Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp (Post 467472)

Originally Posted by churchfcrules (Post 467471)

struggling? strange term to use, since it is a comment placed on a local forum, not that i am actually writing a manifesto here or anything!

even though when questioned, i did supply examples

but i am sure if i was to actually canvas the populous, genuine worthwhile causes could be found, the loose term of worthwhile causes should be more than ample to cover a hyperthetical argument, dont you think

as far the current CAB and help the aged, i gaurantee if you were to call either of these organisations this minute and state you wish to donate some of your time they would readily accept.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 467474)

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally against people using the benefit system as a career option. Leave school, get banged up, and spend the next God know's how many years popping out sprogs and claiming benefit, who'll then carry on the family tradition themselved at the earliest age possible.

I do however disagree with your suggestion of making those genuine claimants 'work' for their money. To suggest that those who are unwell enough to do a real job, should be employed by the state in some sort of pseudo employment, is both unworkable and totally alien to a free market economy, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by churchfcrules (Post 467477)

so you would agree that those eclaiming the absurdly named job seekers allowance should be forced to earn the money they claim?

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 467482)

I'd overall the current benefit system by scrapping the non-means tested child benefit.

For someone who had four children that would save £54.40 per week, or £2,828.80 a year.;)

Originally Posted by churchfcrules (Post 467473)

what wages?

they are already getting the money thats the whole point!

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 467480)

No I think those seeking employment should spend their time being encouraged to get an actual job as quickly as possible, and not be farting about doing pretend work.

Something that seems to be happening, according to the government's figures posted earlier in the thread.

Originally Posted by churchfcrules (Post 467492)

i was read a report years ago that stated the reason that means tested child benefit has not been overhauled, is due to the more wealthier parents dont actually claim the benefit anyway, wether this is still the case i do not know, but why is everyone perfectlly happy to scrap a benefit for children, irrelevant of their income, but more than happy to allow malingerers carry on taking state handouts.
also one of my main arguements for forcing the unemployed to work, is that the majority would rather take a real job paying minimum wage than do 40 hours for no extra, plus those working whilst claiming simply couldnt do it.

just as a real job, if the person in question had an interview of course they could attend.

if you agree that the present system is flawed, and is being played by unscrupilious individuals, then change the system, as i said earlier there is no stigma with being on benefits, if there was more people would try harder to get off them,
or better still let all the bleeding hearts have their way and we will all have a pretend illness, claim benefits, let the insurance cover the cost of our mortgage and credit card bills, receive a car insurance and tax paid with regular services thrown in, oh but hang on who would be left to pay the bill no-one, or do you have enough faith in your fellow man that they wouldnt do it, cause i dont sorry!

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 467500)

As someone who stated in another thread that he was a father of four, and by your own admission you're someone who thinks people should 'earn' their benefits, do you also think that perhaps children who receive child benefit should actually work for it as well, perhaps after school and at weekends, as you suggest other claimants should?

If so, my chimney needs sweeping.

Originally Posted by churchfcrules (Post 467504)

2)the last time i looked the child is not the recipient of the benefit the parent is.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 467507)

Well are you suggesting parents should work for this non-means tested, tax free benefit, as you suggest other claimants should?

If so, I have rather a large chimney, adult as well as child size.

Originally Posted by churchfcrules (Post 467492)

but why is everyone perfectlly happy to scrap a benefit for children, irrelevant of their income, but more than happy to allow malingerers carry on taking state handouts.
also one of my main arguements for forcing the unemployed to work, is that the majority would rather take a real job paying minimum wage than do 40 hours for no extra, plus those working whilst claiming simply couldnt do it.

just as a real job, if the person in question had an interview of course they could attend.

if you agree that the present system is flawed, and is being played by unscrupilious individuals, then change the system, as i said earlier there is no stigma with being on benefits, if there was more people would try harder to get off them,
or better still let all the bleeding hearts have their way and we will all have a pretend illness, claim benefits, let the insurance cover the cost of our mortgage and credit card bills, receive a car insurance and tax paid with regular services thrown in, oh but hang on who would be left to pay the bill no-one, or do you have enough faith in your fellow man that they wouldnt do it, cause i dont sorry!

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 467513)

Ok, so you are picking and choosing which benefit claimants should actually have to 'earn' that benefit, as you suggested.

Enough said.