Child benefit cuts

[TurquoiseSunset]

I read this article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2225987/In-furious-attack-Governments-child-benefit-cuts-Angela-Epstein-writes-It-s-outrageous-My-family-losing-child-benefit-just-earning-100k.html) in the Daily Mail this morning and the woman's opinion on the subject really irritated me. How can someone who, combined with her husband, earns over 100 000 pounds a year expect the government to give them child benefits? Surely they have more than enough to cover all their expenses and more?

Am I missing something?

[LitNetIsGreat]

I just think you have fell into the trap of reading the Daily Mail. :nono: Avoid!

[cafolini]

I read this article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2225987/In-furious-attack-Governments-child-benefit-cuts-Angela-Epstein-writes-It-s-outrageous-My-family-losing-child-benefit-just-earning-100k.html) in the Daily Mail this morning and the woman's opinion on the subject really irritated me. How can someone who, combined with her husband, earns over 100 000 pounds a year expect the government to give them child benefits? Surely they have more than enough to cover all their expenses and more?

Am I missing something?

There are people like that, but they are exceptions from a statistical point of view. Not many make over 100,000. They have no effect over the overall system. The mongers, however, stupidly base their judgement on it.

[TurquoiseSunset]

I know, I know...but still. It bugs me that there are people like that out there who think like that. It's sad that someone so priviledged still feels entitled to state support. I shouldn't be surprised by that kind of attitude though, should I.

[Alexander III]

Ahh england!!! Where benefits are used to purchase Sky plus and I-phones. Because those are necessities after all.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Ahh england!!! Where benefits are used to purchase Sky plus and I-phones. Because those are necessities after all.

:lol:

I watched this documentary the other day about the police in Blackpool (horrible place) where is showed lines of people queuing up outside cash machines at 11.59pm waiting for 'pay day' as they called it. Unbelievable. Most of it was going to be used to spend on booze immediately. And I can bet you most of those people possess giant 75in plasma 3DHD TVs as well.

[Emil Miller]

:lol:

I watched this documentary the other day about the police in Blackpool (horrible place) where is showed lines of people queuing up outside cash machines at 11.59pm waiting for 'pay day' as they called it. Unbelievable. Most of it was going to be used to spend on booze immediately. And I can bet you most of those people possess giant 75in plasma 3DHD TVs as well.

Child benefit cuts aren't the only signs that the chickens are coming home to roost. The sale of New Scotland Yard is on the list of police savings, Admiralty Arch is being sold to a Spaniard to be turned into a hotel, and Branston Pickle has just been sold to the Japanese. Watch this space.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

And I can bet you most of those people possess giant 75in plasma 3DHD TVs as well.

Sure you can, but that doesn't mean you'd win the bet.

I don't really see the big deal over people lining up waiting for their money. Maybe they need it? Is that even a possibility?

We ha e the same problems here in the US, people on welfare who are mooching off the system, but I think the assumptions as to how many are actually taking advantage of the system are overblown. Most of these people really do need help, and most aren't driving around in fancy cars and watching giant TVs. Plus, cellphones are almost a necessity now--maybe not iPhones, but cellphones in general are.

One of our states--Florida I think--made all welfare recipients take a drug test, thinking that they were going to "catch" a bunch of people, since everyone assumes people on welfare do drugs. Something like 95% of the people passed. :lol: It's also ironic that these people had to get drug tested in order to receive government money . . . but do the lawmakers that made the law have to? Of course not.

[Paulclem]

Sure you can, but that doesn't mean you'd win the bet.

I don't really see the big deal over people lining up waiting for their money. Maybe they need it? Is that even a possibility?

We ha e the same problems here in the US, people on welfare who are mooching off the system, but I think the assumptions as to how many are actually taking advantage of the system are overblown. Most of these people really do need help, and most aren't driving around in fancy cars and watching giant TVs. Plus, cellphones are almost a necessity now--maybe not iPhones, but cellphones in general are.

