|
|
Post by Erinx on Jun 29, 2012 6:37:11 GMT
How is that fair on the honest hard working people kjm? When there's such strong competition for jobs yet people on benefits just get one? It wouldn't work. Don't get me wrong I don't want to see people spend their life on benefits but just handing them a job that other people have worked so hard to get isnt the answer. Because they wouldn't be "real" jobs as such. It would be a way of getting the people on benefits to actually do something for it. they would only get the basic benefit. It wouldn't affect hardworking people at all because it wouldn't really be a bona fide job Of course it would affect the hard working people because by having a business employ somebody for free you are taking away the opportunity for new hard working people to come in and there is less likely for a new position to come available. Volunteer work for a charity yes but actually working in a money making business is only going to create a higher level of unemployment |
|
|
|
Post by brindlerainbow on Jun 29, 2012 6:55:49 GMT
When I was in hospital having my daughter nearly 20 years ago now there was a 17 year old girl in there who resembled Waynetta Slob from Harry Enfield programme. She had her baby a couple of days before me, I asked her how long she had been with her boyfriend, she replied 10 months..........
She then went on to say they only had a baby because they could get a council house straight away rather than having to wait
|
|
|
|
Post by sometime on Jun 29, 2012 6:56:07 GMT
That doesnt help the children here and now it is education and opportunity that would make the difference not penalising them and their parents. Stop the rot by education make it clear to them that it is not an option before it all starts then if necessary pick up the pieces. You cant let people starve and be unintentionally homeless. It is the parents of the young girls that are at fault and as it is girls that get the breaks that is still only 50% of the population. How many times have you seen mum grandma and great grandma supporting 13-15 year old in their decision to have a baby. It wont change until that changes and that will only change when it is financially better not to have children. Maybe the answer is to pay enough to kids to support them and big bonuses to those that dont get pregnant instead of the other way round if it is only money they are after. Perhaps benefits for those without children should be rewarded. Supply nursery places for all under fives where they are fed and clothed and the same for school children but no benefits to parents I dont know the answer but it cant go on the way it is but it is still essential to support the vulnerable old and young. You cant just label people as useless wasters and wash your hands of them. Some kids have kids because they want someone to love and be lloved by and in this day and age it is very sad that that is happening and no these are not all kids from poor background it is just those that have ignored their kids in place of working have the finances and backup to deal with them
|
|
|
|
Post by amumwithapony on Jun 29, 2012 7:14:06 GMT
So are you saying that by working I am ignoring my daughter? That she will go and have a baby at 16 because I don't love her enough. That she didn't get enough attention and support at home because me and my husband both work to feed, clothe and support her? Buy her nice things and let her have swimming lessons, 2 ponies, shows every other week, after school activities, days out, holidays and such like? As well as provide a nice roof over her head?
Really? I'd have done a better thing by having her at 16, with 3 little brothers or sister running around the house, never showing her a work ethic and never letting her experiance the world beyond the sink I estate I now live on? Not steady, loving relationship to refer to, no values or morals, no sense of right and wrong?
And surely the best reward to not having children when you have no way to support either yourself or them is to educate people. You are right in that sense. But unfortunately the only way to educate some people is by removing the temptation to fall into the trap their parents and grand parents did.
The 'reward' for those that don't fall into the same trap is independance, choice, a sense of self worth and values.
And its no good saying the minimum wage isn't enough to have these things. Minimum wage should be a starting point. People need to realise that you need to earn the things you want and not have everything given to them on a plate.
I'm sure that I am not the only one who remembers 1 TV in the house, colour if you were posh, 1 'house phone' between 4 or 5 neighbours, a car being a luxury and a weeks break at a friends caravan if you were lucky?
Why people think they are entitled to plasma tv's in every room, a mobile for each member of the family, a car being essential and 2 weeks abroad being the norm?
You earn your way in life. You earn the things you want and you have to start making the things unavailable to those who arent earning. Simples really.
|
|
|
|
Post by sageandonion on Jun 29, 2012 9:00:23 GMT
I have a carpenter with his young lad apprentice working in my house at the moment. I think he gets less than £100 per week. He could get nearly as much being on his butt at home. It is fab to watch this young man doing a great job, taking pride in everything he does (including sweeping up). He is getting getting training, developing social as well as work skills and setting himself up for the future.
