Tories again hitting the poor

[Arthurgray50@blu]

IF, this government wanted to cut benefits, then they have to cut out the families that come from abroad to milk the system.

We read recently in the media that TWO families came from abroad and openly admitted that the benefit system in this country is soft and have moved into a 'millionaires' pad at a cost to US which costs us millions of pounds, and they they had the cheek to say that the house was not big enough.

The government has to close this loophole and that will save money - picking on the poor is not the answer.

Its not a question of people sitting on there backside drinking booze and having children.

Its about time the government started to close this loophole of spongers from abroad, before hitting the brits. We also had romaniam travellers with SEVEN children come into the UK as the system was there to be used. THIS MUST STOP. But will the government do this - NO.

Originally Posted by Taf

What happens if you can afford to have kids, have a few, then lose your job and can't find another?

The devil's always in the detail, but it surely can't be beyond the wit of man to devise a system that provides a safety net for people in such circumstances without at the same time providing free cash for those who never had a job in the first place(nor much intention of ever getting one).

There is a hard core in our society where not working is the family business. It's handed down the generations just as surely as an elderly carpenter or blacksmith would once have handed down his tools to his son. That has got to be broken.

[Itshim]

Scrap the lot !

[danielf]

The Cabinet minister denied the number of families he is talking about is tiny, insisting it involved "large numbers".

So, IDS: Would this suggestion actually save money, or is it just posturing and bandying ideas around that are not only impractical, but unlikely to raise any money in real terms and only really serve to vilify those on benefits again.

Raising money is naturally of immediate concern, but as he's raising this as something to be considered after 2015 it's clearly not part of a desperate deficit-cutting measure.

Besides, even if it doesn't make a vast difference to the national coffers, there is an important principle at stake here. We should not be in a position of making non-work more financially rewarding than work because that is simply unfair. Society only works in the long run when everyone agrees that the overall settlement is fair. That's why we don't have bloody revolution every 5 years when a party more than half of us didn't vote for gets into power. Any aspects of unfairness must be addressed, even if they don't by themselves raise a billion for the exchequer.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I think it's a great initiative and long over due.

If you can't afford to have kids, then don't have them

Quite right and when there's more old than young people we can just import loads of immigrants to make up the shortfall.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

We also had romani travellers with SEVEN children come into the UK as the system was there to be used. THIS MUST STOP. But will the government do this - NO.

So if this system was in place then they would not get benefits for the SEVEN kids

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

Raising money is naturally of immediate concern, but as he's raising this as something to be considered after 2015 it's clearly not part of a desperate deficit-cutting measure.

Besides, even if it doesn't make a vast difference to the national coffers, there is an important principle at stake here. We should not be in a position of making non-work more financially rewarding than work because that is simply unfair. Society only works in the long run when everyone agrees that the overall settlement is fair. That's why we don't have bloody revolution every 5 years when a party more than half of us didn't vote for gets into power. Any aspects of unfairness must be addressed, even if they don't by themselves raise a billion for the exchequer.

Why not make work financially more rewarding then because despite Arthur's headlines to the contrary I doubt there are many living millionaire lifestyles on benefits

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Why not make work financially more rewarding then because despite Arthur's headlines to the contrary I doubt there are many living millionaire lifestyles on benefits

I don't recall anyone suggesting those on benefits are living 'millionaire lifestyles'. That's not the argument being made, and to characterise it as such is to set up a straw man.

How would you suggest we 'make' work more financially rewarding?

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Quite right and when there's more old than young people we can just import loads of immigrants to make up the shortfall.

Just sterilise them first of all

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

Besides, even if it doesn't make a vast difference to the national coffers, there is an important principle at stake here. We should not be in a position of making non-work more financially rewarding than work because that is simply unfair. Society only works in the long run when everyone agrees that the overall settlement is fair. That's why we don't have bloody revolution every 5 years when a party more than half of us didn't vote for gets into power. Any aspects of unfairness must be addressed, even if they don't by themselves raise a billion for the exchequer.

Sorry, but from where I'm standing the settlement is rapidly becoming unfair because the poor and vulnerable are getting squeezed at every opportunity with little reagard for practicality or effectiveness in the grander scheme of things.

We really are talking peanuts in comparison with the amounts of money lost in tax avoidance by individuals and companies yet I hear very few of our politicians going on about making sure the important principle of paying your fair share is adhered to. Instead, it's looking more like "let's squeeze the poor a bit more, because they're an easy target, and we can".

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

I don't recall anyone suggesting those on benefits are living 'millionaire lifestyles'. That's not the argument being made, and to characterise it as such is to set up a straw man.

How would you suggest we 'make' work more financially rewarding?

I seem to recall Arthur saying that people were moving into million pound houses despite the fact that option has been closed due to the housing benefit cap.

We could start by paying a living wage rather than the barest minimum and we could even go on to make sure that no one is better of on benefits than they would be working not by cutting benefits to the bone but by increasing wages.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I have two new points to make. I have just come back from shopping and l took a count of familes with children. I saw one couple with SEVEN children and a trolley load of food. And another family with FIVE children. And both these families came from abroad.

When families come abroad, the Benefit agencies place them in properties to fit there 'style' and amount of children, The media recently had a story of a family with NINE children and the house was a 'millionaire style' property and it was totally wrecked by the family, as soon as the owner found out who was there he got them evicted.

The government have got to stop this total waste of the benefit system, as it is US that are paying for it.

The benefit system is being milked by overseas visitors and they are laughing in our faces and yet the poor brits get hit - and l can never understand why.

Erm, Arthur - how do you know these families came from abroad?

My mum and dad had five kids (well, eight really, but three died very young), and we didn't come from abroad....

btw, C4 Factcheck have some interesting information on this subject.

[techguyone]

Until the Govt stops spending 9 Billion /yr on Foreign aid, instead of banging on about 'benefit scroungers' and completely diverting the issue, i'll never take them seriously.