AlanHo Posted August 29, 2008 Report Share Posted August 29, 2008 Read this article - a stark example of how the UK benefit system is a shamblesRead this and tut like mad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rong Posted August 29, 2008 Report Share Posted August 29, 2008 First she shouldn't have got the overdraft to buy things for the baby and she shouldn't have had the children if she couldn't afford them, saying that the system is very wrong, but not as wrong as her. We had to manage on what we earned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irene Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 I just read through quite a number of the answers to that article in the Sun. The mind just boggles!When I had my children, my husband was an apprentice at English Electric, earning £10 a week. OK I know that £10 forty years ago is not in present day values, but believe me it was not very much.We never expected all of these benefits. I worked almost until the end of my pregnancy. Then afterwards I didn't go back to my normal full time employment, but went out in the evenings, when my husband come home from work, doing 'Party Plan' selling. That was how I subsidised the household income. We didn't have our own home to begin with, we lived with my husband's uncle who had recently been widowed. So I was basically a substitute housekeeper too!! We just did what we had to do.I certainly think that the benefit system needs a thorough overhaul, but far too many people see it as an alternative income, to be manipulated. If there were some way to remove all of the inappropriate and fraudulent claims, there would very likely be sufficient left for those who truly need it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artist Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 First she shouldn't have got the overdraft to buy things for the baby and she shouldn't have had the children if she couldn't afford them, saying that the system is very wrong, but not as wrong as her. We had to manage on what we earned.That's a bit short sighted.Today is very different to years ago - and don't call them the good old days because for some of us it was a miserable life with very little money - we both worked but it was impossible to get money from anywhere unless you already had it in the bank. (well, maybe from loan sharks - a fools way)The point that person was making - well it seemed to me - was that she'd be better off relying on the 'system' to support her, which it would - if she was a single mother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 First she shouldn't have got the overdraft to buy things for the baby and she shouldn't have had the children if she couldn't afford them, saying that the system is very wrong, but not as wrong as her. We had to manage on what we earned.I agree 100%. We waited until we could afford children before we started a family. I just read through quite a number of the answers to that article in the Sun. The mind just boggles!When I had my children, my husband was an apprentice at English Electric, earning £10 a week. OK I know that £10 forty years ago is not in present day values, but believe me it was not very much.We never expected all of these benefits. I worked almost until the end of my pregnancy. Then afterwards I didn't go back to my normal full time employment, but went out in the evenings, when my husband come home from work, doing 'Party Plan' selling. That was how I subsidised the household income. We didn't have our own home to begin with, we lived with my husband's uncle who had recently been widowed. So I was basically a substitute housekeeper too!! We just did what we had to do.I certainly think that the benefit system needs a thorough overhaul, but far too many people see it as an alternative income, to be manipulated. If there were some way to remove all of the inappropriate and fraudulent claims, there would very likely be sufficient left for those who truly need it.We lived with my mother and paid rent while we saved a deposit for a house. When we moved in we had an old dining table and four chairs given to us by my granddad. A small transistor radio. A very cheap three piece suite and a lounge carpet, and a very very cheap bedroom suite. No other carpets, and no TV set. We saved for what we wanted, and definitely would NEVER have considered an over daft. Some people expect it all laid on for them. I notice that they can afford several hundred pounds for a computer. Child allowance was only paid for the second child. No maternity benefit and paid maternity or paternity leave. The important thing was that we were very happy and looked forward to eventually working our way to being gradually better off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rong Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 First she shouldn't have got the overdraft to buy things for the baby and she shouldn't have had the children if she couldn't afford them, saying that the system is very wrong, but not as wrong as her. We had to manage on what we earned.That's a bit short sighted.Today is very different to years ago - and don't call them the good old days because for some of us it was a miserable life with very little money - we both worked but it was impossible to get money from anywhere unless you already had it in the bank. (well, maybe from loan sharks - a fools way)The point that person was making - well it seemed to me - was that she'd be better off relying on the 'system' to support her, which it would - if she was a single mother.But just because it's on offer doesn't mean you need to get in debt over your head, I am not in debt and have no money we rent and my wife works we pay taxes on everything that is squandered by every person that gets hold of it, including the person that wrote the letter. Even in this day and age you do not have to be Lemmings.PS I will not call them the good old days, and I will not call these the good new days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanHo Posted August 30, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 Do please stop it you lot. It is breaking my heart reading all these tales of deprivation and struggle. I had such a poor start in life complete with non-benefit suffering it does my 'ed in to think about it.I can't add much more to this thread because I havn't got the time - it's my turn to spend hours in the kitchen putting lumps in the gravy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 Do please stop it you lot. It is breaking my heart reading all these tales of deprivation and struggle. I had such a poor start in life complete with non-benefit suffering it does my 'ed in to think about it.I can't add much more to this thread because I havn't got the time - it's my turn to spend hours in the kitchen putting lumps in the gravy.Gravy at this time of day???? :lol: :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irene Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 Do please stop it you lot. It is breaking my heart reading all these tales of deprivation and struggle. I had such a poor start in life complete with non-benefit suffering it does my 'ed in to think about it.You started it! Don't post provocative threads if you don't want to hear the answers.Mine wasn't a tale of deprivation. It was stating that we just got on with it, instead of looking to others to support us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catgate Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 There is an extremely serious side to this issue, that is being brought to it's ultimate conclusion. An issue that was never taken into account (if it was ever considered in the first place). It must, however, have been realised by some people in government over the years, hence the mad insane need to maintain "population growth" by what ever means possible.Currently, according to the latest figures, approximatly 25% of the population of working age is unemployed. The figure for the percentage of the working population currently employed "in the public sector" is 30%. That means that only 50% of the population engaged in "creating" wealth. This figure is reduced still further when one looks at several areas of the the "private sector" that are supporting the public sector (e.g. "outsourcing" services, consultancies, auditors, etc gobbling up billion upon billion of pounds).As a result of this, the wealth, created by the efforts of 50% of the population, is having to support the entire population. This rediculous situation is exacerbated by the fact that a good proportion of this wealth is shipped out into other countries, either by the by the companies which own the wealth making operations, or by subterfuges used by UK companies to avoid taxes. Of the wealth that does not get "exported" a significant quantity goes in "bonuses" to non productive "fat cats", who again manage to "off shore" much of it.So less than the earnings of 50% of the population is having to "keep" the entire population, finance any hare brained whim of the Westminster Asylum. and have some left over for giving out to any passing dictator, or fighting other people's wars, or interfering in other countries affairs or even shoring up the odd bank or two that falls on hard times.How will any conventional government disengage itself from this ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 Very true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.