Absolutely no reason why every young person should not be out getting the same experience in return for their benefits.
If you can afford not to work and be a stay at home mother then wonderful, you are truly very lucky though a lot of ladies still want to carry on with their career. Most women must return to work to maintain their children. If you do not want to do this and require benefits to expand your growing brood, then don't have the children in the first place because the tax payer is sick of paying for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by sometime on Jun 29, 2012 9:26:15 GMT
No the implication was not that any individual was a bad mother or was unloving but there as many unloving mothers in full time work as there is in any part of society No I am sure that the kids with ponies and happy home lives are the blessed ones You dont have to be poor or rich to give children love and attention. That is what all children should have and are entitled to. It would be lovely if every child found themselves in that situation what I am saying is that there an awful lot of young girls who think having a baby guarantees them love. We all know it doesnt.
Naivety is the problem in a lot of cases and yes it is the resposibility of society to educate the girls that it is better to have a life and a home with a good income before having children so you can provide a stable life for them but it is just that the need to educate and from a very young age.Mums protect their children and object to sex education lessons for the very young but in fact if they knew a lot more and learned that babies are not just big dolls then life may just change for them.
My kids grew up with pets kittens and puppies being conceived and born they knew exactly where babies came from from a young age and they knew the consequences of responsibility for those babies lives. They are now in their late twenties early thirties and are holding responsible jobs just married or about to be and although I have one blood granddaughter and one step granddaughter who I love to bits they were born in love and the expectation of a permanent relationship It didnt work that way but that is also modern life.
I believe that all kids should have pets that they are responsible for but I would guess that I am preaching to the converted here.
Kids shouldnt be a meal ticket but once they are here they need providing for and if the parents are unable or unwilling then it is up to the rest of us to take up the slack. I still would like to see a carefully policed token scheme so that the benefits could only be used to feed clothe and house families but that is a huge financial commitment from the government making sure that isnt abused and it would probably cost considerably more than you would save in routing out fraud.
My heart goes out to the underprivileged kids from both rich and poor families because I can assure you there are just as many in each category.
Many people on benefits adore their children and want better for them. I think it is the education system that is wrong and it is up to the education system to get their finger out and teach kids there is a better way especially when the parents obviously dont know how to
|
|
|
|
Post by taxpayer on Jun 29, 2012 9:37:46 GMT
 It DOES NOT start at school..............it starts at home!
|
|
|
|
Post by cayo on Jun 29, 2012 9:41:55 GMT
Absolutely no reason why every young person should not be out getting the same experience in return for their benefits. Read more: horsegossip.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=moanersarea&action=display&thread=131577&page=7#ixzz1zAmyJSZ5s and o the is that it would ultimatley lead to real job losses and so raise benefit any action taken to bring this idea to fruition must be done with utmost thought and care so as to benefit both those in employment and those who are unemployed also or we will hit a very slippery slope of punishing the genuinely unemployed as well as those who simpley do not wish to work or cant work and get enough to live on a huge change in nursary care available to workers would be a huge step forward as for those with child care costs its this that often puts them off working as they end up simply paying someone else to bring their kids up while they are out working for pennies and that way no one benefits ,i ask myself why it is that child care is so expensive as is elderley care in this country when the workers in that field are some of the lowest paid ,the whole benefits system is a minefield i do think one benefit is all thats needed and you are paid according to your circumstances and need from one body thus making it harder to get more than what was intended ,child benefit replaced the tax relief you recieved for your children when you work seems odd to some that it is paid to the unemployed as well but its part of their income so if we stop paying it they would just have to pay extra on the other benefits so its simpler to pay it to all children as it is with many things such as bus passes as it also costs so much to means test these things its cheaper to pay all eldery not just the less better off ect |
|
|
|
Post by brindlerainbow on Jun 29, 2012 9:59:42 GMT
Why on earth should the schools be responsible for educating the children that there is more to life than benefits because the parents are not capable!!! The parents will all have been educated the same as everybody else and it is their responsibility to make sure their children grow up knowing that in life you work for your money you don't sit on your lazy arse all day and expect the tax payer to fund your idle life style. If children need providing for then their parents should provide for them by going out and getting a job not expecting those of us that do work to "take up the slack". Why should I pay for the child of someone who doesn't work, claims benefits and does bugger all every day. I only had 1 child and my partner and I have always provided for her obviously by working, we have a comfortable lifestyle. My daughter grew up in a nice house wearing nice clothes, had a couple of ponies,2 dogs and other various pets, yes she was priveledged but at no one elses expense!! If I had decided to have 4 children then there's no way I could have afforded to provide for them which is why I stuck with 1.
