state benefits and working

@benny128 (3621)
December 26, 2009 8:02am CST
hey all was answering a discussion and thought of this one, most of us have been in the situation where we have had to rely on state benefits because of unemployment especially in this modern time. There are people out there at the moment and am going to give you a few examples, A) One person is used to earning a very good wage as a tradesman though he is now unemployed as used to work on housing development but is unable to claim state benefits as he has a certain amount in savings. B) I also have people who live near me who just physically don't want to work there's no medical reason they just physically do not want to work and live of state benefits, instead of taking a cleaning job they would rather sit at home. C) Also there are women out there again I know a few in my vicinity in the council area I live near too, who don't work and just keep having kids so their benefits increase theres a lass who is single and who is earning over £24,000 in state benefits because she has 5 kids, not to mention council tax and rent being paid by the tax payer. All the people above are real life scenario's of people I currently know. Now the question should we as tax payers use our taxes to pay for each of these 3 scenario's or what do you think about these 3 scenario's above ? I have my views but will open the door to my fellow mylotters to have their say.
4 responses
• United States
27 Dec 09
First, let me tell you that I, myself, am unemployed and collecting unemployment benefits. This is the 3rd time that I will be starting over in the last 9 years, because of companies moving out of state. So, to go over your 3 scenarios... Case #1...Sorry, but I agree with the state in not giving him benefits because he has a large amount in his savings. Why should the state support him when he can support himself, with what he has. Once that runs out, then that's when the state should kick in the benefits. We are all in the same boat as him... we will all be living a less luxurious retirement then we thought we'd have. But, that's what you save money for...in case something does happen and you have to use it....So tell your buddy that this is the time! Case #2... Could it be that what they would earn with a cleaning job would be less then what they are collecting right now? If that is the reason, then I don't blame them. Why should they take a job that pays them less? I certainly wouldn't accept any job that is less then what I am collecting from the state..that would be kind of stupid. If the state would compensate the difference, than we would have more people willing to take any job they could find. If I am collecting $400 a week, and the cleaning job is only going to be $200 a week..then the state should compensate the difference...they would still be saving money, and it would motivate more people to take lesser paying jobs, until they found something with a higher pay. Unfortunately when the benefits where out, they are still stuck at the $200 Level, and how can anyone survive with that. I would do it only when I had to - and that would be when my benenfits are done. Case #3...Certainly if mothers out there are having children for the sole purpose of not having to work..then Welfare should be doing something about that. However, how can welfare or you prove that these people are doing that. Is it possible that these single parents are divorcees, or the father of their children moved out on them, and left these mothers to raise their children? If this the case, I don't blame them. I don't believe any state agency should force a parent to go to work full time, until their child is of school age. Who has the right to tell me that I cannot raise my child, and instead I have to put them in the hands of a child care service...just because I got divorced, or my children's father walked out on us. Why should my children sufer because of these circumstances. So, the bottom line is...there are two sides to every story...before we can quickly judge somebody's situation, we need to know every detail of it...and not just assume we know what's going on.
@benny128 (3621)
27 Dec 09
these are not friends of mine just people I know, So A) Even though a person has been sensible with his money and not spent every last pound of it, he should be penalised by not getting any benefits. I understand he can support himself but if they have paid their stamp and tax and been sensible with their money they are being penalised for that. They may aswell of spent the lot and then been in the position to be looked after by the state, that feels wrong to me. B) So would you be happy with someone being paid by your taxes because they just don't want to get a job and yeah maybe earn less but they wouldn't be taking money off the state which could then go to other area's of the country maybe hospitals or whatever. I have always worked and am not impressed by paying for people to sit around in the house but again I can't understand why some people just plainly don't want to work. Though can understand if they are going to earn less, but don't agree with it. C) Please don't say that its just the men that walk out of mams, I am a single dad of 3 and more and more women are walking out on their kids and husbands I know I am one of them. I think that once kids go to school everybody should work, as more and more companies are now flexible a mate of mine works for Berghaus not sure if thats the spelling and they have a creche attached to the company and also allow flexy working hours enabling the single dads or mams to be able to work and look after their kids aswell. But I think people should be deterred from using their kids as a income generator but not sure exactly how you could other than to put a limit on the number of kids that people cam claim benefit for but thats penalising the kids and it wasn't their fault they were born as a meal ticket. Cheers for the reply and happy xmas and new year.
• United States
28 Dec 09
"Even though a person has been sensible with his money and not spent every last pound of it, he should be penalised by not getting any benefits." Saving Money is usually saved in case we need it for a rainy day. Some of us are lucky enough to save enough to buy all the toys we want in life, and enjoy a fun filled retirement. Well I would call, being out of work, that rainy day you were saving up for. And while I feel sorry for someone who can't buy all those toys they wanted, or to tour the countryside or take trips on their retirement, I certainly don't think the State should support them just so they are able to have all that someday. In other words, why should they hoard their money and make the state support them. That's life!
