• Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 8:39 pm**

My blood pressure has gone through the roof !
What a spineless bunch of lazy bone idol spongers so many people have become. The excuses to get fit notes and the gullible sods at the job centres etc who accept them is stomach churning. Genuine sick/disabled people should be given all the help they need to live a dignified life but some of these chancers should have all benefits stopped, at the end of the day it our money they are dishing out. One woman is desperate to employ a steel cutter, £24 k a year, 25 applied, 5 turned up for interview, guy who got it quit after 4 hours as he got as much on benefits. Is it any wonder the country is financially on its knees.
I was talking to a guy who manages a warehouse and nearly everyday immigrants/asylum seekers turn up looking for work, they want to work are desperate to work, it's in the main why they are here, shame some of our feckless scroungers haven't got their work ethic.
And breath......

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 8:40 pm**

When I used to need non skilled workers for full time work in excess of minimum wage you'd get next to no English applicants. They don't want to work. Prefer to get hand outs and rob.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:20 pm**

bfcjg wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2024 8:39 pm
My blood pressure has gone through the roof !
What a spineless bunch of lazy bone idol spongers so many people have become. The excuses to get fit notes and the gullible sods at the job centres etc who accept them is stomach churning. Genuine sick/disabled people should be given all the help they need to live a dignified life but some of these chancers should have all benefits stopped, at the end of the day it our money they are dishing out. One woman is desperate to employ a steel cutter, £24 k a year, 25 applied, 5 turned up for interview, guy who got it quit after 4 hours as he got as much on benefits. Is it any wonder the country is financially on its knees.
I was talking to a guy who manages a warehouse and nearly everyday immigrants/asylum seekers turn up looking for work, they want to work are desperate to work, it's in the main why they are here, shame some of our feckless scroungers haven't got their work ethic.
And breath......

Would it help your blood pressure if I told you that you spelt idle wrong in your second sentence?

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:25 pm**

GetIntoEm wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2024 8:40 pm
When I used to need non skilled workers for full time work in excess of minimum wage you'd get next to no English applicants. They don't want to work. Prefer to get hand outs and rob.

Absolute ********

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:27 pm**

The obsession with people who have less than them continues.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:31 pm**

fidelcastro wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:27 pm
The obsession with people who have less than them continues.

In lots of cases the people who work have less than those who don't , that's why they don't work.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:34 pm**

Milltown1882 wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:20 pm
Would it help your blood pressure if I told you that you spelt idle wrong in your second sentence?

That has made my day
Still can’t stop laughing

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:37 pm**

bfcjg wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:31 pm
In lots of cases the people who work have less than those who don't , that's why they don't work.

Just asking, could you manage on £24k a year in the circumstances that many young willing workers find themselves today?

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:39 pm**

Nowt you can do about it.

Chill.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:51 pm**

boatshed bill wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:37 pm
Just asking, could you manage on £24k a year in the circumstances that many young willing workers find themselves today?
What actually is your point?

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:52 pm**

Do you get equally as annoyed with millionaire tax avoiders ?

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:52 pm**

boatshed bill wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:37 pm
Just asking, could you manage on £24k a year in the circumstances that many young willing workers find themselves today?

Pensioners have to manage on less than half that.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:52 pm**

mdd2 wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:34 pm
That has made my day
Still can’t stop laughing

You really must be easily pleased. Paddy McGuiness fan by any chance ?

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:53 pm**

Milltown1882 wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:20 pm
Would it help your blood pressure if I told you that you spelt idle wrong in your second sentence?

He missed an “e” off breathe in the last sentence too. He’ll be spewing over that…

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:58 pm**

AmbleClaret wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:52 pm
Do you get equally as annoyed with millionaire tax avoiders ?

Just this. Totally agree. And it used to cost the country more in lost tax than benefit scroungers. At least that was the case.
Just out of interest I wonder how many benefit moaners use Amazon?