|
|
|
|
Post by sometime on Jun 29, 2012 16:30:34 GMT
You still havent answered as to what happens to children of these people if no one pays for their existence. They do exist there is no question about that if you dont pay benefits who is going to feed them and clothe them.
Dont just fob off with it is their parents responsibility because they evidently are either unwilling or unable
|
|
|
|
Post by sometime on Jun 29, 2012 16:32:26 GMT
It doesnt start at home because the parents are not doing it so it has to start at an early age at school.
How can parent that are the product of long term unemployment possibly teach children about the values and morality of working
|
|
|
|
Post by nia2311 on Jun 29, 2012 17:03:21 GMT
It doesnt start at home because the parents are not doing it so it has to start at an early age at school. How can parent that are the product of long term unemployment possibly teach children about the values and morality of working Whereabouts in the already over-packed curriculum would you suggest this new theme should be included?! At primary, most schools struggle to fit in PE, music, art and in fact anything that isn't Maths and English. And now they are expected to fit in languages from next year as well. At secondary, the curriculum is also packed, with citizenship/PSHE and other non-academic subjects already compulsory and taking up time on the timetables. With other ideas like teaching about "body image" and financial matters such as how to run a bank account also recently being added, there simply is not time to add such things onto school timetables. Schools already do more than their fair share of parenting. We have wrap around care with breakfast and after school clubs, we have to deal with the behaviour problems caused by lax parenting, we already have eight thousand legal responsibilities to the children in our care. Kiddies are now coming into reception classes around the UK at age 4 unable to use the loo. Parents think schools are responsible for potty training. We have kiddies who cannot eat without using their fingers for everything, as it is apparently schools job to teach them to use a knife and fork. We have kiddies who come in regularly without socks or underwear on, without sweaters or coats on cold days, because school will provide them from the lost property or donated items box. Where does parental responsibility start now?  ?? Schools are not parents. Schools are primarily there to educate children and set them up for a decent career in whatever they want to do. Parents must step up and take responsibility for their children, end of. |
|
|
|
Post by sometime on Jun 29, 2012 17:11:43 GMT
If you want to change something you have to be radical. No use complaining if you are not prepared to do something about it and the only way to do so is through education. The fact that schools are in loco parentis providing toilet training and underwear shows that the parents are not able to take proper care so someone has to break the cycle. Perhaps there are people who would advocate sterilisation for all on benefits and chemical sterilisation of all girls aged 9 upwards until they can prove themselves suitable to be parents smacks of puritanism to me. Didnt our forefathers fight wars to saves us from such things. I despair of the selfishness of the modern world the knock it without putting something workable in its place ethos and quite frankly the Im all right jack philosophy
|
|
|
|
Post by nia2311 on Jun 29, 2012 17:22:06 GMT
If you want to change something you have to be radical. No use complaining if you are not prepared to do something about it and the only way to do so is through education. The fact that schools are in loco parentis providing toilet training and underwear shows that the parents are not able to take proper care so someone has to break the cycle. Perhaps there are people who would advocate sterilisation for all on benefits and chemical sterilisation of all girls aged 9 upwards until they can prove themselves suitable to be parents smacks of puritanism to me. Didnt our forefathers fight wars to saves us from such things. I despair of the selfishness of the modern world the knock it without putting something workable in its place ethos and quite frankly the Im all right jack philosophy I'm sorry Sometime, but schools have neither the time, nor the resources to provide the care supposed to be done by parents. If all parents have to do is "pop em out" then we may as well take every single child into local authority care at birth, as that level of care is what you seem to be proposing. It is awful to see kids arrive at school age 4 in nappies still, without the right sort of clothing or without a lunch or lunch money. Schools already go WAY above and beyond their duties to ensure all kids