[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The living wage is a red herring in my opinion, for anyone but the young free and single. If wages were increased then tax credits would be decreased more or less to match. Taking the burden off of the government and onto the employers, but not leaving many people any better off.

For anyone living at home with mum and dad with no responsibilities or bills to pay other than "their keep" it would be brilliant, though. And maybe for young singles in a house-share situation. Utterly useless for working families.

Not really as if the onus was on the employers not the government to subsidise wages the economy would be better off, they may even be able to reduce VAT so it would benefit working families.

[Candy Annie Cane]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Not really as if the onus was on the employers not the government to subsidise wages the economy would be better off, they may even be able to reduce VAT so it would benefit working families.

I agree but I would hazard that is employers were forced to pay a living wage we would see another swathe of mass redundancies. Managements would not want their profits / bonuses hit.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Not really as if the onus was on the employers not the government to subsidise wages the economy would be better off, they may even be able to reduce VAT so it would benefit working families.

This only really applies to the super - rich multinationals, though. Most businesses in the UK have a pretty strict budget for wages in order to stay in profit, and a large mandatory increase in wages across the board would simply force many of them to reduce staffing levels to compensate. Excess staff would be trimmed and unemployment would rise fairly dramatically, and there would also be no extra money (same wages going out, just to fewer people) in the consumer economy.

The only way it would be workable is if the compensation came from the other end, and the government cut certain taxes on businesses to allow them the extra money for wages. But then, of course, the money that the govt. has saved in tax credits is now swallowed up by those tax cuts.

In other words, I don't think it particularly matters where the money is coming from, at the end of the day it will all even out anyway. Although it at least might make people feel better to have bigger payslips and lower tax credits claims, I guess. More like it's really "theirs". It probably does make more sense to allow companies to keep their money to give out to employees themselves, rather than taken it from them only to pay it back out to those same employees as benefits.

It might mean those aforementioned multinationals getting even richer, though, in theory.

[Kizzy]

Yep, mind you if nobody has any money as if they're not on benefits many more than ever are on part time or 0hrs with no holiday pay sick pay or overtime/unsociable hrs bonusses.. How are businesses to survive if nobody has any money aside from essentials?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

This only really applies to the super - rich multinationals, though. Most businesses in the UK have a pretty strict budget for wages in order to stay in profit, and a large mandatory increase in wages across the board would simply force many of them to reduce staffing levels to compensate. Excess staff would be trimmed and unemployment would rise fairly dramatically, and there would also be no extra money (same wages going out, just to fewer people) in the consumer economy.

The only way it would be workable is if the compensation came from the other end, and the government cut certain taxes on businesses to allow them the extra money for wages. But then, of course, the money that the govt. has saved in tax credits is now swallowed up by those tax cuts.

In other words, I don't think it particularly matters where the money is coming from, at the end of the day it will all even out anyway. Although it at least might make people feel better to have bigger payslips and lower tax credits claims, I guess. More like it's really "theirs". It probably does make more sense to allow companies to keep their money to give out to employees themselves, rather than taken it from them only to pay it back out to those same employees as benefits.

It might mean those aforementioned multinationals getting even richer, though, in theory.

I think the onus in private enterprise is fixed firmly on maximising profit for shareholders, they're driving wages down.
They've already had tax cuts... what was that for? soon the govt will be paying employers people credits for affording people the luxury of employment.

[joeysteele]

Kirklancaster is right that those situations are wrong and do need looking at, since it would appear that someone could work to provide for those children.
Likewise possibly the majority of the 190 mentioned by Josy from 2012 figures.

What is let's say in my view, where the concerns lie with those who are wondering how this can take place, since if assessors have the figures of say the 190 Josy mention, and then the example Kirk has shown above,then it should be very easy to look closely into those cases and find anything wrong.
Why penalise and cause distress to all those too, not remotely in anyway in that situation as to claiming benefits and size of family.

That is what I am against as to this gung ho govt; and its, what I see, as near persecution of those claiming rightly.
The other thing is too, this thread started as to the overweight possibly being sanctioned, the thread expanded into the welfare issues around what this govt; has done as to reforms to welfare and benefits, which I again say in my view, have been disastrous,heartless and overall plainly wrong.