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:01 pm**

https://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/
In the time this thread has been on check how the national debt has risen, but it doesn't matter as the supporters of the skivers are more than happy to pay more tax to support them while watching the NHS, education,social care etc struggle.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:04 pm**

boatshed bill wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:37 pm
Just asking, could you manage on £24k a year in the circumstances that many young willing workers find themselves today?

The answer to that, for everybody, should be yes.
You cut your cloth accordingly. It's amazing how much the fortunate ones, including myself, waste on non necessities. No problem with that as, you can spend money as you wish, but when the time comes when the cash isn't there you tighten your belt. It's common sense.

Back to the OP, and I agree entirely. There are many in this country who aren't prepared to go without. They see themselves as entitled to live the same lifestyle as those who are working, but don't fancy working 40 hours a week for minimum wage. No work ethic, no qualifications, no skill set, but they want the lifestyle all those factors contribute too.
The worse thing is there are people in genuine need who could benefit from a lot more help if only the spongers didn't take the lions share.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:04 pm**

bfcjg wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:52 pm
You really must be easily pleased. Paddy McGuiness fan by any chance ?

To be fair I thought it was funny too. And I’m not a fan of Paddy.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:06 pm**

AmbleClaret wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:52 pm
Do you get equally as annoyed with millionaire tax avoiders ?

I’d imagine that’s easier to deal with, considering it’s govt sponsored.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:09 pm**

AmbleClaret wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:52 pm
Do you get equally as annoyed with millionaire tax avoiders ?

Damn right I do, let's face it they paid what they should essential services would get more...obviously after the spongers have had their noses in the trough.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:14 pm**

Scroungers are only part of the problem. The other part is the employers who think we are still living in the eighties when it comes to wages. I was earning more 30 years ago than I am now, admittedly I had a well paid job and only work four days now but full time in my current job I was only 5k up on thirty years ago. If you gave the incentive of decent living wages then more people might give up scrounging.
Let me ask this question: would you let your family down if you went out working for less money than staying at home? Pay the wages and things might change. The problem is successive governments (Tories and Labour) say that wage rises should be below inflation to keep inflation down. It doesn’t take Einstein to work out by doing that people get worse off year on year. Why don’t we try telling companies they have to keep their price rises down? But we know that will never happen.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:20 pm**

Totally agree re the wages. I’m not sure how someone gets by on £24k which I think is marginally above the minimum wage. When you factor in the cost of childcare it’s easy to see how people fall out of work and stay that way.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:21 pm**

houseboy wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:14 pm
Scroungers are only part of the problem. The other part is the employers who think we are still living in the eighties when it comes to wages. I was earning more 30 years ago than I am now, admittedly I had a well paid job and only work four days now but full time in my current job I was only 5k up on thirty years ago. If you gave the incentive of decent living wages then more people might give up scrounging.
Let me ask this question: would you let your family down if you went out working for less money than staying at home? Pay the wages and things might change. The problem is successive governments (Tories and Labour) say that wage rises should be below inflation to keep inflation down. It doesn’t take Einstein to work out by doing that people get worse off year on year. Why don’t we try telling companies they have to keep their price rises down? But we know that will never happen.

I think we agree with eachother. Maybe talking a lot of sense.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:27 pm**

Start at the top then work your way down. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you.. ... The "not so royal" family.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:30 pm**

AmbleClaret wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:52 pm
Do you get equally as annoyed with millionaire tax avoiders ?

Even avoiding tax millionaire stump up billions in tax

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:32 pm**

mdd2 wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:30 pm
Even avoiding tax millionaire stump up billions in tax

Really ? How much inheritance tax did Charles pay ?

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:35 pm**

Pay higher wages, keep prices down ?
How does that correlate ?

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:40 pm**

Instead of getting wound up by a programme the News of the World would be proud of with that much exaggerated crap in.

Try and come up with a suggestion how you could get people back to work.

Now the basic rate for UC is 92 quid a week, some will get rent paid for them. Those that get more will have bad health.
I'm not sure what will qualify you for 24k in benefits? PIP can be earned if working so I'm not sure it should count in this debate.

