Jimbo 133 Posted July 24, 2007 Author Share Posted July 24, 2007 They didn't have to bring 12 kids into the world though. They are lucky to get the pittance they do, most of us who know we can't afford something don't go and do it anyway! But its more advantageous to have 12 kids that to work for a living !! thats whats fucking wrong !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Regardless of circumstance, when it becomes more advantageous to take from society than to contribute, I believe it to be wrong. "I did this for ten weeks and at that time my housing benefit was cut from £1600 to £800 a month so it just didn't make sense for me to carry on working." So a cut in benefits is what stopped him working in the first place. Reinstate that benefit and it'll move another group of people into a position where working isn't cost effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottish Mag 3 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 If you can't live on £24k a year don't have 12 kids ! simple as that. Aye thats where I must be going wrong. I want kids but have not yet as I went back to education and now I am saving for a house etc. I should have just had them and not bothered going back to Uni and getting a half decent job. I should have just had some and let every other fucker pay for them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 133 Posted July 24, 2007 Author Share Posted July 24, 2007 Regardless of circumstance, when it becomes more advantageous to take from society than to contribute, I believe it to be wrong. "I did this for ten weeks and at that time my housing benefit was cut from £1600 to £800 a month so it just didn't make sense for me to carry on working." So a cut in benefits is what stopped him working in the first place. Reinstate that benefit and it'll move another group of people into a position where working isn't cost effective. So its fair on society that it becomes better to be unemployed than to be earning your way ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus 0 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 (edited) Regardless of circumstance, when it becomes more advantageous to take from society than to contribute, I believe it to be wrong. "I did this for ten weeks and at that time my housing benefit was cut from £1600 to £800 a month so it just didn't make sense for me to carry on working." So a cut in benefits is what stopped him working in the first place. Reinstate that benefit and it'll move another group of people into a position where working isn't cost effective. So its fair on society that it becomes better to be unemployed than to be earning your way ? What I'm saying is that there is no all encompassing perfect solution where everyone would be better off working. Having 12 kids is crazy, but I'd have thought non working families with one kid get a comparable amount, what I mean is it's not like the amount you receive increases exponentially with every child. Edited July 24, 2007 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 133 Posted July 24, 2007 Author Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? Look at the example they are being set !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? If I understand you right, you're saying we should ensure these kids don't sink into a life of poverty, benefit claiming or even worse criminality. And the way to do that is to provide the best that we, as a society, can for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus 0 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? Look at the example they are being set !!! i know!!! but thats 12 future contributing members of society that could either be brought up to expect everything from the state or to provide for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus 0 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? If I understand you right, you're saying we should ensure these kids don't sink into a life of poverty, benefit claiming or even worse criminality. And the way to do that is to provide the best that we, as a society, can for them. In essence yes. Educate the 'state pays for all' mentality out of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 133 Posted July 24, 2007 Author Share Posted July 24, 2007 Was JFK wrong when he said: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Was JFK wrong when he said: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. He was spot on. So anyone who is able to should contribute to lift the poorest members of society out of poverty. In turn, those people will be in a better position to contribute themselves....rather than turning to crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 133 Posted July 24, 2007 Author Share Posted July 24, 2007 Was JFK wrong when he said: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. He was spot on. So anyone who is able to should contribute to lift the poorest members of society out of poverty. In turn, those people will be in a better position to contribute themselves....rather than turning to crime. In my opinion, anyone that can sit on there arse and do fuck all and draw that kind of income is as much of a criminal as someone walking into a bank with a gun and saying "stickem up". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Couples shouldn't be having 12 kids unless they can afford them, simple as that really. I wouldn't want laws to prevent people doing that though, I just think it's selfish and probably prevents you from giving enough attention to the kids too. Nice to see the Daily Mail widening their remit too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 133 Posted July 24, 2007 Author Share Posted July 24, 2007 Couples shouldn't be having 12 kids unless they can afford them, simple as that really. I wouldn't want laws to prevent people doing that though, I just think it's selfish and probably prevents you from giving enough attention to the kids too. Nice to see the Daily Mail widening their remit too. