Benefits payments

morstar

Regardless of the luck debate, I think it is important to separate hard work and affluence.
I work hard, earn more than average and do not resent people being rewarded for hard work (within reason).
I do not however begrudge people receiving benefits.
Some people are lazy, whilst some are not. Some people are wealthy whilst some are not.
Some wealthy people are that way through hard work. Some wealthy people are lazy.
Some poor people working very hard. Some are lazy.
I respect hard working people regardless of their fiscal worth.
I don't respect lazy People regardless of their fiscal worth.
Where do politics fail. The Conservatives fail when they misrepresent wealth as worthy and being poor as a result of laziness.
Labour fails when they blindly defend all poorer elements of society.
Looking down on people just for receiving benefits is disgraceful. Painting all benefits recipients as lazy is toxic.

veronese68

Well said Morstar.

pinno

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Arsenal are a big enough club to warrant a big team and rotation.
There's no luck in that, it's planning.

But the point being that they had worse injuries than most other clubs and a manager who bemoaned his luck every autumn for a decade.

My point is that if he did not believe in luck he would have been looking at the players he was buying, the training regime, style of play, rotation, and recovery procedures.

Instead he shrugged his Gallic shoulders and blamed it on luck.

Err... I am not disagreeing.

pinno

BTW, I think it's great that a benefit thread descends into this.

morstar

Veronese68 wrote:

Well said Morstar.

Thank you. I like to think this is common sense stuff but I know it isn't.
Two aspects of recent politics that really annoyed me.
Michael Howard (con) totally misappropriated the term hard working when referring to the affluent.
Education Milliband (lab) offered a primary policy of 'we will protect your benefits' rather than offering a vision where benefits become less necessary.
There is only going to be less and less work to do as automation extends its reach further and further. At what point do we stop treating those who are marginalised or put out of well remunerated employment as scum? How do we actually see automation as a way to benefit all and not just business owners? It's all well and good while it works to our own advantage but the problems are real.

slowmart

Rick Chasey wrote:

Because presumably you’re familiar with the correlation of your parents status and your subsequent status?

And in the context of the world, where your born is even more important with regards to your wealth and likelihood of a certain quality life.

And again, that’s before we look at the mental and physical attributes we are born with.

In your context of football; there are an awful lot of footballers and only a few are good enough to be playing in the premier league/top level international football.

Now, I reckon the pool is deep enough that there will be many more players who train and work as hard as the elite footballers, so the determining factor is their born with ability and traits.

I’m not going to be the next heavyweight boxer, now matter how hard I could have trained.

But nah, no luck at all. :roll:.

What a load of bollocks. Wealth and quality of life are subjective to the society and community you live within. How you become the best you can be is down to holding yourself to account, your aspirations, perception of risk, work/life balance set within the social structure of your community.

Use the context of learning and most aspects equalise out. Ok there’s always going to be some self entitled twat who is born into money, status of both but we all make choices.

Those choices have consequences, some foreseeable and while others emerge unseen. It’s how you adapt, overcome or give up. Access to learning is taken for granted in this country where hard work is seem as a lifestyle choice rather than a personal attribute driven by self respect.

So carry on blame failures of genetics, events, social or economic barriers. The cream will always rise to the top.

rjsterry

Sure. When the evidence doesn't fit your point of view, just ignore it. That seems to be the way of the world at the moment.

Jez mon

I mean surely the part of being the cream is intelligence (or whatever term you want to use). Which is seemingly largely chance, or at least factors outside of the individuals control.

Looking at what benefits you can claim for children and taking them into account seems sensible when doing a quick back of fag paper on the affordability of a family. Surely it's the other side of the same coin as efficient tax planning...yet (some of) the posters who are all for efficient tax planning seem utterly alarmed by the examining the benefits

rick_chasey

Slowmart wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Because presumably you’re familiar with the correlation of your parents status and your subsequent status?

And in the context of the world, where your born is even more important with regards to your wealth and likelihood of a certain quality life.

And again, that’s before we look at the mental and physical attributes we are born with.

In your context of football; there are an awful lot of footballers and only a few are good enough to be playing in the premier league/top level international football.

Now, I reckon the pool is deep enough that there will be many more players who train and work as hard as the elite footballers, so the determining factor is their born with ability and traits.

I’m not going to be the next heavyweight boxer, now matter how hard I could have trained.

But nah, no luck at all. :roll:.

What a load of ****. Wealth and quality of life are subjective to the society and community you live within. How you become the best you can be is down to holding yourself to account, your aspirations, perception of risk, work/life balance set within the social structure of your community.

Use the context of learning and most aspects equalise out. Ok there’s always going to be some self entitled fool who is born into money, status of both but we all make choices.

Those choices have consequences, some foreseeable and while others emerge unseen. It’s how you adapt, overcome or give up. Access to learning is taken for granted in this country where hard work is seem as a lifestyle choice rather than a personal attribute driven by self respect.

