Woman's Hour  permalink

State Benefits

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 20 of 20
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by U5878085 (U5878085) on Monday, 15th December 2008

    I'm afraid that benefits DO actually encourage laziness. After all why bother to work when you can just sit at home and let someone else slog their guts out whilst you just enjoy watching Countdown.

    The higher state benefits are the more people will be on them, quite simple, as you effectively make the benefit of working all week less advantageous.

    It corresponds that if benefits were cut then there would be fewer claiming....

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Magotie-headed-Aubrey (U3483010) on Monday, 15th December 2008

    Do you know benefit levels, Jack? £200 a week, is it?

    JSA is £65.50, Incapacity £84.50 And you still might have to pay some rent, as I do - and you don't get free prescriptions either. Jealous?

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Tara (U9916381) on Monday, 15th December 2008

    The higher state benefits are the more people will be on them, quite simple, as you effectively make the benefit of working all week less advantageous.  

    Of course higher wages might make some people more interested in work

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by listener (U10967204) on Monday, 15th December 2008

    You have to be quite a high earner to get as much in wages as you do in state benfits if you are the single mother of seven children. I believe Karen Matthews was herself one of seven children.

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by View from the North (U2337741) on Monday, 15th December 2008

    I would agree wholeheartedly Tara.

    Except of course folk DO like their cheap sprouts at Christmas (and everything else, year round).

    As soon as some poor beggar asks for a payrise, the whole country is mobilised to call them "Greedy beggars!"

    Except for bankers and financial whizz kids who have proved to be SO successful that they deserve their multi-million pound salaries and bonuses.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Tara (U9916381) on Monday, 15th December 2008

    Hurray VftN smiley - bubbly
    We agree again smiley - hug
    and we may never answer each others posts again smiley - sadface

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by betty-bets (U4267170) on Monday, 15th December 2008

    i hope the bankers will be picking our sprouts this year

    they clearly are not qualified to deal in dosh, nor should they collect bonuses....

    what bonus does a loving wife and mother enjoy? the adoration of her family who appreciates everything she does for ZERO salary - and that is a wonderful thing.

    but really,

    who contributes more to society?


    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by listener (U10967204) on Monday, 15th December 2008

    If there was a young widow, say her, previously working full time as a plumber, husband had been killed in a road accident and left her with 7 children under the age of ten to raise (four were two sets of twins). Would we begrudge her state support to keep her family housed, fed and clothed?

    I think not.

    However, we (society) don't like to see folk taking us for mugs as some seem to be doing. The trouble is that 'procedures' cannot differentiate between mothers like the widow above and the people we read about like Karen Matthews.

    I don't know what we do about it without risking putting the family in the first paragraph at risk.



    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by betty-bets (U4267170) on Monday, 15th December 2008

    in the end we are going to have to be hard on the benefit grabbing,never worked for a wage packet in my life teeny mums. they need to be stopped in their tracks.

    ideally, resources should go to the full time plumber without insurance and condoms.... and his widow and children.

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by listener (U10967204) on Monday, 15th December 2008

    but how do you separate then out? Most are not cut and dried like the examples I've given. Most will be in a grey area between what many would call deserving and not deserving. Where do you draw the line? It's a very personal view I suspect and will differ between individual opinions.

    Currently, 'procedures' are followed that ensure the deserving do not get penalised. This means that those we think of as undeserving get the same benefit.

    I really don't see how you can separate the two cases (especially, as I said, many will be in the grey area between the two).

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by loop22 (U7386676) on Monday, 15th December 2008

    JJF why are you posing yourself these questions and then agreeing with yourself under names like simaswas and betty-bets? Have you taken your medication tonight?

    Has the Tory Party stooped so low?

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by betty-bets (U4267170) on Monday, 15th December 2008

    loop22

    please don't accuse anyone else of being so heartless as me

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by loop22 (U7386676) on Monday, 15th December 2008

    Please?

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by betty-bets (U4267170) on Monday, 15th December 2008

    should i have said
    DON'T instead of please?

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by billygoatgruff (U11135437) on Monday, 15th December 2008

    RE:”Do you know benefit levels, Jack? £200 a week, is it?
    JSA is £65.50, Incapacity £84.50 And you still might have to pay some rent, as I do - and you don't get free prescriptions either. Jealous?”
    Ah now, come on then MHA – not quite true, is it?
    As a single person on top of this you get your rent paid unless you’re choosing to live as a private sector tenant in an expensive area, in which case you may have to contribute a bit towards the rent yourself.
    You get you prescriptions free of charge. What are you talking about?
    Your council tax is paid.
    As a single parent of multiple kids in a council house, you'd get a lot more than £65.50 a week
    If your family were long-term benefit scroungers living in a council house/flat, then all you have to do is move in with them (any one will do) and claim the accommodation is overcrowded, and you’ll get preference in local authority housing, particularly if you are from a background where you have previously indulged in drugs or criminality.


    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by View from the North (U2337741) on Monday, 15th December 2008

    Tara,

    Just been watching Kill It, Cook It, Eat It. Folk were discussing raising livestock in natural surroundings.

    The supermarkets dictate price for such, and with chickens, this can be as low as 50p per bird at the "farm gate".

    Not much chance that those poor blighters will be free range ... but it's what is dictated by customers and supermarkets!

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by Magotie-headed-Aubrey (U3483010) on Tuesday, 16th December 2008

    Jan, prescriptions for people on Incapacity Benefit aren't free unless you have a medical exemption certificate (which I have now but for a year or more I didn't); look on the prescription form. IB claiments are specifically excluded.
    I live in a council flat, with two other people. I have to pay £10 of my share of the rent, out of the £85. The other £20, and £10 council tax, is paid through housing benefit.

    (I've not long ago started dialysis, three days a week.)

    I'm not complaining. But it's not a lot.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by billygoatgruff (U11135437) on Tuesday, 16th December 2008

    Apologies MHA - I had wrongly assumed that it was disinformation.

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by Magotie-headed-Aubrey (U3483010) on Tuesday, 16th December 2008

    Thanks, Jan.

    But you're right - it is an easy assumption to make - I assumed it as well, and didn't pay for prescriptions for over a year when I should have done, because I never read the exemption list - why would I? I was deemed to be ill enough for IB, had seen a DWP dr and everything, and I needed a lot of drugs - obviously I would get free prescriptions. But I shouldn't have done (I could never have fiddled it if I'd known).

    On the other hand, I could have claimed back the bus fares to the hospital, and I never knew that either.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by handsomefortune (U2927651) on Tuesday, 16th December 2008

    > hope the bankers will be picking our sprouts this year <

    me too.

    i'd like a job beating/swearing at them to work faster too! ;@.

    Report message20

Back to top

About this Board

This was the BBC Radio 4 messageboard.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

The Radio 4 messageboard is now closed.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Other BBC Messageboards

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.