One of our states--Florida I think--made all welfare recipients take a drug test, thinking that they were going to "catch" a bunch of people, since everyone assumes people on welfare do drugs. Something like 95% of the people passed. :lol: It's also ironic that these people had to get drug tested in order to receive government money . . . but do the lawmakers that made the law have to? Of course not.

Quite right mate. Unfortunately, comfortable nay sayers seem to congregate on threads like this ready to take a pop at those less fortunate. Of course it's the fault of those on benefits - it's only a recession, of course there are people playing the system and giving everyone a bad name - they're all like that aren't they?

I can tell you that when my dad was unemployed, we ran out of everything - flour, everything, and we were waiting for the postman with the giro cheque to take round to the post office and cash it and buy something for breakfast - and we would have been down at a cashpoint to collect the money - absolutely no doubt about it. It makes me laugh when people who have never had to wait for the next few pounds start criticising.

As for child benefit, it has been a bone of contention that people over a certain amount should qualify as well as those considerably well off. I'm not concerned that people on £50,000 a year are going to lose it. They are not living on the breadline, and they make me laugh when they try to make the case that they are going to suffer.

[BienvenuJDC]

Yes, and 85% of all statistics are made up.

[Delta40]

This thread brings to mind this quote:

Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed.

Herman Melville

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

This thread brings to mind this quote:

Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed.

Herman Melville
Love it. Going on FB.

[OrphanPip]

I sometimes assist my brother in his management of a large apartment complex here in Montreal. We have many tenants on welfare or some other form of assistance, but few of them seem to have big screen TVs. Usually, when I have to go into the poorer tenants apartments they don't even own beds or a kitchen table, they live on a communal mattress in a 1 bedroom apartment. Where would they put the big screen if they had it?

[Volya]

I have no problem with people who actually need benefits getting them, I think they do deserve it. However what I don't like is the fact that there are people who are simply to lazy to work and just scrounge off the tax-payers money. I know this is probably a very small minority, but it still pisses me off.

[Emil Miller]

I have no problem with people who actually need benefits getting them, I think they do deserve it. However what I don't like is the fact that there are people who are simply to lazy to work and just scrounge off the tax-payers money. I know this is probably a very small minority, but it still pisses me off.

It pisses me off too, but Hey! Isn't this the INCLUSIVE society?

[Paulclem]

I have no problem with people who actually need benefits getting them, I think they do deserve it. However what I don't like is the fact that there are people who are simply to lazy to work and just scrounge off the tax-payers money. I know this is probably a very small minority, but it still pisses me off.

It pisses everybody off Volya, because the small minority of people who undoubtedly abuse the system tarnish everyone else.

What pisses me off even more is the organised effort made to avoid taxation by individuals, banks and companies.

Both camps are not accepting their responsibilities. The one group assumes that everyone else owes them an income. I really dislike this attitude. I've also known people abusing the system - working and earning well whilst claiming. Just thievery.

The other camp assumes that they make their money in a vacuum - completely on their own merit and effort, and denying the priviledge and opportunity they have to make money and be successful in society. All this blah by businessmen about how they are self made is complete rubbish. They have gained from the opportunities that society has presented them. i don't begrudge them success. but they should also appreciate that they have a responsibility to the wider society that enables them to exist and be successful. The very least they should do is pay their taxes.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It pisses me off too, but Hey! Isn't this the INCLUSIVE society?

Yeah, it is. Or it should be (it's hard when working against the Emil Millers of the world).


It pisses everybody off Volya, because the small minority of people who undoubtedly abuse the system tarnish everyone else.

What pisses me off even more is the organised effort made to avoid taxation by individuals, banks and companies.

Both camps are not accepting their responsibilities. The one group assumes that everyone else owes them an income. I really dislike this attitude. I've also known people abusing the system - working and earning well whilst claiming. Just thievery.

The other camp assumes that they make their money in a vacuum - completely on their own merit and effort, and denying the priviledge and opportunity they have to make money and be successful in society. All this blah by businessmen about how they are self made is complete rubbish. They have gained from the opportunities that society has presented them. i don't begrudge them success. but they should also appreciate that they have a responsibility to the wider society that enables them to exist and be successful. The very least they should do is pay their taxes.

