1949 benefits programme on C4 now..who is watching?

[Allthingspretty]

anyone?

She worked as a carer for 20 years.No doubt on shit pay.

I think she has done her bit for society.

Usual- so if I work for 20 years in a caring profession ( I do), I can retire at 38? Who is going to pay for me for the next 30 years until 68? ( which will be retirement age I'm sure by then)
I thought you didn't even qualify for retirement anyway without 30 years work?
I'm sure many many people work for shit pay in shit jobs, doesn't mean you get 30 years not to work. It simply doesn't work that way

She worked as a carer for 20 years.No doubt on shit pay.

I think she has done her bit for society.

Ha ha!!! So WE'RE meant to be grateful!! 20 years? What planet are you on? - that's not the way the world works! That's why the country's bankrupt. Unbelievable!!

I found the program interesting if only for revealing what the initial intentions of the Welfare State were and the changes that have taken place since then. Would be interesting to do the same with the NHS.

Of course the program was meant to stir things up but what's wrong with creating a debate? The majority of Brits believe an overhaul of the system is required and debate is inevitable.

There seem to be a %ge of posters on here, though, that don't want any change at all, are satisfied (usual suspect) that if someone paid into the system for 20 years then they can coast for the rest of their lives, that it's not necessary to pay into the system in any or much way before taking out, that an attitude of entitlement is okay, or that they are 'saving the govt money by acting as a carer for relatives.' Sorry when was it the government's job to care for relatives?

Well if you have a disability and are entitled to claim benefits then,you know, that's what you can do.

Just like Karen is claiming the benefits she is entitled to.

Is that too hard for you to understand?

" Sorry when was it the government's job to care for relatives?"

they aren't 'relatives' (how insulting to them to be referred to only in their relationship to others rather than as a person in their own right!) they are UK citizens and the Govt has a duty to care for those that cannot, for whatever reason, care for themselves. the fact that there are many with people in their lives who step in and relieve the Govt of that duty is something to be grateful for as they are indeed saving the Govt money.

William do you think you're being original?
I've had this shit pulled before, and people wonder why I'm bolshy.

We live in a supposed civilised society. As it stands if I was or some reason unable to fulfil my care duties then the local authority would have to do it. At vastly higher cost than I can.

It's cheaper to keep me home doing the care (for 3 I might remind you) than the alternative. Doesn't stop the persecution I face for doing so.

Being as I am meeting the care needs of three people (and only getting carers allowance for one) there is no way I can possibly work for now. That is not to say I haven't contributed (at higher rate, actually) and that I won't again.

Please in your superior wisdom advise quite what should happen if the local authority shouldn't provide care or family do the same. Euthanasia? Or kick those grasping elderly and defectives in the gutter? What should happen, ultimately?

usual I think you and I just have a different notion of what 'entitled' means or how it is interpreted.

Imnot I honestly think family should have precedence over the govt to support individuals. Only if family cannot and people have NO support system should the govt intervene. If the govt has 'a duty to care for those who cannot care for themsleves' then what role does family have at all? I just think we need to stop going to the govt/local authority for so much, it's not financial tenable; we need to get over the assumption that the LA is there from cradletograve andtry as much as possible to responsibility back to families. Sorry if my view is unpopular.

But that's precisely what I am doing. Caring.
That doesn't keep a roof over my head though, or heat it. Or feed us.

Again, what is your solution?

ok wilemina- define family? who decides whether your step-sister, as your only surviving family, aged 68 should have to provide care for you when your arthritis has you bedbound? who decides whether it's your mum or your dad (they're separated btw) that must bear the responsibility for you when you have an accident and cant work anymore? I don't hold out much hope for that to be decided fairly when the govt cant even make NRP's pull their weight if they don't want to.

who decides what 'cant' means when it comes to family saying they cant look after you? does cant encompass cant afford to give up work? does cant encompass having a young family of your own with additional needs to care for?

Plus when my kids reach adulthood what then? Should I continue as I am doing or get them into local authority funded sheltered housing?

If the option is to carry on as I am then what happens when I'm no longer around?

William are you talking about financially or physically supporting the extended family? Or both? Do you think 3 or 4 generations of family should be living in the same household being supported by 1 wage?

