What is your take on benefits?

I read today that a single mother who has 3 children under 16 and unemployed is entitled to a house with no rent to pay, council tax paid and around £1000 in benefits. So in total this is worth about £1600 a month for doing nothing.

Is this fair or unfair in your opinion?

If the system allows it then why not play it?
It's all down to personal morals.

Soul Kitchen wrote:If the system allows it then why not play it?
It's all  down to personal morals.

My question is more about is it right that benefits are this high? I mean what incentive is there to work when you can get the equivalent of £18k in your pocket for doing nothing?

I totally agree with you that if this is on offer - take it.

But with all the cuts in public services, it just seems unreal that someone can claim £18,000 of benefits a year for sitting on their arse.

As I've said a million times on here, people shouldn't have kids unless they can afford them.

If you want to have 3 kids then go ahead, but no way should the state be paying for them.

Michael Bolton wrote:

Soul Kitchen wrote:If the system allows it then why not play it?
It's all  down to personal morals.

My question is more about is it right that benefits are this high? I mean what incentive is there to work when you can get the equivalent of £18k in your pocket for doing nothing?

I totally agree with you that if this is on offer - take it.

But with all the cuts in public services, it just seems unreal that someone can claim £18,000 of benefits a year for sitting on their arse.

Well Mr Cameron has said there'll be a freeze at £23000 on benefits if his monkeys get in, so there's still a bit of slack to take up!!

Natasha Whittam wrote:As I've said a million times on here, people shouldn't have kids unless they can afford them.

If you want to have 3 kids then go ahead, but no way should the state be paying for them.

Many years ago the first child born in every family received no child benefit. Can't remember when it came in for all children, perhaps early seventies?

The welfare state was set up with the aim to 'help people when in need', to tide them over the bad times until things got better for them - to be a safety net in otherwords.

It was never intended for people to permantly 'live' on it.

That's where the problem lays.

People have abused it.

We even have people from abroad coming here just for the welfare benefits - the government is trying to plug that hole but seemingly hasn't yet.


On the other hand it can be argued that by having a welfare state, it as meant that the lower classes (shall we say) have never been so poor or needy as to rise up and overthrow those in charge.

Like always it is those of us in the middle who do go out to work, pay our taxes and save to buy our houses, who make the rich even richer and pay for the underclass to live their lifes on the dole.

Maybe things will be different under UKIP?

Sluffy wrote:The welfare state was set up with the aim to 'help people when in need', to tide them over the bad times until things got better for them - to be a safety net in otherwords.

It was never intended for people to permantly 'live' on it.

That's where the problem lays.

People have abused it.

We even have people from abroad coming here just for the welfare benefits - the government is trying to plug that hole but seemingly hasn't yet.


On the other hand it can be argued that by having a welfare state, it as meant that the lower classes (shall we say) have never been so poor or needy as to rise up and overthrow those in charge.

Like always it is those of us in the middle who do go out to work, pay our taxes and save to buy our houses, who make the rich even richer and pay for the underclass to live their lifes on the dole.

Maybe things will be different under UKIP?

I agree. The benefits system was put into place as a safety net and umbrella for those that needed it most. Unfortunately, it is open to abuse. People will always look for loopholes and ways to make a living by playing the system. It's one of the main reason why the UK is seen as the land of milk of honey by foreigners who can't get wait to get over here so they can sign on the dotted line and start making some money for doing fcuk all.

UKIP will cut sending money to Africa and start looking after our people, benefits should be there for our people in need, and i don't mind helping our own.

The question can be reversed.....

Should pensioners, who receive a private pension, should be allowed to get a state pension and also should the get free public transport travel, free TV licences etc etc etce  In other words no incentive to save for retirement age as it all gets paid!

And lets not forget factually speaking there are far more people in retirement with all benefits given to them than what there is working (and claiming benefits due to employers not paying enough) and those "living" off benefits and also lets not forget that the average benefit a retired person gets is well over the £23,000/annum!!!

So if it is good for the retired, then why is not good enough for everyone else?

My grandad gets a state pension and a private pension and gets around £13000 pa. He paid 10% of his salary into a pension pot for 25 years. Doesn't get any benefits or free licences, gets a bus pass and that's about it. Might need to reach into your fairy tales manual there bwfc71 and check for accuracy. Oh, and he still pays 20% tax after his personal allowances are deducted.

bwfc71 wrote:The question can be reversed.....

Should pensioners, who receive a private pension, should be allowed to get a state pension and also should the get free public transport travel, free TV licences etc etc etce  In other words no incentive to save for retirement age as it all gets paid!

And lets not forget factually speaking there are far more people in retirement with all benefits given to them than what there is working (and claiming benefits due to employers not paying enough) and those "living" off benefits and also lets not forget that the average benefit a retired person gets is well over the £23,000/annum!!!

So if it is good for the retired, then why is not good enough for everyone else?

You bellend. How dare you attack pensioners. I would increase the money we give to the over 65's - too many sit at home staring at four walls because they can't afford to get out.

There shouldn't be any benefits for foreigners and you shouldn't be able to claim benefits for years and years (unless you are disabled).

It's not fooking rocket science.

Nigel will sort it.

Michael Bolton wrote:I read today that a single mother who has 3 children under 16 and unemployed is entitled to a house with no rent to pay, council tax paid and around £1000 in benefits. So in total this is worth about £1600 a month for doing nothing.

Is this fair or unfair in your opinion?

Notwithstanding the debate about "the pride of Britain" i.e. the Welfare State I think you give it away with the spin you put on this and subsequent posts - the bit about "for doing nothing".

Presumably she's bringing up the 3 kids under 16?
I don't think that's doing nothing.

Is it fair that the better off should put money into a pot to look after the less well off in society? Absolutely in my opinion- especially as in some societies they can take it all away from the rich middle class whenever they wish and we're bloody well lucky to be in a society that allows us to make such money in the first place.

Of course the criteria for claiming benefits could be improved and there will always be extreme examples of piss-taking to point at but so what? I'm just grateful to be a member of the only nation in the world (apart from Qatar and a couple of others) that guarantees it's citizens they'll be looked after if they ever become too ill to work, or their kids don't care for them when they are old.

scottjames30 wrote:UKIP will cut sending money to Africa and start looking after our people, benefits should be there for our people in need, and i don't mind helping our own.

I wouldn't disagree that they may cut foreign aid but the rich always look after themselves!
So would Niger look after you do you think? I would say that as a working man, no more than the Grantham Gremlin did.

I don't believe fat people should get a penny though, they're plenty of gyms about, fitness clubs, weight watchers, slimming world, boot camps etc etc.

What i find about these people 98.4% of them are lazy, i think these people are letting the country down, if i give up 8 hrs a week to look after myself, so should they,  ''if not'' give them no money what-so-ever.

That pisses me off, UKIP won't stand for these sort .

Soul Kitchen wrote:
So would Niger look after you do you think?

White84 returns!

scottjames30 wrote:I don't believe fat people should get a penny though, they're plenty of gyms about, fitness clubs, weight watchers, slimming world, boot camps etc etc.

What i find about these people 98.4% of them are lazy, i think these people are letting the country down, if i give up 8 hrs a week to look after myself, so should they,  ''if not'' give them no money what-so-ever.

That pisses me off, UKIP won't stand for these sort .

Just provide every claimant with a treadmill connected to the national grid and adjust their benefits according to how much energy they're willing to put in. Simples.

Jesus.