My take on it is the government need to work with employers to give claimants a bit more leeway when they first get a job, and to take more on.

But as we all know, employers want the very best candidates (as they should) but chances are the unemployed aren't as good at jobs as the people already in their job.
Job description on some minimum wage jobs are ridiculous for what they expect as well.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:40 pm**

mdd2 wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:30 pm
Even avoiding tax millionaire stump up billions in tax

That may be so but they are still not paying their dues. And some very wealthy people and companies do not pay that much.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:42 pm**

Milltown1882 wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:20 pm
Would it help your blood pressure if I told you that you spelt idle wrong in your second sentence?

Unless he holds them in high esteem! Or should that be e steam!

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:45 pm**

These programmes only serve to divide the people and get them fighting amongst ourselves. Meanwhile, no spotlight is put in the millionaire and billionaires dodginh or minimising their tax. I'm they all paid properly, there would be no problems.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:49 pm**

Funkydrummer wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:35 pm
Pay higher wages, keep prices down ?
How does that correlate ?

Because some companies (many but not all) could soak up the extra cost. The problem lies in the fact that many companies (even possibly most) make enough money to pay more without putting prices up. Smaller companies probably less so, but there could be some leeway for businesses that are, shall we say, borderline. You only have to look at the year end profits of some companies to see that they are making huge amounts of money (again I point to Amazon). But the needs of the shareholders are being put before the needs of the people who are actually making the money.
Apologies if this all sounds a bit Karl Marx but there should be a way of taking care of the interests of all don’t you think.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:50 pm**

So sad to know many pensioners who have just a state pension to live on, not on pension credits, lose their £300 heating allowance, then tonight you learn how much is being thrown to some lazy sods with no intention to work, that are going to spend it on booze and drugs. This country is truly knackered with so many politicians totally out of touch with reality. Oh and we have had 20,000 illegal immigrants arrive on small boats since Labour won the election

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:51 pm**

Now do Michelle Mone.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:52 pm**

Who?

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 11:05 pm**

IanMcL wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:45 pm
These programmes only serve to divide the people and get them fighting amongst ourselves. Meanwhile, no spotlight is put in the millionaire and billionaires dodginh or minimising their tax. I'm they all paid properly, there would be no problems.

What should they pay?
You have a tax system where some relatively high earners lose 62p for every £1 they earn over £100 k and in that £100k they have paid over £32k

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 11:55 pm**

IanMcL wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:45 pm
These programmes only serve to divide the people and get them fighting amongst ourselves. Meanwhile, no spotlight is put in the millionaire and billionaires dodginh or minimising their tax. I'm they all paid properly, there would be no problems.

You're way overestimating how much money billionaires have.

According to the Forbes rich list 2017, per wikipedia, the combined wealth of all Britain's nillionaires was £187 billion. Let's double it, say £400 billion now, and assume they're making 10% combined income and capital gains and would be charge 50% tax on their whole worldwide income - that makes £20 billion in tax for the Exchequer. It wouldn't cover Rachel Reeves' black hole. It wouldn't cover a week's government spending even before the recent budget increases.

And of course it wouldn't raise anything like that money, principally because we have double taxation relief with most countries so the income wouldn't be taxable here, and secondly because the likes of Jim Ratcliffe have already taken the chance to leave and minimise their tax exposure to the UK, and the likes of the Hinduja family are here specifically because they are tax exiles and would certainly jump ship if being a tax exile was costing them so much. (Hinduja and Ratcliffe made up more than a quarter of the £187 billion in the original figures.)

An increased tax on billionaires wouldn't solve much, however desirable it may appear in theory.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2024 11:56 pm**

I have worked in the care industry for the last 17 years for admittedly poor pay(employed by the Priory Group). Two or three years ago, my boss could have two or three applicants lined up for an interview and every single one would be a no show.
Some people just do not want to work. I hate the fact that my taxes are being paid to subsidise the life of the idle.
And before you have a go at me for daring to criticise these people, I hate the tax dodgers as well. And I have nothing but contempt for politicians from either side who allow all these practices to continue. It might not be illegal but it’s certainly immoral.