are looked after. My son's old primary kept a donated clothes box and many parents took advantage of this - when little Jimmy needed the next size sweater, they simply sent him without one, took the donated one and never returned it. Same with underpants, swimming trunks, everything. If schools are expected to provide toilet training, clothes, food, table manners training - what ARE parents supposed to do? Go to the pub and have a swift pint? Because that's their job done for them by The State again. Who funds schools??? Mr and Mrs Taxpayer again. So, we are back to square one. We reduce benefits, we increase school's responsibilities towards children. Either way, the amount of money being spent on the families who cannot sort themselves out is still too much. How is it so hard to potty train your toddler and show them to use a fork? I don't understand  |
|
|
|
Post by brindlerainbow on Jun 29, 2012 17:27:18 GMT
Parental responsibility starts the day a couple discover they are expecting a baby.
And for those children who have no one to pay for them if their parents don't get benefits. Actually they do have someone to pay for them, their parents, the people who made them and brought them into this world. If they don't get benefits then there is the incentive to go out, get a job and do an honest days work. So it might not be the job they want but if it pays a wage at the end of the week and can feed and clothe their children then so be it. There are plenty of people doing jobs they don't particularly like but they do them to earn a wage and pay their way. And Sometime I too despair at the selfishness of the modern world, the world where people are happy to sit at home claiming benefits because at the end of the week they will get a wage but they havent had to lift a finger to get it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sometime on Jun 29, 2012 17:43:46 GMT
You still have not said if parents dont feed their children and have no money (benefits) to house them and no ability to work or are unable to work because there are no jobs or are just to lazy to do so are you saying you could stand by and see them starve, freeze or die on the street.
I have never said that something shouldnt be done but so far the only response has been parent shouldnt have children unless they can afford them and should take responsibility for them Of course they should but the evidently dont so what then.
Perhaps we should have police like they do in Brazil who walk along and put a bullet in the head of any man, woman or child that is sleeping rough or begging. They have no jobs and no benefits
|
|
|
|
Post by brindlerainbow on Jun 29, 2012 18:02:16 GMT
If they are unable to work due to a physical disablility or something of that nature then of course they are entitled to and deserve benefits. If they have no money because they are not working because they are too lazy or they don't want to do a job that involves hard work and respnsibility then why should the tax payer fund that life style? You say that something should be done about it but what? All the time the bone idle are allowed to continue with their chosen lifestyle then they will do, by continuing to let them claim benefits for no other reason than that they are too lazy to work isn't giving them the incentive to get off their arses and find work is it. So you have still not said what the solution is to the problem!!
|
|
|
|
Post by nia2311 on Jun 29, 2012 18:02:26 GMT
Sometime - we have all made the distinction between those who find themselves needing benefits in the short term, due to redundancy or illness or whatever. In such cases, benefits are justifed and that's why they were put into place. I can't see anyone begrudging those genuine cases. And these genuine people, suffering genuine hardship are not the subject of this discussion.
The whole thread is about those families who have never ever had any intention of working, and who pass the "benefits lifestyle" ethos onto their children. This is why we have third and fourth generation benefits claimants in the same family. In these cases, the state cannot afford to be paying out for what is, essentially, pure laziness.
If you peruse the jobs mags, JobCentre Plus website, look in local shops, etc. you will find in fact that there ARE jobs out there. They may not pay £20,000 per annum, they may not be the most socially salubrious jobs, but there are jobs out there. Lots of them in fact.
We are now back to the eternal question of why young people coming from these benefits backgrounds think such entry level jobs are beneath them? All you hear is "why should I get up at 6am to earn £10,000 pa?" "Why should I clean loos to earn minimum wage of £6.03 an hour?" Because that is what you have to do - start at the bottom and work your way up.