@benny128 (3621)
28 Dec 09
thats cool, so what your saying is we should just go out and spend spend spend so we can at least be supported in terms of being unemployed, I guess the same situation Isay you have saved all my life never been out of work well never took benefits from the tax you paid, let say you have 3 kids to look after and am a single parent. Should they still get benefits if they have saved money but also have kids that depend on the parent as the money will be there to put them through an education in later years etc etc
@TrvlArrngr (4058)
• United States
26 Dec 09
Hi You forgot those that are underemployed that had to take a paycut. I took a paycut in April of 2009 and had to go out and get a 2nd job working the weekends to try to make up for it. There are many that cannot find 2nd jobs and remain employed but making less than they were before. The ones that refuse to work should have to undergo state physicals to show they are capable of working and those that keep getting pregnant should start losing benefits after the 2nd child and still not working. That would deter them from having more. If they do have more then they would have to work for the state watching kids in the welfare offices. That way they can bring their kids with them. Unfortunately there will always be people that try to take advantage of the system and the working class will have to support them. It is not fair.
@benny128 (3621)
27 Dec 09
well thats not a bad idea for only receiving benefits for say 2 kids personally I would prob extend that to 3 as 2.4 is the average here in uk. Though I feel there is still discrimation in the child side of work as I am a single dad of 3 and have them full time by myself, and it is still massively biased towards the expectation that its always the mams that have the kids. When there are a growing number of mams that walk out. My point for the ones that don't work is they are not refusing to work they know how to work the system go to job interviews and be a bad candidate so that they don't get the job offer. They are still doing what the job centre are asking of them.
• United States
27 Dec 09
I hate that. They do that here too. They go on the interviews and know how to say things and act a certain way to not get the job. ugh. I am a single mom of 2 and when I first got divorced and was trying to get health benefits for my children. Not for me - just for them - and was taken on the side and told - we consider you rich. You have a house and a car in your name. Lose those and we can help you. Now how does that make sense? I just went out and got a 2nd job.
• United States
27 Dec 09
That is just wrong! I have a full time job, a part time job, and work online writing too. My ex has not paid child support in a year but I still cannot get any help from the government. I am ready to cash in and get a house in the mountains away from it all.lol.
@jb78000 (15173)
26 Dec 09
well unemployment benefit has to be there but i agree that there are certainly people taking advantage, and also those that need it. so situation A - well a certain level of savings i think should preclude you from getting benefits, however the level is pretty low right now isn;t it? B - why is the job centre not on their backs? it has been with people i know who would like to work but are over qualified or too old (in the minds of employers) so how come they are getting away with this? C - that is ridiculous but i wouldn't know how to stop people doing this.
@benny128 (3621)
26 Dec 09
hey cute bunny he he he well A) I think its less than 10k in saving and you can get benefit anymore and you can't though should you be penalised if you been sensible and saved some of your salary and of course paid your taxes. B) The job centre only state you need to go to so many interviews per month so there are people I know my next door neighbour is one who go to interviews in track suit pants with the purpose of not getting the job seems ridiculous. C) Yeah not sure if theres anything that can be done but should be be paying them out of our taxes ??
@jb78000 (15173)
26 Dec 09
a - case by case basis i think for that one b - hmmm - i know the job centre chases people who don't deserve that so i don't understand why it lets people like this obviously just take advantage. c - i think virtually impossible to stop - hard to distinguish between those that have children just to get benefits and those that are genuine. it is not such a huge number of people that it is a major problem though.
@benny128 (3621)
26 Dec 09
totally agree thanks for your response hun mwah x
• United States
28 Dec 09
I will agree with you that these benefits are being misused but sometimes it is hard to point fingers when we can't walk in the other persons shoes. I think the worst part of the issue is the system that controls these benefits. I know of some examples where people who were really needy couldn't receive help because of circumstances similar to the guy you talk about who had too much in his savings. Then, I know of other circumstances where people who really could do without this extra help just seem to keep receiving it without question. I am not saying that these type of programs are wrong because there are people who really need help but I think that the people controlling these programs misuse them although I don't know what their reasons are. As far as my taxes being spent on this type of misuse; I must say that I am used to it. The government has always used taxes as they see fit and I sometimes wonder if it really represents what the majority wants. Democracy is supposed to allow the people to govern themselves by elected representation but do you see anybody being elected for office or even able to run for office unless they have lots and lots of money?