An that's only talking about a "traditional" family - so grandparents, a working age couple and children. How do you propose a family which consists of a disabled child with complex care needs and lone parent support themselves? Should the grandparents/ siblings / aunts / uncles be financially supporting them? Where are the jobs which allow people to financially look after more people than their immediate family?

We've had deserving disabled, calls for humility and gratitude, the 'ol you should care for them yourself (because that worked so well in the past when disabled children had to go into institutions because caring doesn't put food on a table), HOUSE!

So family should care. Yet on other threads we're told why should grandparents help out with childcare because they've done their bit and deserve a life. Cant have it both ways you know.

And if families should Care then Carers need support as clearly they cannot work. £58 a week doesnt cover all bills and food you know.

Coming to this thread late.
We aren't comparing like with like.
In 1949 they were desparate to get people into work because there weren't enough people to fill the jobs. Now the reverse is true, and it is a sad fact that with such competition for jobs those with diasabilities are likely to get passed over. (I say that as a parent of someone with AS).
Also the attitudes were different then. There was a lot of pride and for many people accepting state handouts would have made them feel ashamed. That would certainly have been the attitude in my family. Even now my mother refuses to apply for any extra financial help even though, at 87, caring full time for my 96 year old father, she is probably entitled to it.
Melvyn would have been fairly typical at the time.
I did wonder if the participants had been given a part to play.

I get that Karen may have been in invisible pain I do. But she refused to try. I work with 4 diabetic people, one with breast cancer, one with MS, one with a condition that's so rare they couldn't tell her whether she would survive having children
Surely you would try at least

Are you an American republican, williaminajetfighter? You sound like some of those right wingers in the US who defend the right to carry guns but hate health insurance for the poor.

I think williamjetfighter originates from outside of the UK from what he/she has said on previous threads. Wherever this is they don't have the same support/welfare structure we do here and so the concept is alien to William.

I have family in Switzerland where life is very expensive and children for example are considered a family event and no money is given by the Govt. I believe that it different if you have a child with a disability though. On the other hand all my relatives work and even in very normal jobs they earn enough to pay rent etc. They don't seem to pay the same proportion of their income in rent as we do in the UK. Make of that what you will as I am certain there are not rent controls etc.

In the UK our housing costs are high, we have one of the poorest level of wages in the EU and as such the Govt has to step in and top up wages to ensure people can afford something as basic as a roof over their heads.

I have no answers, I just believe that those who CAN work should do so but I also believe that wages should cover the basic cost of living which includes affordable housing.

I am in a very fortunate position because two years ago and in my mid forties I was allocated a HA property. At the time (and still) I really needed that support (having never expected to in the past). When I go back to work I now have an affordable rent, I wont be giving this property up as my son is autistic, he might always need to call this house home. Obviously if I ever earn the sort of money I did before that would change and I could go back to the private sector.

I am grateful for the welfare state, I never expected to need it but am so glad it was there for me when life was difficult. Life is settling down now, I am beginning to do some work again....not easy with my son but thankfully I have a qualification which means I can more or less pick my hours.

I think Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece might beg to differ about UK wages levels.....Read yesterday that Spanish minimum wage for full time work is something like 600 euro a month.

And as far as I know, their welfare states don't come anywhere near ours.

I think it was Karen's attitude that irked people but then again it is edited car crash tv. Why did she need that massive car?

maybe she needed a car and massive was costing the same as a 1 person car

why do people do that? ooh she's only got two feet she doesn't need 3 pairs of shoes. fgs

I am only going by a news story I read the other day. If housing costs are low in other countries then correspondingly low wages won't be such an issue. It'sthe pproportion of those wages which go on rent that is an issue . I think the article took all those things into account before working out that our pay in the UK is very low.

Again I have no answers

do you honestly think it would cost the same. A fiesta doesn't cost the same as a Saloon style car to buy or people carrier - come on. Why can't I say it if it is being provided by the taxpayer!

no. I don't think a massive 7/8 seater costs the same as a one person car. I was being very sarcastic.

who said the tax payer bought her car? was the car even mentioned on the programme? I didn't hear it.