AMWAP posted about her building firm and said she was paying a labourer between £8-10 an hour. Correct me if I am wrong, but you don't need any qualifications to be a labourer? Last year, I was on a temp contract at Astra Zeneca, a massive pharmaceutical company. I worked in their quality testing labs, a job which required a BSc degree, upper second class. I earned £10 an hour and that seemed quite reasonable to me. I travelled 35 miles each way to that job, and that was only for a 3 month contract. I started at 8am, so I had to leave home at 6.30am to get there through the traffic on the M61/M60. I finished at 4pm, so hit the M60 at peak traffic. I was rarely home before 6pm.
This is what has to be done.
Parents who have children are responsible for them. If they don't want to be responsible, then the only option is to package them off to the local authority. It is not optional. And its not exactly a new problem either. There were lazy families throughout history, with children who were not fed, not cared for and who did not amount to much. Very sad that we haven't come up with a solution to this problem in the 21st century. BUT - does it suggest it is a problem that will never be 100% solved too?
Well meaning philanthropists have been pontificating on this topic since the 1700s when the Poor Laws were in place, yet still, in 2012, there are areas that would not look out of place in a Victorian slum. Why? Plenty of money has been thrown at the situation, plenty of people have come up with different ideas, different solutions. But none have worked. Leaving people to starve didn't work - they still had children. Handing out free money willy nilly hasn't worked either. I really am at a loss to suggest a solution that hasn't already been tried.
Anyone else going to solve world poverty, and perhaps bring peace and goodwill to all men at the same time??
|
|
|
|
Post by nia2311 on Jun 29, 2012 18:14:34 GMT
Just done a JobCentre Plus search for "all jobs" within 30 miles of my postcode. 250 results came up. A lot of them are for multiple roles in one advert - the first one is for "10x delivery drivers" and it pays £7-10 an hour.
Second job advert is for "3x refuse collectors" on £8 per hour.
So, if there are multiple roles being advertised in 250 separate adverts, I would say that means there are jobs out there.
JobCentre Plus does not advertise for many "professional" jobs. My recent look at a schools vacancy bulletin revealed more than 100 vacancies in the North West for teaching assistants, from the bottom level 1, to level 4 requiring more qualifications.
The local newspaper has advertised today a large retail unit has just been let to a big retailer and they are now recruiting for about 40 places in the shop - from entry level to management. So, why are people on benefits not applying for these roles?
There are also several ads on the Job centre search results for apprenticeship placements as well, so there are some of those about too.
|
|
|
|
Post by sometime on Jun 29, 2012 18:16:53 GMT
No one has given a solution the obvious one is to maintain the status quo and employ people to route out the scroungers and terminally lazy and then deal with them, Not to stop benefits and create more poverty. There then would be hundreds if not thousands of jobs sorting the situation out and the public purse would be even more stretched. This is an expensive but more humane way of dealing with the situation. It is still taxpayers money
|
|
|
|
Post by taxpayer on Jun 29, 2012 18:17:17 GMT
Are YOU one of them sometime?
They should not have children until they can afford them.simple.
I took my responsibilites seriously when i decided to have children. I had ONE! One i could and can afford ntil she reaches adulthood and makes er own way in life, having been disciplined, taugt morals and how to respect life allround.
|
|
|
|
Post by nia2311 on Jun 29, 2012 18:19:48 GMT
No one has given a solution the obvious one is to maintain the status quo and employ people to route out the scroungers and terminally lazy and then deal with them, Not to stop benefits and create more poverty. There then would be hundreds if not thousands of jobs sorting the situation out and the public purse would be even more stretched. This is an expensive but more humane way of dealing with the situation. It is still taxpayers money I have clearly said I have no idea what the solution is, but I am sure that handing out never ending free money is NOT the way. Sometime - what is your solution? You seem very sure of what you are saying, but never get to the point. If you have a solution, cough it up. And write your idea on a postcard to Mr. D. Cameron, 10 Downing Street, London at the same time...... |
|
|
|
Post by brindlerainbow on Jun 29, 2012 18:26:22 GMT
But my point is if the benefits are stopped then they will have to get jobs as Nia has pointed out there are plenty of jobs around. I am in Devon which is not an an area known for high employment due to it being a largely farming community. I too have just done a search on the job centre website for 15 miles from my postcode and in the last 7 days there have been 13 pages of jobs added which include, drivers - £7.50 an hour, administrators - £6.50, bar/waiting staff - £6.50, cleaners - £6.40 so there are jobs out there for those who want to work but for those who dont well they will continue as they are.....