So carry on blame failures of genetics, events, social or economic barriers. The cream will always rise to the top.

What I find quite odd is this idea I’m blaming stuff or finding excuses.

I guess you’re assuming I haven’t had success?

morstar

Slowmart wrote:

So carry on blame failures of genetics, events, social or economic barriers. The cream will always rise to the top.

All well and good for the cream! Now what about people who work equally hard but, through either choice or circumstance pursue a path that is low paid.
Why does claiming benefits make them a lesser person?

slowmart

morstar wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

So carry on blame failures of genetics, events, social or economic barriers. The cream will always rise to the top.

All well and good for the cream! Now what about people who work equally hard but, through either choice or circumstance pursue a path that is low paid.
Why does claiming benefits make them a lesser person?

Absolutely not. The fundamentals for the existence of the awelfare state by its original architect, Mr Bevan, are unfortunately still required.

My response was based on Ricks comment of the correlation of status conveyed from parents to their children

@Rick, no buddy, success is relative and subjective

pinno

Success cannot be simply judged on monetary terms.

Those working for say MSF saving lives for example, often for free.

surrey_commuter

Pinno wrote:

Success cannot be simply judged on monetary terms.

Those working for say MSF saving lives for example, often for free.

Overseas aid workers have different metrics for success - such as not getting caught

slowmart

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Success cannot be simply judged on monetary terms.

Those working for say MSF saving lives for example, often for free.

Overseas aid workers have different metrics for success - such as not getting caught

Stevo_666

It probably wasn't the best example.

Frank Wilson

Slowmart wrote:

morstar wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

So carry on blame failures of genetics, events, social or economic barriers. The cream will always rise to the top.

All well and good for the cream! Now what about people who work equally hard but, through either choice or circumstance pursue a path that is low paid.
Why does claiming benefits make them a lesser person?

Absolutely not. The fundamentals for the existence of the awelfare state by its original architect, Mr Bevan, are unfortunately still required.

My response was based on Ricks comment of the correlation of status conveyed from parents to their children

@Rick, no buddy, success is relative and subjective

Bevan founded the National Health Service, it was another Welshman David Lloyd George who introduced welfare reforms.

pinno

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Success cannot be simply judged on monetary terms.

Those working for say MSF saving lives for example, often for free.

Overseas aid workers have different metrics for success - such as not getting caught

Medicin sans frontiere?! Not the Red Cross.

mrfpb

It was the Beveridge report of 1942 that proposed the comprehensive welfare state covering housing, education, healthcare, social welfare (benefits and care homes) and full employment.

The NHS Act 1948 was just one of around a dozen acts that brought it into being. Education Act 1944, town planning acts, nationalizing coal, steel and rail. The National Assistance Act 1948 replaced the Poor Law of 1601 that all previous welfare law was built on.

Abandoning the pursuit of full employment in the early 80's is one of the major causes of an overburdened benefits system. Tax credits as a "subsidised employment" scheme could be interpreted as a way back as it lifted many people out of the situation of being better off on unemployment benefits. It's probably cheaper than renationalising industries and reopening all the coal mines.

History lesson over.

Frank Wilson

I won't argue with you as it is usually a futile excersise on the internet but Lloyd George introduced pension and unemployment benefit some 40 years prior to the bills of which you are siting.

ballysmate

morstar wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

So carry on blame failures of genetics, events, social or economic barriers. The cream will always rise to the top.

All well and good for the cream! Now what about people who work equally hard but, through either choice or circumstance pursue a path that is low paid.
Why does claiming benefits make them a lesser person?

Haven't gone through all 9 pages but has anyone actually claimed that?

robert88

Ballysmate wrote:

morstar wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

So carry on blame failures of genetics, events, social or economic barriers. The cream will always rise to the top.

All well and good for the cream! Now what about people who work equally hard but, through either choice or circumstance pursue a path that is low paid.
Why does claiming benefits make them a lesser person?

Haven't gone through all 9 pages but has anyone actually claimed that?

Not exactly but it has been established that richer people are better than poorer people. That must tell you the same thing, no?

surrey_commuter

Anybody else notice that top up payments to pensioners are universally known as entitlements rather than benefits?

Certainly never heard a middle class person say they are on benefits when in receipt of child benefit.

First.Aspect

Robert88 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

morstar wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

So carry on blame failures of genetics, events, social or economic barriers. The cream will always rise to the top.

All well and good for the cream! Now what about people who work equally hard but, through either choice or circumstance pursue a path that is low paid.
Why does claiming benefits make them a lesser person?

Haven't gone through all 9 pages but has anyone actually claimed that?

Not exactly but it has been established that richer people are better than poorer people. That must tell you the same thing, no?

From some posters on here, a slightly shocking thread. The thinking that f you can't afford children, because you haven't worked hard enough or aren't gifted enough to be successful is a little close to ..... for my liking.

slowmart

Robert88 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

morstar wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

So carry on blame failures of genetics, events, social or economic barriers. The cream will always rise to the top.

