get this?

Oh, by the way - £30bn is Thirty Thousand Million Pounds. £30,000,000,000.

Outraged: parents who are supportive can add to what their children learn, and to be honest I think brighter children would benefit from a more intense primary curriculum. I think many parents would agree with me.

Cake: that is what I just said. I am not attacking individual teachers: you are attacking me. In case you need reminding.

well quite garlicbutty and that doesn't even begin to cover the cuts that are affecting those ill and disabled at a local authority level

HaHaHoostery.

All people on benefit need it, with maybe the exception of the rich families still receiving CB.
These are children you are talking about and refusing benefit to those not wanting to work will leave them homeless and starving.
You may not agree with their lifestyle but each to their own.
I would like to add however, that any of these people who fall into the stereotypical image portrayed by many, are supporting the economy and paying tax like many others.

They buy their large tv's, subscribe to sky, smoke and drink (lots of tax there)
The rich stay rich by not really contributing much to the local/National economies.

'I just had a quick look at the local courts list and there was a list of about 10 people IN ONE DAY done for benefit fraud. And this wasn't a couple of quid here and there but £20K+ sums. And there were several claiming DLA who had been found working cash in hand etc'

I don't believe you.

Neither do I, Starlight, since claiming DLA while working is perfectly legal!

DLA has the lowest fraud rate, it's less than 1% iirc and as everyone has already pointed out, you are allowed to work whilst claiming it

it's 0.5% if anyone is interested

Garlicbutty, it's scary, those figures are so, so scary. I think though that petty attitudes about people on benefits, all this speculation about people's lives at a comfortable distance solidifies this ugly scheme and allows it to happen.

It's such a pity that we cannot aspire to an equal society, aiming at everyone having an equal chance in life.

I'm not sure that people actively choose to be on benefits, so much as don't have other good choices to make.

I bleat on about this a fair amount, but the Chief Medical Officer for Scotland, Harry Burns, has done alot of research into people's life chances and how some postcodes have such poor life expectancy, life experiences etc. In these particularly deprived postcodes, you can see families where adults often haven't worked for 3 generations. There are no role models for children to follow into better ways of living - these families are trapped in an ongoing cycle of dependency on the state.

I think the solutions are complex & require long-term input. The solutions that would really help are so long-term as to be politically unpopular. Our parenting & family life is one of our biggest influencing factors in life and it is support for families that really counts in changing the long term social & economic outlook for people.

YANBU. I know of people who choose not to work, currently on child number 4 to avoid having to get a job, who have Sky TV, broadband, mobile contracts, yet are in Council Tax and Rent arrears, despite getting housing benefit.

They choose to live on benefits rather than work. They also see everything as their right. It is their RIGHT to have Sky TV. yes I have Sky TV, but to me it is a luxury and if things get any tighter for me, it will be the first thing to go. Because I own my own house - £700 month mortgage - and am self employed, there is very little help that I can get since my husband walked out, other than tax credits.

I very much understand that there are people who are disabled, or abandoned wives, or made redundant, but you cannot deny that there ARE people out there who DELIBERATELY choose not to work. If their benefits were cut then maybe just maybe they would realise what real life is all about. It is about working for a living to be able to afford nice things, Its what most of us have to do....

Garlicbutty

You can reducing a tax burden from 50p in a pound to 45p in a pound as a giveaway? A fucking giveaway!

Unbelievable! Just ignore the fact that the people who have to pay that much in tax are the ones subsidising others who contribute nothing why don't you.

Pathetic.

Brycie, supportive parents already add to what their children learn, but they pay their taxes too and deserve to have their children's needs met within the state system. I agree that a more academic programme will be better for some children, but that's what state grammar schools are for. At primary level, there is no reason why they shouldn't all learn the same curriculum with appropriate differentiation.

I'm sure there are an awful lot of people who "choose" to live on benefits.

Much of it I think isn't real choice, but poverty - of ambition - near where I live, and work and volunteer, we have an estate, where there are families in the 3rd generation of unemployment.

There was work being advertised in the summer - all minimum wage - at a small hotel, couple of pubs a local hall, and a care home.

Spoke to a couple of youngsters at the end of August. "Fuckin' Poles, taking all our jobs".

Actually, there's a nice Lithuanian woman who I know works at the hotel...
"Well, they work for nothin', don't they".

I know the hotel owner. I also know he's paying minimum wage, but he kicks in accommodation, because she'll do breakfasts, clean - basically whatever he asks.

He can't get local kids to turn in for work...

Why should we pay benefits to some idle sod that won't get out of bed, and makes racist comments about someone who wants to work...

Yes, Seashore, and all the attention is conveniently focused on the poor.
People claiming JSA for 5+ years: 4,220
Richest 1 percent: 610,000

Long-term claimants would fit into 17 rows at Old Trafford (Lower North Stand).
You'd need eight Old Traffords to seat that top 1%.

Why are we busy hating one measly row, in their worn-out trainers, when the big bunch in bespoke shoes are averaging £500,000 - half a million each from public handouts?

Look, you have parents and Grandparents who had a terrible time at school for one reason or another - in the alleged good old days as Brycie previously referred to. Learning difficulties went unrecognised as did ASD and behavioural issues. There was no pastoral care and as a result people struggled. You weren't even allowed to be left handed FFS.

Do you think these people support and encourage their children/grandchildren through school. No they don't. They don't see the value as it didn't work for them and as a result of it not working for them they are lifelong unemployed or employed in underpaid low skilled jobs. Children learn by example. It is not the fault of teachers.

Outraged: thanks for the response. We'll have to agree to disagree, as I don't think children who are better off in terms of intellect, parental support and finance would lose out. I think it's very telling that many prep schools, who don't follow the NC, achieve much greater things. And often that's while having five whole afternoons of sport and drama every week.

There are not many children there with bad parents who don't care, but here I'm talking about the better off children who benefit from that kind of intense curriculum.

Everyone knows at least a few people that have chosen to be on benefits. That adds up to a hell of alot. Not just a minority.

Why are you only using JSA to make that point Garlic?

What about one that wouldn't suit your agenda so well, like income support?

Freddos - Higher-rate tax is only applied to earnings above the maximum threshold. Don't make out you're having half your income taken away, because you're not. You pay the same rates as everybody else, then higher rate tax on income over £150,000.

Do you not think it's decent to give back half of what you earn over £150,000?
Why not? How much would you like to give back?

"There was no pastoral care" - that's news to me. As for the rest of what you say - much of it is terrible generalisation.

We have learned a lot about pastoral care and the way children learn: this should be applied to a more traditional or intense curriculum. That way everyone wins.

Brycie, I don't think we disagree that much tbh. I agree that something needs to be done, I just think it would be better done by other agencies and not schools.

Prep schools often do get excellent results, but then they have a lot in their favour, not just the fact that they aren't held to the NC.

It is not education that will solve this. We've had free education for all for ages & yet there are still huge problems getting people into work. It isn't popular, but you have to start with support for families. It could take generations to work, but it is the only way IMO.