Benefits Street - Debate! (1 Viewer)

lewys33 · Feb 18, 2014

I have been quite interested in watching the whole Benefits Street series and both debates on channel 5, and channel 4.

I must admit that my opinion has changed. The media portrays the benefits system as just a way to sponge, and as that may be the case for some, it appears to be only small numbers.

First thing I felt when I watched it was anger that my taxes are paying for these people, but then after calming down I thought why am I so bothered? I wouldnt ever want to live in those conditions, so why would it bother me so much?

Benefits isn't the root cause of the problem, take away the benefits and crime rate would soar!

Benefit Fraud counts for less than 1% of the total cost.

Realistically I think the system should change, giving people money gives them freedom to do what they want with it doesn't mean "benefits" to me. However to change to something such as a voucher system or such would mean initially chucking a vast amount of money in to the benefit system, so would it be really be worth it?

Ultimately the benefits system is there as a safety net, but why debate about whether it is ok for someone to get £50 a week or not, when bankers and companies like Amazon are avoiding tax left right and centre!

Cheshire Sky Blue · Feb 18, 2014

Our ability to look compassionately on others less fortunate than ourselves or who have hit hard times is what make's our society what it is and defines our civilisation. I don't begrudge the wealthy their bonuses and big cars, but I do resent it when they portray ordinary people as scroungers and cheats.

bringbackrattles · Feb 18, 2014

lewys33 said:
I have been quite interested in watching the whole Benefits Street series and both debates on channel 5, and channel 4.

I must admit that my opinion has changed. The media portrays the benefits system as just a way to sponge, and as that may be the case for some, it appears to be only small numbers.

First thing I felt when I watched it was anger that my taxes are paying for these people, but then after calming down I thought why am I so bothered? I wouldnt ever want to live in those conditions, so why would it bother me so much?

Benefits isn't the root cause of the problem, take away the benefits and crime rate would soar!

Benefit Fraud counts for less than 1% of the total cost.

Realistically I think the system should change, giving people money gives them freedom to do what they want with it doesn't mean "benefits" to me. However to change to something such as a voucher system or such would mean initially chucking a vast amount of money in to the benefit system, so would it be really be worth it?

Ultimately the benefits system is there as a safety net, but why debate about whether it is ok for someone to get £50 a week or not, when bankers and companies like Amazon are avoiding tax left right and centre!

I haven't watched the programme but obviously have read about it in the papers.I don't like judging people but it seems like many featured on it haven't come across very well.I've been in and out of work myself so have claimed benefits,so know all about the "system." But let's be honest life is tough in work or out,it's all about survival isn't it ?We all get by in our own way,but at the end of the day we all are accountable for our actions.I now work for myself but before that I had to bob and weave if you know what I mean ? What I hate though is the rich looking down on us so called lower class,when many of them are dishonest and crooked,so why not a programme on them then ? RICH STREET !

Sky_Blue_Daz · Feb 21, 2014

I personally think that the working wage is too low. There is a percentage of people who are happy to collect benefits thats up to them but if they get £500 a week some one who works full time should get £700

jimmyhillsfanclub · Feb 21, 2014

Sky_Blue_Daz said:
I personally think that the working wage is too low. They is a percentage of people who are happy to collect benefits thats up to them but if they get £500 a week some one who works full time should get £700

.....All very well in cloud cuckoo land....

....but most small businesses in the UK (the largest employers BTW) would go under if they faced having to increase average pay to their employees by 40%+....

The welfare state was set up to improve the lot of those stricken by poverty, poor health & no education.....

....These days it appears to trap people into poverty, poor health & no education.....and it appears to cost a bomb to do so.

I don't blame the claimants, but something has got to change....the whole system is broken.

Nick · Feb 21, 2014

I do think that benefits should be done with vouchers of some sort rather than cash. I watched a different program that wasn't benefit street, this couple were moaning that they didn't get enough money. They got put into a different council house and the first thing they did was get Virgin round to put the top package in (over £100 a month), they spent about £75 a week on smoking and another £50 on beer yet were fuming because they didn't get enough money.

She was also moaning that for her to get a job she would need to earn £30k to match her benefits.... Why on earth would she go to work and get £13 - £14k working full time if she didn't have to?

I also think child benefits should be stopped after a couple of kids to stop people from firing 10 kids out if they can't afford to support them and provide for them.