Finally, the examples here and in the media, again do not bear out such demonisation and setting out to scapegoat benefit claimants.
This govt; are not Doctors, this govt; doesn't even listen to or consult Doctors,we now have 'fit' notes rather than 'sick' notes.
Doctors are constantly undermined by this hopeless PM and his Ministers.
Yet Doctors would know their patients and the reasons for those who are overweight far better than any govt;

So to decide to possibly threaten to remove benefits is wrong without the full picture.
This govt; goes through the motions of looking at things, like having this idea researched but it takes no notice if it doesn't fit in with it's 'hidden' agenda,I use the word 'hidden' lightly, because it is clear to me for one what this govts; agenda is to those on benefits.
It is not ,in my view to genuinely support,it is more about saving in welfare funding terms a near pittance while causing misery to at least hundreds of thousands meantime.

Also, again, these examples are tiny in number,of these extreme claims and also estimated fraudulent claims.
So it can be done all day, highlighting the 'few' wrong cases such as we have on here and moreso in the media too.
However I think all examples and figures should be quantified by the fact that,I say again, the estimation of 99% of claimants are doing so correctly and are a world away from the odd examples that get thrown at the public by govt;,the awful prejudiced media and those who fall for the govts; and media misrepresentations.

No one would or should support claiming of benefits wrongly, however 2 wrongs do not make a right, so for this govt; to with great gusto go about hammering all on benefits to find a handful in relation of numbers,that do wrong as to claiming, is I believe unacceptable and completely unjust.
Especially how this heartless shower have gone about it.

What this govt; and future govts; need to really take on board is the welfare bill goes on pensions and pensioners as to the greater proportion of it.
They know the risk of doing anything as to them so they bash the weaker elements.
However unless any govt; is serious about really looking at pensioners and their need from the welfare budget, then any real major savings are pie in the sky hopes.

Odd cases do not paint a right or good picture of the benefits situation,the odd wrong cases cannot be presented as a representaion of benefit claimants, who end up being stigmatised and then discriminated against too in the face of such demonisation.

I hope I live long enough to read it but I believe in the far future, history will judge this PM and his heartless coalition govt; very harshly indeed,it may even say he and his govt; persecuted a large number of its citizens in the name of saving a few pounds here and there.
I also hope history starts to come soon for this PM and he gets well and truly slung out on his ear in May,taking his cowardly bunch of heartless ministers with him.


The alternative may not look that appetising to most but all powers that be I hope protect the most vulnerable,sick and disabled from the status quo and ensure this lot are gone.

Let some other leader .(in opposition),work on getting rid of the 'nasty Conservative party',then hopefully create a better Conservative party.
This PM said in 2010,he got rid of the old nasty conservative party, he was right in that, the sad thing is, he created an even nastier one under his leadership and time as PM.

[Kizzy]

It's not just the fatties that are being targeted....


'One change in particular threatens to scupper Cameron’s claim to be on the side of Britain’s hard working people. In an alteration to legislation that went largely unnoticed at the end of last month, the government introduced a pilot for 15,000 low-paid working universal credit claimants. Those participating in the mandatory scheme may find that their benefits are reduced if they do not actively seek to work more hours or increase their salary.

The change is important because this policy goes beyond targeting jobseekers, the sick and disabled. If penalises those who are hard at work, maintaining part-time, low-salaried jobs'

'Sanctions can apply of claimants working less than 35 hours a week on minimum wage (typically Ł12,000 a year) who do not comply with the scheme. Failure may include failing to attend ‘job focused interviews’ or failing to apply for a job that might bring in extra hours. Welfare reform minister Lord David Freud says "tougher" conversations will be had with claimants after two months.'


http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...s-working-poor

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It's not just the fatties that are being targeted....


'One change in particular threatens to scupper Cameron’s claim to be on the side of Britain’s hard working people. In an alteration to legislation that went largely unnoticed at the end of last month, the government introduced a pilot for 15,000 low-paid working universal credit claimants. Those participating in the mandatory scheme may find that their benefits are reduced if they do not actively seek to work more hours or increase their salary.