Agreed, agreed, agreed.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Sure you can, but that doesn't mean you'd win the bet.

I don't really see the big deal over people lining up waiting for their money. Maybe they need it? Is that even a possibility?

We ha e the same problems here in the US, people on welfare who are mooching off the system, but I think the assumptions as to how many are actually taking advantage of the system are overblown. Most of these people really do need help, and most aren't driving around in fancy cars and watching giant TVs. Plus, cellphones are almost a necessity now--maybe not iPhones, but cellphones in general are.

One of our states--Florida I think--made all welfare recipients take a drug test, thinking that they were going to "catch" a bunch of people, since everyone assumes people on welfare do drugs. Something like 95% of the people passed. :lol: It's also ironic that these people had to get drug tested in order to receive government money . . . but do the lawmakers that made the law have to? Of course not.

Yes the people needed the money - for booze and drugs as was shown in the programme! Why else would people line up at midnight? It wasn't to pay the gas and electric. It was the people specific to the TV programme I was referring to though and not people on benefits in general as I agree there are some unfair assumptions knocking around (though many do have large flat screen TVs...) I don't agree that mobile phones are a necessity though, far from it. Food, water, shelter, etc yes, mobile phones no way not a chance. I have noticed that the younger generation are very attached to their phones to surprising degree.

Edit: oh I have found the programme I was referring to, it's here:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/999-whats-your-emergency/4od#3420402

[Paulclem]

I can understand why some people on benefits have flat screen TVs - perhaps they bought them when they were working. The other thing is they are not going out, and you can get electrical stuff on credit. There might be a debate about the choices people make, but can you begrudge poor people having something to watch while they are not going out, not eating in restaurants, not visiting theatres, not going to the cinema etc etc?

Food, water, shelter, etc yes, mobile phones no way not a chance. I have noticed that the younger generation are very attached to their phones to surprising degree.

What people buy is surely up to them based upon their perceived need. If you are suggesting that they are getting more than they are entitled to, well that's a different matter, but how people organise their life is up to them. It might be that mobile phones are very visible, but do they own a car, or use public transport at all? I would consider a computer a necessity, but clearly kids get by with phones and internet access. Certainly parents want their kids to have phones for all the reasons of safety and conveniance, but you can bet that they will have to compromise somehow.

I take your point that you don't think everyone on benefits is a scrounger.

[OrphanPip]

A mobile phone is pretty much a requirement to get many jobs these days, also many people no longer have land lines so the mobile is the only way they are reachable. And a mobile phone can be a cheaper alternative in many ways, if you pre-pay for one you don't have to worry about budgeting and not being able to pay your bills. Pre-paid phones also help if you have no permanent address, or are often moving around. You might owe a phone company a lot of money and not be able to get a land line at all. Also, many long-term mobile phone contracts will get you a phone for free, although that requires monthly payments.

[Delta40]

Anyone care to provide a profile of the poor which wouldn't offend their senses?

[LitNetIsGreat]

I can understand why some people on benefits have flat screen TVs - perhaps they bought them when they were working. The other thing is they are not going out, and you can get electrical stuff on credit. There might be a debate about the choices people make, but can you begrudge poor people having something to watch while they are not going out, not eating in restaurants, not visiting theatres, not going to the cinema etc etc?

Food, water, shelter, etc yes, mobile phones no way not a chance. I have noticed that the younger generation are very attached to their phones to surprising degree.

What people buy is surely up to them based upon their perceived need. If you are suggesting that they are getting more than they are entitled to, well that's a different matter, but how people organise their life is up to them. It might be that mobile phones are very visible, but do they own a car, or use public transport at all? I would consider a computer a necessity, but clearly kids get by with phones and internet access. Certainly parents want their kids to have phones for all the reasons of safety and conveniance, but you can bet that they will have to compromise somehow.

I take your point that you don't think everyone on benefits is a scrounger.

No, no, I wasn't suggesting what poorer people do with their money, that's up to them, even if they spend their money on alcohol and drugs (as per the people in the programme) instead of good food for themselves and their children. Choices are choices. Perhaps there is a case of food stamps to some degree, but then again, many of those addicted to alcohol and drugs would just steal money (as highlighted in the programme) which would only increase crime, so that's just another debatable thing.

In terms of amount of benefit that's another debate and not one I feel that strongly about either way - especially when you consider the top tax dodgers where the money lost accounts for more that 200 times that paid in benefits. However, for example my alcoholic cousin who breaks his arms and throws himself out of windows each time they investigate his incapacity benefit, is on around £1000 per month, with all rent and council tax paid for, which I do consider too much yes. (He has £1000s hidden in his flat so his bank account doesn't go over the allowed limit before benefits are stopped. There is also nothing wrong with him, aside from his alcohol problem, in terms of working potential - he just really dislikes work!) On the other hand I suspect that the standard payment is not really that much and is probably quite hard to live on. I don't know. I've never been there thankfully and hope I won't.

Talking about the large flat screen TVs - that's an interesting phenomenon. It's obviously a stereotype to some degree but like many/some stereotypes, has a degree of truth to it as well. I was talking to our educational welfare officer the other month. It's her job to go into the homes of people who are lax to send their children to school when I mentioned flat screen TVs. Most of the homes she visits are people on benefits and/or problems with drugs, alcohol and crime etc, etc. Anyway, when I asked how many had large flat screen TVs she replied seriously 'all of them.' She said it was well known and that there has even been some study on it?? "What?" I asked her laughing but she was serious. It sounds like I'm lying about this about I'm not.:santasmil It's a very typical stereotype yes but it one that holds more true that false I'm willing to bet. Maybe because TV/film media is much more in demand than other media types - the theatre, literature, art for example, for those on benefits/lower income earners?

In terms of phones being essential for a job?? That must be a strange phenomenon outside of the UK then, if indeed that is true (of which I have my doubts), because I've never heard something so stupid. I've certainly never heard of that in the UK. I've never needed a mobile phone for any of my jobs. Obviously if you are going to be out and about on a job, some sort of salesman or something, where a phone and a car is deemed essential then I can understand, but for most jobs, no way. I'm struggled to see the scenario whereby the perfect candidate is turned away because they don't have a phone?? 'I'm sorry Mr Smith you have a perfect teaching record with a range of different schools you've worked for, good degree, great enthusiasm for the job, the kids here seem to immediately respond to you - your everything we are looking for, except you just don't own a Nokia, so we will have to let you go.' What?

Edit: oh yes my cousin, who I've not spoken to for over 10 years, has about 7 laptops/computers (he likes computers and might as well spend the money or lose it) and of course a giant flat screen TV!

[Paulclem]

I agree with you about the amount of money. There is a balance to be struck between encouraging people to work and giving people enough to live without hardship. I think the balance is quite difficult to get, but I reckon it depends upon who you focus on. there will always be scroungers and layabouts, but if you focus on these and are thus punitive in the amout of benefits you allow, then everybody else, particularly the children, suffer. At the end of the day, the money is being spent in the local economy - it's not as if it is being lost to society - and is it really any different to quantitative easing?

As for flat screens - i can believe that a lot of poor people have one. they don't cost that much these days, plus they are second hand ones. i think that's because there are lots of improved models coming out all the time, and so there are ones to sell off cheap. I bet the real reason though is that the poor are the main market for the high end money lenders and loan companies. Wat do you do that's the cheapest entertainment for you and your family if you have no money to go out etc? You get a telly.

On the phone front, whereas most people have a phone, many may not have a computer. A phone can give relatively cheap access to the internet, and a lot of jobs are advertised that way. Many chains and supermarkets advise you to apply online for work. Pip is right when he says you can get pretty cheap pay as you go and internet access.

[Scheherazade]

~

R e m i n d e r

Please remember that discussion of current politics is not allowed on this Forum.

Off-topic posts will be removed without further notice.

~

[qimissung]

It's still relatively easy to get a landline. And we also have the option of Magic Jack, which is a phone system that you can use with your computer.

I don't know about flat screen tv's but a lot of people who don't make a lot of money do have cell phones. I think it's just that de rigueur.

[TurquoiseSunset]

It's still relatively easy to get a landline. And we also have the option of Magic Jack, which is a phone system that you can use with your computer.

I don't know about flat screen tv's but a lot of people who don't make a lot of money do have cell phones. I think it's just that de rigueur.

Here it's way too expensive to get a landline if you are already tight on money. The installation and monthly hire of the line is not cheap. Much better to get a cheap phone with a prepaid number (and text bundles)...especially if you live in an informal settlement.

My maid, who comes once every two weeks, only makes about 2000 Rand a month, which is my groceries bill, but she needs a phone in case she needs to cancel work, or I have to pick her up some place different, etc. She works at a different house for every day of the week.

So, I can see where OrphanPip is coming from.

And I get Neely's tv example too, because a friend of mine told me about how crazy it makes him to see guys in his neighbourhood 'scraping' by, who still live with their parents, etc. but who insist on driving a souped up luxury cars, because that is what the girls see. :nonod:

Anyway, even if some poorer people use their benefits for cars or tv's...I still don't think people who earn 100 000 Pounds have the right to complain about not getting child benefits. Boo hoo.

[Delta40]

Ever thought of paying your maid more?

[qimissung]

There was actually a question about that very thing in The Ethicist, a column in the New York Times, a few weeks ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/magazine/a-tidy-sum.html?ref=theethicist&_r=0

[TurquoiseSunset]

Ever thought of paying your maid more?

So here's the story. A few months ago I heard that my parents' neighbours' char lady had some days open and they were very happy with her (nice, reliable and thorough) so I enquired. By that time she only had every second Tuesday left. I have a small two bedroomed duplex of about 70 square meters, and I'm very clean and tidy, so I thought every second Tuesday would be fine. Then I was told her going rate is R100 a day (which amounts to R2000 a month). I thought that seemed too low, although I know that is the standard rate. I know she has to take transport up to a point and then walk to me (it's a long walk and our weather's a bit extreme), so I decided to give her R120 and I would pick her up at the taxi ranks and drop her off. I offered to drop her off at her doorstep, but she refused because she likes to do her daily shopping before going home. Sometimes I give her R150...depends on what the ATM has.

So, taking into account that I do my own laundry and ironing (I feel bad to leave it for her, although she has told me to) and she only works five and half hours, including lunch (which I also provide), I think I'm paying her fairly and according to what she expects. I also intend to pay her for the days over the Christmas holidays which she will miss and will give her a bonus. I get a yearly raise, so she'll get one too.

R240 a month sounds very little, especially compared to what I get paid, but it's very much the situation painted in Qimi's article. And please don't use the exchange rates on that sum either. R240 buys more in my country than it does in yours, I bet.


There was actually a question about that very thing in The Ethicist, a column in the New York Times, a few weeks ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/magazine/a-tidy-sum.html?ref=theethicist&_r=0

Thanks for the link Qimi.

[Delta40]

Oh I'm sure it's a cultural thing and you expect me to respect it, but why offer your opinion on another country and the freedoms their citizens have come to expect?

[TurquoiseSunset]

Oh I'm sure it's a cultural thing and you expect me to respect it, but why offer your opinion on another country and the freedoms their citizens have come to expect?

Not sure how it's a cultural thing. She offers a service for R100 a day. I pay her that and more. It's a business transaction.

You don't have to respect my opinion, that's up to you, but we both get to voice ours.

And I wasn't offering an opinion on another country and the freedoms their citizens have come to expect as much as I was offering an opinion on some people's (nationality aside) ridiculous sense of entitlement and how they can justifiy it with a straight face. It's also why I started a thread about it here. I thought that maybe I was missing something. I wasn't being sarcastic, actually.

But whatever.

EDIT: In hindsight, the title should have been different.