All well and good for the cream! Now what about people who work equally hard but, through either choice or circumstance pursue a path that is low paid.
Why does claiming benefits make them a lesser person?

Haven't gone through all 9 pages but has anyone actually claimed that?

Not exactly but it has been established that richer people are better than poorer people. That must tell you the same thing, no?

Er no. Success and happiness is subjective, attaining those states is sometimes fleeting but always elusive.

ballysmate

Robert88 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

morstar wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

So carry on blame failures of genetics, events, social or economic barriers. The cream will always rise to the top.

All well and good for the cream! Now what about people who work equally hard but, through either choice or circumstance pursue a path that is low paid.
Why does claiming benefits make them a lesser person?

Haven't gone through all 9 pages but has anyone actually claimed that?

Not exactly but it has been established that richer people are better than poorer people. That must tell you the same thing, no?

Established by whom?

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

morstar wrote:

Bikes`n`guns wrote:

We want kids, but need to plan what benefits we can get first.

Jesus H Christ.

Buy a very small dog instead ffs.

Why is somebody with limited finances working out what is available to them, perfectly legally, a bad thing?

Claiming benefits is no different than somebody who is comfortably off using accountants to reduce tax liabilities within the law.

Repeating myself now, taxes, salaries, benefits and cost of living (missed that one earlier) are all related to each other. None of them exist in a bubble.

I seem to remember one of those who thinks claiming benefits is scrounging was very vocal on the Panama thread about the benefits of tax planning. I'm sure he sent back his child benefit.

I did.

You don't know the rules do you...
https://revenuebenefits.org.uk/child-benefit/guidance/how-do-child-benefit-and-guardians-allowance-work/high-income-child-benefit-charge/

You can move off the moral high ground now

Missed this earlier. No, not you (ears burning? ), but I am well aware of the rules.

mrfpb

Frank Wilson wrote:

I won't argue with you as it is usually a futile excersise on the internet but Lloyd George introduced pension and unemployment benefit some 40 years prior to the bills of which you are siting.

Apologies, Frank, you are right. NI payments gave a "right" to working men to healthcare and unemployment benefits, but you had to have paid something in. The 1940s introduced univsrsal benefits (Family Allowance) and means tested benefits (Supplementary Benefit, Housing Benefit) that did not require NI contributions.

One of the arguments Lloyd George used to "sell" NI to the Right was that the unemployed were so destitute that they were not good enough to be conscripted into the army. Essentially not even good enough to be cannon fodder.

pinno

First Aspect wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

morstar wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

So carry on blame failures of genetics, events, social or economic barriers. The cream will always rise to the top.

All well and good for the cream! Now what about people who work equally hard but, through either choice or circumstance pursue a path that is low paid.
Why does claiming benefits make them a lesser person?

Haven't gone through all 9 pages but has anyone actually claimed that?

Not exactly but it has been established that richer people are better than poorer people. That must tell you the same thing, no?

From some posters on here, a slightly shocking thread. The thinking that f you can't afford children, because you haven't worked hard enough or aren't gifted enough to be successful is a little close to ..... for my liking.

If you are poor, it's because you've obviously made the wrong choices innit?

morstar

Ballysmate wrote:

morstar wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

So carry on blame failures of genetics, events, social or economic barriers. The cream will always rise to the top.

All well and good for the cream! Now what about people who work equally hard but, through either choice or circumstance pursue a path that is low paid.
Why does claiming benefits make them a lesser person?

Haven't gone through all 9 pages but has anyone actually claimed that?

As it is an internet forum and not a court of law I am not beholden to build a file of evidence. I think the sentiment is quite evident in some posts referring to 'my taxes' and spongers, scroungers + whatever other negative words are used to refer to benefits claimants.
No different to tax planning. If the rules say you're entitled to benefits, you're entitled to them. If you pay tax, it goes into the pot, it's no longer your money.
I'm not for one second saying the benefits system isn't taken advantage of. But so is the tax system. Zero difference. The right manage to ignore one of these issues, the left the other.

morstar

]

Ballysmate wrote:

morstar wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

So carry on blame failures of genetics, events, social or economic barriers. The cream will always rise to the top.

All well and good for the cream! Now what about people who work equally hard but, through either choice or circumstance pursue a path that is low paid.
Why does claiming benefits make them a lesser person?

Haven't gone through all 9 pages but has anyone actually claimed that?

As it is an internet forum and not a court of law I am not beholden to build a file of evidence. I think the sentiment is quite evident in some posts referring to 'my taxes' and spongers, scroungers + whatever other negative words are used to refer to benefits claimants.
No different to tax planning. If the rules say you're entitled to benefits, you're entitled to them. If you pay tax, it goes into the pot, it's no longer your money.
I'm not for one second saying the benefits system isn't taken advantage of. But so is the tax system. Zero difference. The right manage to ignore one of these issues, the left the other.
Edited to add. You only need to read the first page. Unless you want to know all about Arsenal.