The change is important because this policy goes beyond targeting jobseekers, the sick and disabled. If penalises those who are hard at work, maintaining part-time, low-salaried jobs'

'Sanctions can apply of claimants working less than 35 hours a week on minimum wage (typically Ł12,000 a year) who do not comply with the scheme. Failure may include failing to attend ‘job focused interviews’ or failing to apply for a job that might bring in extra hours. Welfare reform minister Lord David Freud says "tougher" conversations will be had with claimants after two months.'


http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...s-working-poor

The sooner the Tories are out, the better.

[JoshBB]

I understand the thinking behind it but this is a very black-and-white approach. Many obese people have tried dieting but it just doesn't work for them. Give them help.. don't punish them for having a problem.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by dezzy

the sooner the tories are out, the better.

A legitimate and reasoned post removed by kirk - to save moderators a job

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Kirklancaster is right that those situations are wrong and do need looking at, since it would appear that someone could work to provide for those children.
Likewise possibly the majority of the 190 mentioned by Josy from 2012 figures.

What is let's say in my view, where the concerns lie with those who are wondering how this can take place, since if assessors have the figures of say the 190 Josy mention, and then the example Kirk has shown above,then it should be very easy to look closely into those cases and find anything wrong.
Why penalise and cause distress to all those too, not remotely in anyway in that situation as to claiming benefits and size of family.

That is what I am against as to this gung ho govt; and its, what I see, as near persecution of those claiming rightly.
The other thing is too, this thread started as to the overweight possibly being sanctioned, the thread expanded into the welfare issues around what this govt; has done as to reforms to welfare and benefits, which I again say in my view, have been disastrous,heartless and overall plainly wrong.

Finally, the examples here and in the media, again do not bear out such demonisation and setting out to scapegoat benefit claimants.
This govt; are not Doctors, this govt; doesn't even listen to or consult Doctors,we now have 'fit' notes rather than 'sick' notes.
Doctors are constantly undermined by this hopeless PM and his Ministers.
Yet Doctors would know their patients and the reasons for those who are overweight far better than any govt;

So to decide to possibly threaten to remove benefits is wrong without the full picture.
This govt; goes through the motions of looking at things, like having this idea researched but it takes no notice if it doesn't fit in with it's 'hidden' agenda,I use the word 'hidden' lightly, because it is clear to me for one what this govts; agenda is to those on benefits.
It is not ,in my view to genuinely support,it is more about saving in welfare funding terms a near pittance while causing misery to at least hundreds of thousands meantime.

Also, again, these examples are tiny in number,of these extreme claims and also estimated fraudulent claims.
So it can be done all day, highlighting the 'few' wrong cases such as we have on here and moreso in the media too.
However I think all examples and figures should be quantified by the fact that,I say again, the estimation of 99% of claimants are doing so correctly and are a world away from the odd examples that get thrown at the public by govt;,the awful prejudiced media and those who fall for the govts; and media misrepresentations.

No one would or should support claiming of benefits wrongly, however 2 wrongs do not make a right, so for this govt; to with great gusto go about hammering all on benefits to find a handful in relation of numbers,that do wrong as to claiming, is I believe unacceptable and completely unjust.
Especially how this heartless shower have gone about it.

What this govt; and future govts; need to really take on board is the welfare bill goes on pensions and pensioners as to the greater proportion of it.
They know the risk of doing anything as to them so they bash the weaker elements.
However unless any govt; is serious about really looking at pensioners and their need from the welfare budget, then any real major savings are pie in the sky hopes.

Odd cases do not paint a right or good picture of the benefits situation,the odd wrong cases cannot be presented as a representaion of benefit claimants, who end up being stigmatised and then discriminated against too in the face of such demonisation.

I hope I live long enough to read it but I believe in the far future, history will judge this PM and his heartless coalition govt; very harshly indeed,it may even say he and his govt; persecuted a large number of its citizens in the name of saving a few pounds here and there.
I also hope history starts to come soon for this PM and he gets well and truly slung out on his ear in May,taking his cowardly bunch of heartless ministers with him.


The alternative may not look that appetising to most but all powers that be I hope protect the most vulnerable,sick and disabled from the status quo and ensure this lot are gone.

Let some other leader .(in opposition),work on getting rid of the 'nasty Conservative party',then hopefully create a better Conservative party.
This PM said in 2010,he got rid of the old nasty conservative party, he was right in that, the sad thing is, he created an even nastier one under his leadership and time as PM.

You are not only one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable members on here Joey but one of the more rational.

Whenever we have held opposing views your posts remain balanced and your attitude civil.

I applaud the fact that you discern between someone stating facts gleaned from personal experience and someone merely attacking those genuine people who have to rely on benefits.

What others seem to miss, is the fact that the obese mother of 12 who wrongfully receives benefits of Ł900 per week I was referring to, and other fraudsters like her, are the very ones giving ammunition to the Anti-Benefits & Bash The Poor Brigades.

Without these scum the media would not be able to highlight such cases and influence public opinion that these cases are the norm.

Thank you Joey for accepting my posts in the manner in which they were intended.

Coming to what you say in your post; I cannot fault any of which you say.

I am shortly going to be posting my very last post on here Joey and starting a new thread to do so, before deleting my account, and I think you should find a lot of what I have to say in it very interesting and enlightening.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

You are not only one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable members on here Joey but one of the more rational.

Whenever we have held opposing views your posts remain balanced and your attitude civil.

I applaud the fact that you discern between someone stating facts gleaned from personal experience and someone merely attacking those genuine people who have to rely on benefits.

What others seem to miss, is the fact that the obese mother of 12 who wrongfully receives benefits of Ł900 per week I was referring to, and other fraudsters like her, are the very ones giving ammunition to the Anti-Benefits & Bash The Poor Brigades.

Without these scum the media would not be able to highlight such cases and influence public opinion that these cases are the norm.

Thank you Joey for accepting my posts in the manner in which they were intended.

Coming to what you say in your post; I cannot fault any of which you say.

I am shortly going to be posting my very last post on here Joey and starting a new thread to do so, before deleting my account, and I think you should find a lot of what I have to say in it very interesting and enlightening.

She isn't a fraudster though, the fact there is/are large families on benefits is not enough reason to demonise them in the media either.
By branding them scum you've shown that you subscribe to the model as portrayed in the right wing tabloids.
they are scapegoats, trawled out across the pages when there's something to cover up as it's a guaranteed headline grabber.

[arista]

"it's a guaranteed headline grabber. "

Yes it is Kizzy
it will never change

[Kizzy]

Doesn't make it right there have been poor/uneducated people since the year dot, the benefit cap has seen to it that nobody is better of on benefits than in employment and yet there is still the need to further humiliate those who are genuinely in need.
That's the real issue, they've made such a stigma of being in receipt of welfare that those that need it would rather starve than claim it!

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

She isn't a fraudster though, the fact there is/are large families on benefits is not enough reason to demonise them in the media either.
By branding them scum you've shown that you subscribe to the model as portrayed in the right wing tabloids.
they are scapegoats, trawled out across the pages when there's something to cover up as it's a guaranteed headline grabber.

Kizzy - You are persisting in the same misconceptions and misrepresentations:

She IS a fraudster because I KNOW HER PERSONALLY. She is obese through gluttony and has NEVER WORKED due to having her first baby at 15 years of age and ELEVEN OTHERS SINCE, but she has NEVER HAD ANY DISABILITY OR CHRONIC ILLNESS which could have prevented her from working.

I am REFERRING SPECIFICALLY TO THE ONE WOMAN ABOVE WHO HAS ALWAYS CLAIMED BUT NEVER HAD A LEGITIMATE REASON TO DO SO - APART FROM CONTINUOUSLY BREEDING BABIES WITH DIFFERENT ABSENTEE FATHERS WHICH SHE REALLY COULD NOT AFFORD TO DO.

