howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
alex
the thing about taking way benefits from the work shy is almost certainly a lot of hot air.
if they did so we would have children starving because of the actions or inactions of their parents.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I dont agree Howard - it is a matter of incentivising them to get a job.
The carrot needs a dollop of stick too. I am quite sure that the vast majority of unemployed people will respond well to the new benefits system IDS is introducing, combined with that carrot and stick approach. There will be a few though, a tiny minority, who really could not care less and would be quite happy for their kids to suffer as long as they did not have to get up off their fat behinds.
As far as that useless minority is concerned if it means getting getting the kids fostered to protect them from their feckless lousy parents who will not get up off their backsides then so be it. We should all be held accountable for our own actions and not mollycoddled by the nanny state. That helps no-one. Maybe fostering the children of the most worthless and useless in our society will be the way to break the chain whereby living on state benefits is a way of life being passed down through generations.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
wouldn't work barry, both socially and economically taking children into care is a disaster.
the authorities pay out a small fortune for foster parents, the have to compensate for any loss or damage to their homes.
a large proportion of children that are fostered end up in young offenders institutions then prison.
i have seen plenty of evidence with my own eyes for the above, also the statistics bear out what i say.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
I was thinking more of unemployed people who do not have children to look after, Howard. I doubt that Gov. would do what Barry suggests. If applying the new law, I reckon they would make sure that the people who are singled out are not parents.
Most people without work and on benefits probably have basic qualifications, and would not be expected to work as managers, unless they worked their way up.
The most likely kind of work that one would expect to be offered is in factories, in agriculture, and in the retail industry.
There are plenty of people working in shops and supermarkets, mainly women; I think the major problem is in factoriues and farm-work, where people are not required to know much English but are expected to render maximum physical energy.
My view is that Gov. should introduce a 20 hour a week policy for those who are unemployed and without experience and out of routine, and realisticly realise that basic training in a factory or on farms does not require much time or great learning efforts.
So, if the minimum wage is £5.93 an hour, it would be better to keep housing benefits for 20 hours a week work for the minimum wage, and pay £120 a week in return for the 20 hours work.
The fact is, though, that many employers in factories and on farms prefer the work-agency kind of contract, where there are no guarantees, and people are usually expected to have their own transport to get to a factory or to farms.
This must discourage many British people, as many have little chance of having one penny left over once rent, shopping, car and petrol are paid, as 40 hours a week on minimum wage offers just that and not a penny more!
The fact that redundancy guarantees and sickness benefits have been wiped out of the work-agency contract leaves us with the bare facts, that Barry and others belonmg to two different classes, hence Barry can afford to make statements as above!
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
On average a person lives for only 18 months after retiring. This figure is used by the Govt to calculate the demands on health, pensions etc. Obviously some people live to a ripe old age but many more die before reaching pensionable age therefore the mean average is 18 months.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I think you will find that figure well, well out of date and is not supported by mortality rates Marek.
Howard - How else do you break the cycle of cildren born to families where generations have been out of work and for whom benefits are a natural and normal way of life. I suspect that breaking that cycle including the use of fostering will more than pay for itself long term. The alternative is to carry on as we are and allow this band of malingerers keep growing, that is not an option. Time to get tough, very tough.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
BarryW
Do you have the latest figures or know where I can find them? I have looked at all the usual suspects.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Rather my idea of a caring local Regiment that is there for its members, benevolently upholding discipline, with some community spirit, cross-country walks, and showing its members how to work in factories and on farms 20 hours a week for a minimum wage, and caring for its members when they are ill or when the factory is momentarily low on work, and providing some financial aid for the members' children, and some holiday money...........
than Barry's 1939-1945 invectives that British society will never accept.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
My father, father-in-law, mother-in-law as well as my husband all died between the age of 63 and 68 so I do not think Marek's figures are that far out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
when you add the terrible statistics about babies that die early and tragic accidents to youngsters and young people i think the figures could be correct.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Jan - life expectancy is extending all the time.
The evidence of this is clear and actuarial.
Here is a chart.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=168
It is also true that at 65 your life expectancy is longer than would have been assessed at birth due to have survived childhood diseases and life risks in the meantime. As a result at age 65 you can expect to live a further 17.6 years if a man and 20.2 years if a woman.