Sky_Blue_Daz · Feb 21, 2014

But there should be a incentive for people to get off benefits.I was working in a house recently where the mum was recieving £750 in benefits, she had a council house all the kids had ipods, laptops the lot. £3.000 a month For doing fuck all yet they were laughing at me for doing overtime trying to work to earn an extra few quid, The system is wrong.Although mum and her partner didnt work they both putna good ten hours a day on facebook and xbox respectively

Nick · Feb 21, 2014

Sky_Blue_Daz said:
But there should be a incentive for people to get off benefits.I was working in a house recently where the mum was recieving £750 in benefits, she had a council house all the kids had ipods, laptops the lot. £3.000 a month For doing fuck all yet they were laughing at me for doing overtime trying to work to earn an extra few quid, The system is wrong

Exactly, there isn't any.

I think if they can, they should do unpaid work if they are getting that much in benefits though to earn it so they are getting up and going out and doing something in the habit of working.

Don't get me wrong, a lot of people will be struggling and I do feel for them.

CraigCCFC · Feb 21, 2014

I don't think vouchers is a good idea , maybe not fully anyway , I claimed benefits for around 6 months inbetween leaving the army and finding the job I do .I must also state that when I was in the army even in Iraq I was paying tax still to the UK which I believe is wrong .
on benefits I was getting £75 a week I believe , hardly the 3k monthly most would have you believe , the media has always portrayed the benefits system in the wrong way ,granted there are people who do take the piss , but in reality its less than what people believe it to be.
there is definitely not enough jobs or enough well paid jobs around , lets be honest its easy to say go clean toilets for 5.80 an hour but if tables turned these same people would turn down these exact same jobs .
and also there are big big big earners who also screw the system , whats worse screwing the system out of 75 quid a week or 75k .this argument can last forever but in reality I couldn't care less what others do as long as me ,my kids and family were ok ,im good ....that's the truth

Nick · Feb 21, 2014

CraigCCFC said:
I don't think vouchers is a good idea , maybe not fully anyway , I claimed benefits for around 6 months inbetween leaving the army and finding the job I do .I must also state that when I was in the army even in Iraq I was paying tax still to the UK which I believe is wrong .
on benefits I was getting £75 a week I believe , hardly the 3k monthly most would have you believe , the media has always portrayed the benefits system in the wrong way ,granted there are people who do take the piss , but in reality its less than what people believe it to be.
there is definitely not enough jobs or enough well paid jobs around , lets be honest its easy to say go clean toilets for 5.80 an hour but if tables turned these same people would turn down these exact same jobs .
and also there are big big big earners who also screw the system , whats worse screwing the system out of 75 quid a week or 75k .this argument can last forever but in reality I couldn't care less what others do as long as me ,my kids and family were ok ,im good ....that's the truth

While I would never want a family to go under and not be able to eat, but I would say that benefits should be a last resort after minimum wage jobs in the fact that if it is a choice between benefits or working on minimum wage (but with some sort of term so you can progress onto other jobs like time off for interviews etc).

It would keep people in the routine of going to work as well.

ccfc92 · Feb 22, 2014

You should never be better off on benefits than working. end of.

my parents are in their 40's and I'm 21, so in theory I should fall into the "youth of today category", however they have both been hard working, and I started working from 15 (my own choice), and now currently have a full apprenticeship at a major car dealer under my belt and full time employment.

my point is, if you're parents are "scroungers" then it's highly likely the children will follow suit. Unfortunately.

lewys33 · Feb 24, 2014

I definitely think the media make you focus on a very small area of the benefits system when in reality that is a drop in the ocean.

As much as "scroungers" may piss us all off, it would save us sod all in taxes really if we stopped giving them benefits. It would just push the costs elsewhere!

Colonel Mustard · Feb 24, 2014

ccfc92 said:
my point is, if you're parents are "scroungers" then it's highly likely the children will follow suit. Unfortunately.

Politicians and certain media outlets make these claims in their own interests, but it is baseless for the most part. Take a look at the findings of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/14/worklessness-culture-myth-exposed

Recent surveys suggest that less than 1% of workless households might have two generations who have never worked. Families with three such generations will therefore be even fewer. As Paul Gregg, one of the foremost experts on inter-generational worklessness in the UK has said: "It just doesn't exist on the scale people seem to think it does."