I AM NOT THEREFORE, AND HAVE NEVER DONE - ANYWHERE IN MY POSTS - REFERRED TO ANY LARGE FAMILIES ON BENEFITS PER SE, OR ANY OTHER CLAIMANTS PER SE, ONLY ONES WHICH I PERSONALLY KNOW TO BE CLAIMING FRAUDULENTLY.

Nor do I agree that any GENUINE CLAIMANTS should be DEMONISED BY THE MEDIA and I AM NOT BRANDING ANY GENUINE CLAIMANTS 'SCUM' - IF YOU READ MY POST CORRECTLY, YOU WILL SEE THAT I AM BRANDING BENEFIT FRAUDSTERS AS SCUM.

So I am NOT subscribing to any model as portrayed in the right wing tabloids.

I cannot control what the media publish and I have even stated several times that I agree with Joey that claimants are being made an issue by the government to deflect from the failure of their other - more grave - policies.

I stated that the obese woman I know above was in receipt of Ł900 per week, and I was attacked as a liar and ridiculed because of the amount among other things. Well Josy's FOI post proved me right, but I am still havin g to defend myself against attack for things I JUST HAVE NOT SAID.

It is wearing, time consuming and futile, and it is not my fault if what I state is continually misconstrued when I state it clearly and in the Queen's English.

[Kizzy]

No I'm not, you said she had Ł900 in benefits they were given based on her circumstances... they weren't fraudulently claimed.
You now claim to be privvy to her medical history too?

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Kizzy - You are persisting in the same misconceptions and misrepresentations:

She IS a fraudster because I KNOW HER PERSONALLY. She is obese through gluttony and has NEVER WORKED due to having her first baby at 15 years of age and ELEVEN OTHERS SINCE, but she has NEVER HAD ANY DISABILITY OR CHRONIC ILLNESS which could have prevented her from working.

I am REFERRING SPECIFICALLY TO THE ONE WOMAN ABOVE WHO HAS ALWAYS CLAIMED BUT NEVER HAD A LEGITIMATE REASON TO DO SO - APART FROM CONTINUOUSLY BREEDING BABIES WITH DIFFERENT ABSENTEE FATHERS WHICH SHE REALLY COULD NOT AFFORD TO DO.

I AM NOT THEREFORE, AND HAVE NEVER DONE - ANYWHERE IN MY POSTS - REFERRED TO ANY LARGE FAMILIES ON BENEFITS PER SE, OR ANY OTHER CLAIMANTS PER SE, ONLY ONES WHICH I PERSONALLY KNOW TO BE CLAIMING FRAUDULENTLY.

Nor do I agree that any GENUINE CLAIMANTS should be DEMONISED BY THE MEDIA and I AM NOT BRANDING ANY GENUINE CLAIMANTS 'SCUM' - IF YOU READ MY POST CORRECTLY, YOU WILL SEE THAT I AM BRANDING BENEFIT FRAUDSTERS AS SCUM.

So I am NOT subscribing to any model as portrayed in the right wing tabloids.

I cannot control what the media publish and I have even stated several times that I agree with Joey that claimants are being made an issue by the government to deflect from the failure of their other - more grave - policies.

I stated that the obese woman I know above was in receipt of Ł900 per week, and I was attacked as a liar and ridiculed because of the amount among other things. Well Josy's FOI post proved me right, but I am still havin g to defend myself against attack for things I JUST HAVE NOT SAID.

It is wearing, time consuming and futile, and it is not my fault if what I state is continually misconstrued when I state it clearly and in the Queen's English.

It sounds like a pretty sad story though to me. Who would really want to have a child at 15, when you're just a child yourself? Sounds to me that no matter how much free things she got, she's actually missed out on having a proper life herself

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

No I'm not, you said she had Ł900 in benefits they were given based on her circumstances... they weren't fraudulently claimed.
You now claim to be privvy to her medical history too?

I KNOW her. I KNOW her family. I've KNOWN her since she was about 3 years old though they are not in my circle of friends.

There was NOTHING WRONG with her MEDICALLY.

