General election/Brexit/politics

Or people speaking from personal experience ? I have a sister in law whose brother has never worked, had kids whilst on benefits on the basis of working out what they were entitled to having never contributed. Kid 1 now has 2 kids of her own to separate dads and lives of benefits, he lives in a shitoil in Toll Bar still sponging off the rest of us now a druggie. Doubtless his daughters kids will be brought up to claim and live off the rest of us rather than working. Stinks but there are plenty of bleeding hearts willing to keep doling it out to them whilst labelling those of us who object to it as nazis. But you know best nip dont you.

 

I never suggested it was great that some abuse the system.
I’d ask you though; how would you create a fair system that helps those genuinely in need without it being open to abuse?
And why do you care more about people who abuse the taxpayer for thousands in benefit but don’t care about those who abuse us for millions in tax?

and for a rounded picture I spent a small amount of time on benefit, it was tough to make ends meet, Not the life of Riley many believe.

 

Why is it always the young mothers getting the stick? It takes two to produce a child and actually, going back hundreds of years, women have always had lots of children whilst young and didn’t work. Looking after that many kids is a full time job. My parents are both 1 of 4 and their mums didn’t work in paid employment full time, or at all whilst they were growing up.

 

The amount of benefits paid out to people incorrectly (i.e. deliberate fraud, or accidental over payment) is dwarfed by the amount of benefits underpaid to qualifying recipients. I believe the figure was around £8 not paid for every £1 overpaid, but that was a few years ago.

 

Unfortunately those figures mean nothing to the likes of Trixie, because Trixie has his own internal view of who should be entitled, so you and I who believe that the rules should be adhered to are out of touch.

Trixie wants the right to decide who’s ‘genuine’, the law isn’t good enough for him.

 

And whats wrong with that Donny ? Those out of work due to illness/incapacity no problemo. Everyone else should carry out a given number of hours of community based work whilst receiving help from the state until they find another job, those with no intention of finding work would at least be of some use to society through community work. No work done,no benefits paid. Simple as that

 

But a significant difference is that the dad would have worked and supported the family not the taxpayer (know loads of single - mum's who have and do work and would accept no other way btw )

 

Your first sentence is sort of my point. Why is it the mums getting targeted when they are doing the same as women did in the past but the dad who would have gone out to support the family is no longer doing what has long been expected of him? I don’t actually believe in that’s how it should be but if people are going to single out just one of the parents for their ire then why choose the mum who’s looking after the kids all day every day? What’s dad doing? It certainly makes it harder to work when childcare costs more than minimum wage brings in unless you have family to help.

 

Accepting once more that only you are capable of judging who is 'deserving'...

So in your ideal world businesses would be further encouraged to get even more free labour paid for by your taxes (whilst further cutting down the number of paid jobs available to the unemployed).

You really are the picture of generosity when it comes to the already wealthy, whilst being happy to see those already in poverty starve to death.

 

So take some responsibility and dont get up the duff and expect the rest of us to pay for it !?

 

Wow.
So a pregnancy is the sole responsibility of the woman.

That alone should sum you up to the rest of the world. I think we're done here

 

Who said it was ??

 

Where did I say businesses would get free labour ?? Can you not stop the happy clapping for a second so you can see the screen ?! In my ideal world benefits claimants would be required to undertake a set amount if community work. This could be anything from helping out at charities to assisting old folk with their shopping what its not is hanging around the town centre all day tormenting decent folk. No work no money. Easy.

 

You’re missing my point of why is it only the woman, who happens to be the one bringing up the ‘4 or more kids’, being targeted? Both parents are responsible. Also, for all people know, the woman could have been financially secure and then circumstances changed over time.

 

I do sometimes wonder if you understand half the stuff you post, let alone anyone else.

Just so you get it 'men' don't get 'up the duff' just women.

Maybe it's time for your dad to give you that talk.

 

I pehaps worded it badly. My point was the amount of families who do not work live on hand outs and assisted housing etc. In my area I know families 3 to 4 generations who all have just used the system.

 

Here...

 

I sometimes wonder if you ever consider responding to what I post rather than what you think I post.

 

The way I read it, the state was getting the free labour, not companies per se

 

Again, where does that say businesses would get free labour ???????? The clue is in the phrase community work. As in contributing rather than just taking.