Colonel Mustard · Feb 24, 2014

Sky_Blue_Daz said:
But there should be a incentive for people to get off benefits.I was working in a house recently where the mum was recieving £750 in benefits, she had a council house all the kids had ipods, laptops the lot. £3.000 a month For doing fuck all yet they were laughing at me for doing overtime trying to work to earn an extra few quid, The system is wrong.Although mum and her partner didnt work they both putna good ten hours a day on facebook and xbox respectively

Anecdotal evidence that sounds highly dubious.

But even if we take that anecdotal evidence at face value, it raises some questions. For example, we don't know how much the mum and the partner have worked and contributed in the past; nor do we know how productive the kids could be to the economy precisely because of the support they receive. And their benefits have provided you with work and income, not to mention the sales reps, transportation drivers and manufacturers of the goods that they purchase.

If benefits were really such a paradise, then far more of us would down tools. But instinctively we know that it is not a lifestyle to envy. So why hate as much as we do?

Colin1883 · Feb 24, 2014

Simple take the American system where you can claim benefits for. A maximum period.. Ie 2 years.

Colonel Mustard · Feb 24, 2014

Colin1883 said:
Simple take the American system where you can claim benefits for. A maximum period.. Ie 2 years.

Problematic if the unemployment rate is higher than the number of available jobs. It is also inherently unfair: somebody who has contributed to the welfare pot for 30 years is left as limited as an 18 year old. Then there are the inevitable questions upon expiry of the benefits: do you leave people homeless and starving? do you cut off a person's support as they are in the midst of retraining, etc?

Just to add - you can see some of the limitations of the US system in this Newsnight report of a couple of years ago. Shocking stuff.

[video=youtube;RxiLvrmCrCw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxiLvrmCrCw[/video]

Brighton Sky Blue · Feb 25, 2014

jimmyhillsfanclub said:
.....All very well in cloud cuckoo land....

....but most small businesses in the UK (the largest employers BTW) would go under if they faced having to increase average pay to their employees by 40%+....

The welfare state was set up to improve the lot of those stricken by poverty, poor health & no education.....

....These days it appears to trap people into poverty, poor health & no education.....and it appears to cost a bomb to do so.

I don't blame the claimants, but something has got to change....the whole system is broken.

The government could quite happily subsidise such businesses to offset the increase in costs.

Brighton Sky Blue · Feb 25, 2014

lewys33 said:
I definitely think the media make you focus on a very small area of the benefits system when in reality that is a drop in the ocean.

As much as "scroungers" may piss us all off, it would save us sod all in taxes really if we stopped giving them benefits. It would just push the costs elsewhere!

The real scroungers are the ones sat in Buckingham Palace costing the taxpayer undisclosed amounts a year to live in total luxury. Funnily enough MPs and the media would rather go after small time 'scroungers' instead...

jimmyhillsfanclub · Feb 25, 2014

Brighton Sky Blue said:
The government could quite happily subsidise such businesses to offset the increase in costs.

no it couldn't....

Brighton Sky Blue · Feb 25, 2014

jimmyhillsfanclub said:
no it couldn't....

Why not?

jimmyhillsfanclub · Feb 25, 2014

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Why not?

Because British SME's employ around 15 million people.....

...And the earlier poster suggested increasing all their wages by 40%.....

you do the maths.....

and when your done....add on the cost of increasing the wage of the 6m public sector workers by a similar margin as the poster appeared to advocate ALL workers receiving such a rise in wages....

Brighton Sky Blue · Feb 25, 2014

jimmyhillsfanclub said:
Because British SME's employ around 15 million people.....

...And the earlier poster suggested increasing all their wages by 40%.....

you do the maths.....

and when your done....add on the cost of increasing the wage of the 6m public sector workers by a similar margin as the poster appeared to advocate ALL workers receiving such a rise in wages....

Is a 40% rise what the government are proposing?

jimmyhillsfanclub · Feb 25, 2014

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Is a 40% rise what the government are proposing?

Err...no.

Read the thread & specifically the post I initially responded to....

wingy · Feb 25, 2014

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Is a 40% rise what the government are proposing?

Always thought the tax credit system was an excellent method for growing the jobs market, making low paid work/jobs more attractive,surely must have been a massive aid to employers In keeping their costs low.

Benefits Street - Debate! (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

New Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency