Political rant (4)

Posted by Smartarse on Tue 24 Jan 12, 12:24 AM to Smartarse's blog.

Politics stinks. This business of 'nobody should be getting more in benefits than the average wage' really makes me angry.

Nobody ever sees 26k in benefits. Some of that amount will be national insurance contributions. I very much doubt the DWP sends a cheque to the HMRC. There's no actual money involved, because NI is just a promise to pay out in the future - and that's a goal post that's likely to be moved before anyone gets there. A big chunk of the money is going to be housing benefit which goes straight from government into the pockets of landlords. The reason it's a large chunk is that the place the person getting the benefits lives, is a place a lot of people want to live. ie, it's not crime ridden, has decent schools and transport links and is in close proximity to employment opportunities. Force someone to move to a cheap place and they won't stand a chance of ever getting off benefits and neither will their massive family. What else? Oh yes, council tax benefits. The council chooses not to take a big chunk of money off you - not quite the same as handing you a big wad of notes.

How many people does this affect and what is the saving to the taxpayer? Not a lot, as Paul Daniels used to say. 190 families that have ten children according to the DWP figures quoted on the BBC website. Not exactly the massed ranks of breeding-like-rabbits scroungers that would be needed to make a dent in the government coffers. Half of the families affected live in London, which also happens to be where rents are highest. I'm sick of being taken for an idiot and told to believe people on benefits are evil. They are not evil. They are not even scroungers. They just live in a country where the government continually fails to provide the opportunity to earn a decent living, fails to do anything constructive in the way of creating wealth, allows unfairness and inequality to flourish and blames the poorest, most powerless section of the community for the country's problems. Yeah, we live in a 'broken society' but who broke it? Was it Fred Scroggins from the estate who does nothing but sit around watching telly all day, or was it Giles Pinstrype-Sewt who takes a fat wad for turning up at the town hall every five years?

What makes me most depressed is bloody BBC News, who seem content to swallow this crap and then treat it like it's the truth and not the dogma inspired bullshit it is.

This is all to distract people from the real problems. The country is bankrupt and there's a whole bunch of fat bastards still drawing their own system of benefits who really need to pull their finger out and do some work.

Edited Tue 24 Jan 12, 11:39 PM by Smartarse

Replies

24 Jan 12, 7:16 AM
summberblues
UK(LS), 7 yrs

A couple of things,from what I know and correct me if i am wrong the government used to pay the landlords direct but not anymore, they pay the tennant, then the landlord has to get the money from the tennant.

Secondly why do you think the government should provide a decent living for everybody......... a decent living and job is there for those who work hard all through their lives. It should be the same for having children a privalage not a right. Why should the taxpayer pay for somebody who has no intention of working just so they can have kids. Why in this day and age should somebody have 6 kids.

Maybe the government should bring in laws for restricting who has children and the number of children. Always makes me think of a stroy my mum told me while she was a teacher. One of her fellow teachers had a child and was struggling to buy buggies etc, as she was working she wasnt entitled to handouts, but the woman who had no intention of working was pushing her children around in the latest mama and papas buggy. How is the right?

24 Jan 12, 9:29 AM
tangendentalism
UK(RG), 17 mths

Nothing to add; just want to note my agreement.

In the end, nothing you do matters. All that matters is what you do.

24 Jan 12, 11:40 PM
Smartarse
UK(CM), 7 yrs

People can reply - I just failed to tick all the boxes to set them visible to start with. Things never used to be this complicated..

24 Jan 12, 11:57 PM
Smartarse
UK(CM), 7 yrs

summberblues wrote:
A couple of things,from what I know and correct me if i am wrong the government used to pay the landlords direct but not anymore, they pay the tennant, then the landlord has to get the money from the tennant.

Maybe. You're implying that because the money passes through the hands of the claimant it's somehow different?

summberblues wrote:
Secondly why do you think the government should provide a decent living for everybody......... a decent living and job is there for those who work hard all through their lives. It should be the same for having children a privalage not a right. Why should the taxpayer pay for somebody who has no intention of working just so they can have kids. Why in this day and age should somebody have 6 kids.

The figures on the BBC website - supplied by the DWP - show that the basic benefits for a family are roughly the same nomatter how many children they have. The difference comes from child benefit which is effectively paid to the individual child. So if you think of benefits going to people rather than families it makes more sense. Of course kids don't have bank accounts and don't usually buy their own food and clothes so it goes to a parent.

summberblues wrote:

Would you ever want to exchange places with someone who doesn't have the means to support themselves? In the long run the young struggling teacher would have far more life opportunities than the benefit supported woman due to her education and background. Is that also not right?