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Was JFK wrong when he said: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. He was spot on. So anyone who is able to should contribute to lift the poorest members of society out of poverty. In turn, those people will be in a better position to contribute themselves....rather than turning to crime. In my opinion, anyone that can sit on there arse and do fuck all and draw that kind of income is as much of a criminal as someone walking into a bank with a gun and saying "stickem up". Honestly? How much does a jobless single parent with one child receive a week these days? As I said, I reckon it would be comparable. Is it a crime that they get that money? I think the issue here is not the money they're receiving, but the fact that they keep having kids. I can't see a viable solution to that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 133 Posted July 24, 2007 Author Share Posted July 24, 2007 Was JFK wrong when he said: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. He was spot on. So anyone who is able to should contribute to lift the poorest members of society out of poverty. In turn, those people will be in a better position to contribute themselves....rather than turning to crime. In my opinion, anyone that can sit on there arse and do fuck all and draw that kind of income is as much of a criminal as someone walking into a bank with a gun and saying "stickem up". Honestly? How much does a jobless single parent with one child receive a week these days? As I said, I reckon it would be comparable. Is it a crime that they get that money? I think the issue here is not the money they're receiving, but the fact that they keep having kids. I can't see a viable solution to that though. We aren't talking about a single parent in this case, the solution would be getting off your arse and finding a job, or keeping your cock in your pants and not having 12 kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Apart from the issue of the money I doubt the kids get the attention they deserve from their parents either purely down to the amount of them their is, making the parents even more selfish in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordieboyo 0 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Firstly Why the hell are they receiving job seekers allowance? Secondly (and I will appear a cruel hearted bugger here) Imo the state should be there to suport those who can either (a) not help themselves (i.e genuinely disabled) or those who have fallen on hard times but have the intention to help themselves (i.e those who have been made redundant or have been unsucsessul in securing employment but do their level best to get work). If you have no intention of contributing in the future and are physically able to then you should be penalised for not working. No cash handouts, give them food vouchers which will allow the purchase of supermarket own brand foods and not cigarettes or alcohol. Clothes vouchers should be given which are sufficient to clothe a family, but not in designer clothes. I bet this family have sky, probably the full package, noticed the Manu and England shirts there. If you are on £33 per week you should not be spending £40 on a t-shirt. Its grotesque. The system should be geared to getting people back into work (I don't know maybe sponsoring a company to take on a job seeker for a year - the company pays NI as if a wage was paid and has to provide full trainging for the role and if the employee is competent after 12 months a fixed contract should be mandatory. The state can pay for the wage and subsidise the training - win win). Rant over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Was JFK wrong when he said: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. He was spot on. So anyone who is able to should contribute to lift the poorest members of society out of poverty. In turn, those people will be in a better position to contribute themselves....rather than turning to crime. In my opinion, anyone that can sit on there arse and do fuck all and draw that kind of income is as much of a criminal as someone walking into a bank with a gun and saying "stickem up". Honestly? How much does a jobless single parent with one child receive a week these days? As I said, I reckon it would be comparable. Is it a crime that they get that money? I think the issue here is not the money they're receiving, but the fact that they keep having kids. I can't see a viable solution to that though. We aren't talking about a single parent in this case, the solution would be getting off your arse and finding a job, or keeping your cock in your pants and not having 12 kids. I completely agree that it's selfish to have that many kids, but the bloke was off his arse working...until a cut in his benefit meant being jobless benefited his family more. And not shagging isn't really something we can legislate for. The daily mail making hate figures of them might give them the sharp shock they need to stop knocking out sprogs, but the fact that they're now hate figures seems unfair to me when they're only scroungers as much as any other jobless individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 133 Posted July 24, 2007 Author Share Posted July 24, 2007 Firstly Why the hell are they receiving job seekers allowance? Secondly (and I will appear a cruel hearted bugger here) Imo the state should be there to suport those who can either (a) not help themselves (i.e genuinely disabled) or those who have fallen on hard times but have the intention to help themselves (i.e those who have been made redundant or have been unsucsessul in securing employment but do their level best to get work). If you have no intention of contributing in the future and are physically able to then you should be penalised for not working. No cash handouts, give them food vouchers which will allow the purchase of supermarket own brand foods and not cigarettes or alcohol. Clothes vouchers should be given which are sufficient to clothe a family, but not in designer clothes. I bet this family have sky, probably the full package, noticed the Manu and England shirts there. If you are on £33 per week you should not be spending £40 on a t-shirt. Its grotesque. The system should be geared to getting people back into work (I don't know maybe sponsoring a company to take on a job seeker for a year - the company pays NI as if a wage was paid and has to provide full trainging for the role and if the employee is competent after 12 months a fixed contract should be mandatory. The state can pay for the wage and subsidise the training - win win). Rant over Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Firstly Why the hell are they receiving job seekers allowance? Secondly (and I will appear a cruel hearted bugger here) Imo the state should be there to suport those who can either (a) not help themselves (i.e genuinely disabled) or those who have fallen on hard times but have the intention to help themselves (i.e those who have been made redundant or have been unsucsessul in securing employment but do their level best to get work). If you have no intention of contributing in the future and are physically able to then you should be penalised for not working. No cash handouts, give them food vouchers which will allow the purchase of supermarket own brand foods and not cigarettes or alcohol. Clothes vouchers should be given which are sufficient to clothe a family, but not in designer clothes. I bet this family have sky, probably the full package, noticed the Manu and England shirts there. If you are on £33 per week you should not be spending £40 on a t-shirt. Its grotesque. The system should be geared to getting people back into work (I don't know maybe sponsoring a company to take on a job seeker for a year - the company pays NI as if a wage was paid and has to provide full trainging for the role and if the employee is competent after 12 months a fixed contract should be mandatory. The state can pay for the wage and subsidise the training - win win). Rant over How to encourage crime in 3 simple steps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 (edited) Doubt it'll make any difference to their attitude in all honesty. He's probably impregnating her as we speak. He should have to have the snip or his benefits should be cut (pun intended). Edit: The article in The Daily Mail that is. Edited July 24, 2007 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 133 Posted July 24, 2007 Author Share Posted July 24, 2007 Firstly Why the hell are they receiving job seekers allowance? Secondly (and I will appear a cruel hearted bugger here) Imo the state should be there to suport those who can either (a) not help themselves (i.e genuinely disabled) or those who have fallen on hard times but have the intention to help themselves (i.e those who have been made redundant or have been unsucsessul in securing employment but do their level best to get work). If you have no intention of contributing in the future and are physically able to then you should be penalised for not working. No cash handouts, give them food vouchers which will allow the purchase of supermarket own brand foods and not cigarettes or alcohol. Clothes vouchers should be given which are sufficient to clothe a family, but not in designer clothes. I bet this family have sky, probably the full package, noticed the Manu and England shirts there. If you are on £33 per week you should not be spending £40 on a t-shirt. Its grotesque. The system should be geared to getting people back into work (I don't know maybe sponsoring a company to take on a job seeker for a year - the company pays NI as if a wage was paid and has to provide full trainging for the role and if the employee is competent after 12 months a fixed contract should be mandatory. The state can pay for the wage and subsidise the training - win win). Rant over How to encourage crime in 3 simple steps. If they commit crimes, prosecute them like you or I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordieboyo 0 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Firstly Why the hell are they receiving job seekers allowance? Secondly (and I will appear a cruel hearted bugger here) Imo the state should be there to suport those who can either (a) not help themselves (i.e genuinely disabled) or those who have fallen on hard times but have the intention to help themselves (i.e those who have been made redundant or have been unsucsessul in securing employment but do their level best to get work). If you have no intention of contributing in the future and are physically able to then you should be penalised for not working. No cash handouts, give them food vouchers which will allow the purchase of supermarket own brand foods and not cigarettes or alcohol. Clothes vouchers should be given which are sufficient to clothe a family, but not in designer clothes. I bet this family have sky, probably the full package, noticed the Manu and England shirts there. If you are on £33 per week you should not be spending £40 on a t-shirt. Its grotesque. The system should be geared to getting people back into work (I don't know maybe sponsoring a company to take on a job seeker for a year - the company pays NI as if a wage was paid and has to provide full trainging for the role and if the employee is competent after 12 months a fixed contract should be mandatory. The state can pay for the wage and subsidise the training - win win). Rant over How to encourage crime in 3 simple steps. I never claimed to hve all the answers! Just some ideas (of which I concede some are unworkable and have undesireable side effects, but its a starting platform) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now