So by your logic then Kizzy - everyone who is awarded benefits is VALID. So therefore the system is INFALLIBLE. Therefore, ALL THE GENUINELY ILL PEOPLE THROWN OFF BENEFITS ARE REALLY SHIRKERS?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

It sounds like a pretty sad story though to me. Who would really want to have a child at 15, when you're just a child yourself? Sounds to me that no matter how much free things she got, she's actually missed out on having a proper life herself

I agree Niamh, but we have to remember that we tend to view others and their actions by our standards. None of her family have ever worked and the die was cast really from an early age. She sees no disadvantage or loss in the life she has, because it's unfortunately the way she was raised.

If you and your partner had adopted her at say, 3 years old, her life choices and life would probably have turned out completely different.

As it is - in my opinion - she is happy and definitely thinks she has 'one up' on the system and the world.

My son has worked part-time, but as many hours as he could, all the way through school and university, and still is, for minimum wage, having gained his law degree and saddled himself with Ł30,000 of loans.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I agree Niamh, but we have to remember that we tend to view others and their actions by our standards. None of her family have ever worked and the die was cast really from an early age. She sees no disadvantage or loss in the life she has, because it's unfortunately the way she was raised.

If you and your partner had adopted her at say, 3 years old, her life choices and life would probably have turned out completely different.

As it is - in my opinion - she is happy and definitely thinks she has 'one up' on the system and the world.

My son has worked part-time, but as many hours as he could, all the way through school and university, and still is, for minimum wage, having gained his law degree and saddled himself with Ł30,000 of loans.

Well there's always going to be people like that and no system is fool proof really. The way I look at it is, would I like to trade places with her or have my kids trade places with her? And the answer is no. I feel sorry for her that she will never have the sense of achievement of earning a wage herself or truly know what it is to be independent

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well there's always going to be people like that and no system is fool proof really. The way I look at it is, would I like to trade places with her or have my kids trade places with her? And the answer is no. I feel sorry for her that she will never have the sense of achievement of earning a wage herself or truly know what it is to be independent

I agree again, and stated in an earlier response that she has nothing that I envy or want. I know my children wouldn't trade places with her either.

I also agree about the 'sense of achievement', but my sympathy for her is severely tempered by the fact that I know her and she is not really my 'cup of tea' to put it politely.

I do have genuine sympathy for people caught up in a poverty trap though because I've been there - though on Ł900 a week she hardly qualifies - and I do think that no government has really addressed this disgusting truth of the low paid and those on inadequate benefits. There always seems to be plenty of public money ever available for successive governments to squander in other areas.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I KNOW her. I KNOW her family. I've KNOWN her since she was about 3 years old though they are not in my circle of friends.

There was NOTHING WRONG with her MEDICALLY.

So by your logic then Kizzy - everyone who is awarded benefits is VALID. So therefore the system is INFALLIBLE. Therefore, ALL THE GENUINELY ILL PEOPLE THROWN OFF BENEFITS ARE REALLY SHIRKERS?

She had kids and got benefits for those kids ..whether you, me or anyone thinks that's valid is irrelevant.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

She had kids and got benefits for those kids ..whether you, me or anyone thinks that's valid is irrelevant.

Discussion over then - thankfully.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I KNOW her. I KNOW her family. I've KNOWN her since she was about 3 years old though they are not in my circle of friends.

There was NOTHING WRONG with her MEDICALLY.

So by your logic then Kizzy - everyone who is awarded benefits is VALID. So therefore the system is INFALLIBLE. Therefore, ALL THE GENUINELY ILL PEOPLE THROWN OFF BENEFITS ARE REALLY SHIRKERS?

Looks to me like she is more of a parasite than a fraudster.
Time for a cap on benefits for baby farming, make it less lucrative to knock them out at such high numbers.

[Santa's NaughtiNess]

Originally Posted by smudgie

Looks to me like she is more of a parasite than a fraudster.
Time for a cap on benefits for baby farming, make it less lucrative to knock them out at such high numbers.

I agree. I don't like it, because the kids grow up knowing they weren't wanted. Every child should feel loved.