|
|
|
|
Post by sometime on Jun 29, 2012 18:30:37 GMT
Given above maintain the status quo and employ people to weed out and deal with those scroungers and cheats. If they are genuinely in need stop knocking them
Taxpayer no I have never claimed benefit and neither have any of my family I paid tax and I paid my way but I am lucky to be an extremely well educated and altruistic person I am happy for my taxes to go to support the needy and if a few people twist the system it is up to those policing it to solve those that abuse the system.
|
|
|
|
Post by nia2311 on Jun 29, 2012 18:31:11 GMT
Exactly Brindle, quite right.
Also - if those on benefits are finding CV writing, application forms etc a hard task, then there is PLENTY of free help out there, from the JobCentre, from charities etc. No excuses to not get applying for the 250 multiple adverts within commutable distance from my postcode.
|
|
|
|
Post by sometime on Jun 29, 2012 18:35:18 GMT
Do you know how many applicants these jobs have at last count there were 50 applicants for every job on average in this area which means that the unemployed out number jobs by 50 to one in simple terms, this is obviously not the case as some people will apply for more than one job
|
|
|
|
Post by taxpayer on Jun 29, 2012 18:38:43 GMT
Sometime, it is not just a few that are abusing the system.
I think all of these girls getting pregnant should be made to live with there parents. They would soon learn then!
|
|
|
|
Post by brindlerainbow on Jun 29, 2012 18:39:14 GMT
But Sometime it is not just a few people that are abusing the system!!. I don't know the figures but im sure that there are far more abusing the system than there are genuine people claiming. No one is knocking those in genuine need. If you are happy for your taxes to support the benefit scroungers then you are a better person than me because I certainly don't want my taxes to support the lazy people I would sooner keep the money I pay in taxes for myself because I deserve that money because I work for a living and pay my way. I would quite like to stay at home all day and mess around with my ponies, play with my dogs, visit friends etc but if I do who is going to pay my bills.....
|
|
|
|
Post by nia2311 on Jun 29, 2012 18:39:36 GMT
Do you know how many applicants these jobs have at last count there were 50 applicants for every job on average in this area which means that the unemployed out number jobs by 50 to one in simple terms, this is obviously not the case as some people will apply for more than one job I went to an interview on Tuesday. 6 people were shortlisted on the day for interview, but the man from HR told me there had been over 100 applications, hence the delay from applying to being invited for interview. I didn't get the job, it went to a more experienced teacher. Does that statistic mean I will stop applying? No it will not. Just because lots of people are applying does not mean you should give up and sit on your bum. All the more reason to get help with your CV and application forms to make yourself stand out, and all the more reason to do some voluntary work to gain experience, and not sit at home with 3 cans of lager and Jeremy Kyle on repeat!! Oh, and by the way - this interview was 37 miles from my house. I had to be there at 8.15am. I got out at 3pm, as I made it through to the afternoon "cut" of 3. I got a lift there in the morning, leaving home at 7am, caught a train home, got back at 4.45pm. And that is for an unsuccessful interview Sometime. This is what has to be done to get a job. |
|
|
|
Post by taxpayer on Jun 29, 2012 18:47:06 GMT
I am convinced Sometime you are one of them. You seem to argue out of everyones reply. Like they do about getting of the backside and finding a job but can,t!!
Steralize thhe lot.................... end of!
|
|
It DOES NOT start at school..............it starts at home!
?? Schools are not parents. Schools are primarily there to educate children and set them up for a decent career in whatever they want to do. Parents must step up and take responsibility for their children, end of.