ChatterBank1 min ago
Andrew Marr Sunday 30 September
16 Answers
On BBC's Andrew Marr programme David Cameron said that he was going to crack down on those on benefits who do not accept work when offered a job.
Is he going to remove families with young children from the benefit system, or will he put the children into care to avoid poverty caused by out of work parents with no income from any source.
If not why does he spout this nonsense about paying for his new policies from savings made from benefit cutbacks.
Is he going to remove families with young children from the benefit system, or will he put the children into care to avoid poverty caused by out of work parents with no income from any source.
If not why does he spout this nonsense about paying for his new policies from savings made from benefit cutbacks.
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by misto. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The key words are " who do not accept work when offered a job"
In other words those lazy people that would rather live of other peoples taxes instead of going to work. Therefore your argument of out of work parents does not apply. Those who cannot find work will not be penalised but those who are offered a job and either refuse it or resign after a week so they can sit at home will be affected. And so they should. I'm tired of paying tax to support those who live of benefits when there is a way out for them.
In other words those lazy people that would rather live of other peoples taxes instead of going to work. Therefore your argument of out of work parents does not apply. Those who cannot find work will not be penalised but those who are offered a job and either refuse it or resign after a week so they can sit at home will be affected. And so they should. I'm tired of paying tax to support those who live of benefits when there is a way out for them.
Well if they have a job and income then why should they be on benefits as well?
Yes, I hope he does remove them from the benefit system until they perhaps have the misfortune to lose their job through no fault of their own. If they are offered a job and don't take it then they don't deserve any benefits..
Yes, I hope he does remove them from the benefit system until they perhaps have the misfortune to lose their job through no fault of their own. If they are offered a job and don't take it then they don't deserve any benefits..
David Cameron would recite the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam backwards in Latin if he thought it would touch a chord with the Tory voters he needs to get elected.
He says a lot of things - none of them make any real sense, but he knows an election is coming, and his party is going to loose ... again.
He is desparate, take no notice.
He says a lot of things - none of them make any real sense, but he knows an election is coming, and his party is going to loose ... again.
He is desparate, take no notice.
When I was in business, there was no way I would employ those who clearly didn't want the job.
It's all very well telling lazy scroungers to get a job, but who is going to employ them?
Add any sort of criminal record to the cv - and any employer would be justified in turning them down. All my employees were in positions of trust - I could not risk them stealing from my customers, me or other employees, or offending anybody.
Whilst I agree people deserve a second chance - an employer can spot those who genuinely want to work and those who can't.
It's all very well telling lazy scroungers to get a job, but who is going to employ them?
Add any sort of criminal record to the cv - and any employer would be justified in turning them down. All my employees were in positions of trust - I could not risk them stealing from my customers, me or other employees, or offending anybody.
Whilst I agree people deserve a second chance - an employer can spot those who genuinely want to work and those who can't.
Another quote I heard today from the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. "We will raise the Inheritance Tax threshold. The Tories will reward people who have worked all their lives and saved, so as to purchased their own homes. Under the Tories these people will have something to pass onto their children or granchildren".
That is of course if an elderly person's house has not already been sold off by the State, to pay for their care.
That is of course if an elderly person's house has not already been sold off by the State, to pay for their care.
There is a benefits question that always come to mind when I read answers like Kwicky.
A lot of people who receive benefits are those who have been tax payers for many years but go on benefit due to chronic illness or a new disability, but these people are always included in these "rants" about scroungers that "we are all paying for".
Perhaps there should be two types of benefit claimant, because nobody knows when it will happen to them.
Getting back to the point of the question, if these so called "malingerers or scroungers" would have to repay the benefit they would never take a job.
So, if Cameron is taking these savings into account to pay for his new policies he is misleading the public. Unless he is going to remove these people from the benefit system and put their children into care so that they do not suffer in poverty.
A lot of people who receive benefits are those who have been tax payers for many years but go on benefit due to chronic illness or a new disability, but these people are always included in these "rants" about scroungers that "we are all paying for".
Perhaps there should be two types of benefit claimant, because nobody knows when it will happen to them.
Getting back to the point of the question, if these so called "malingerers or scroungers" would have to repay the benefit they would never take a job.
So, if Cameron is taking these savings into account to pay for his new policies he is misleading the public. Unless he is going to remove these people from the benefit system and put their children into care so that they do not suffer in poverty.
There is a new form of benfits that have to be repaid. They are the student grants to enable them to take up higher education and have to be repaid when circumstances permit. To give the unemployed proper training such as plumbing etc we would not need the flood of refugees from Poland and elsewhere.
David Cameron is full of hot air and will jump on any bandwagon if he thinks it will make him more popular.
However, those on long-term unemployment benefit should be given jobs in the community in return for their handouts. No choices - and no work, no benefits (she says as she awaits the Human Rights brigade to jump on her case!).
There's plenty of litter and graffti to be cleaned up, and most hospitals, public buildings and schools are sadly in need of a lick of paint and their windows desperately need cleaning. More importantly, what about helping to clean our dirty hospitals? Our local A&E has one cleaner employed to do the whole lot. She does her best, but unsurprisingly, she's fighting a losing battle. Conditions ought to be five days a week, nine to five, with a lunch break, and logging in and out for work should be obligatory. No sciving off. For that they receive their benefits. And if they do scive off, benefits should be deducted pro rata. Maybe they'd decide to get a proper job that pays more if those regulations were imposed.
It's not a good idea to remove children from their parents for no valid reason. However, single parents could work within the system if the hours were adjusted to coincide with school hours and school holidays. There's no reason for anyone who's fit to work, not to work.
However, those on long-term unemployment benefit should be given jobs in the community in return for their handouts. No choices - and no work, no benefits (she says as she awaits the Human Rights brigade to jump on her case!).
There's plenty of litter and graffti to be cleaned up, and most hospitals, public buildings and schools are sadly in need of a lick of paint and their windows desperately need cleaning. More importantly, what about helping to clean our dirty hospitals? Our local A&E has one cleaner employed to do the whole lot. She does her best, but unsurprisingly, she's fighting a losing battle. Conditions ought to be five days a week, nine to five, with a lunch break, and logging in and out for work should be obligatory. No sciving off. For that they receive their benefits. And if they do scive off, benefits should be deducted pro rata. Maybe they'd decide to get a proper job that pays more if those regulations were imposed.
It's not a good idea to remove children from their parents for no valid reason. However, single parents could work within the system if the hours were adjusted to coincide with school hours and school holidays. There's no reason for anyone who's fit to work, not to work.
the problem is morally corrupt people who shell out kids when they have neither the skills or desire to get employment that can support their additional obligations
they then claim lazy persons tax credit and all
i want an aston martin vantage
presently i cannot afford one, but hey... i'll just go and get one and you can all contribute to the cost
they then claim lazy persons tax credit and all
i want an aston martin vantage
presently i cannot afford one, but hey... i'll just go and get one and you can all contribute to the cost
1 to 16 of 16
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.