Posted: **Tue Dec 03, 2024 12:12 am**

Everything's already been said before on here god knows how many times topics on here & nothing's changed. I don't think a answer exists or if it does the will to implement certainly doesn't. People have been playing the system for decades & people who don't even a passport have been getting away with it. I've mentioned before previously the amount of illegal workers here in the UK & that's before even starting on the 1s here legally but been ridiculed. I know exactly what's going on & the answers but convincing people that I do is the herculean hurdle.

Posted: **Tue Dec 03, 2024 12:24 am**

What is the answer?

Posted: **Tue Dec 03, 2024 12:29 am**

That should be obvious. People who have paid into the system all their life's need to come first sadly that hasn't been happening for some age, that's not a dig at labour no different under the blue flag. It's obviously very political & not a road I wish to embark upon. Good evening/morning however which to determine the passage of time.

Posted: **Tue Dec 03, 2024 7:00 am**

Rileybobs wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:20 pm
Totally agree re the wages. I’m not sure how someone gets by on £24k which I think is marginally above the minimum wage. When you factor in the cost of childcare it’s easy to see how people fall out of work and stay that way.

If you're on £24k and have children you're getting benefits on top plus free childcare.

Posted: **Tue Dec 03, 2024 7:13 am**

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑
Tue Dec 03, 2024 12:12 am
I don't think a answer exists

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑
Tue Dec 03, 2024 12:12 am
I know exactly what's going on & the answers

OK then.

Posted: **Tue Dec 03, 2024 8:29 am**

If someone is unemployed and doesn’t work why do they need childcare?

Posted: **Tue Dec 03, 2024 8:37 am**

PensansClaret wrote: ↑
Tue Dec 03, 2024 8:29 am
If someone is unemployed and doesn’t work why do they need childcare?

They probably don’t. My point was with the cost of childcare I can see why for some people on low incomes it doesn’t make financial sense for them to work.

Posted: **Tue Dec 03, 2024 8:39 am**

GetIntoEm wrote: ↑
Tue Dec 03, 2024 7:00 am
If you're on £24k and have children you're getting benefits on top plus free childcare.

Fair enough, I don’t know the exact thresholds. I suspect a significant number of people have children and don’t go back to work though.

Posted: **Tue Dec 03, 2024 8:43 am**

Volvoclaret wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:52 pm
Pensioners have to manage on less than half that.

Pensioners are not job seekers.

Posted: **Tue Dec 03, 2024 8:44 am**

Tall Paul wrote: ↑
Tue Dec 03, 2024 7:13 am
OK then.

In conjunction with the capacity to implement as I later stated but please feel free to omit that & distort.

Posted: **Tue Dec 03, 2024 8:51 am**

Surely the money paid to claimants finds its way back into the broader economy and benefits us all?

So the bigger the payments the better I'd have thought.

Posted: **Tue Dec 03, 2024 8:53 am**

HurstGrangeClaret wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2024 11:56 pm
I have worked in the care industry for the last 17 years for admittedly poor pay(employed by the Priory Group).

I know someone who worked in the care industry. Shockingly lowed paid and zero-hours too. If a 'service user' cancels a visit or whatever, they don't get paid. They have to hang around for an hour or so in their own car until the next appointment.

I mentioned their own car didn't I. Yep, they have to provide their own car too. Thing is, when the car goes kaput, many have to leave their job too because they are already struggling to survive on the minimum wage and buying another car, or even getting a loan for one, is a no-no on those pitiful, unsecured zero-hour low wages. The way we treat care workers, both those who work in the community and care homes, is disgusting.

No wonder they struggle to get people to do this kind of work. They need a decent living wage and those in the domiciliary sector should also have a car allowance.

Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Re: Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.