I am all for highly skilled migrant programme only...UK had it and what happened to that? It brought genuine tax payers in and not someone who comes in for the benefits. But having said that some of the immigrants are the most hardworking bunch of ppl I know of. So not all are guilty but immigration for benefits must be stopped.In our neck of the woods there is actually a direct correlation to a high level of immigration and under-investment in council housing.
You can't let tens of thousands of people with nothing into the country, house them, not build new houses, then wonder why there's no council houses left.
Now I'm not suggesting torches and pitchforks against the immigrants, I'm simply suggesting build more houses to replace the ones we've given them. You simply can't have the population increasing faster than you can build the accomodation to support it. It simply doesn't make sense.
I appreciate not replacing the houses the government sold on the 'Right To Buy' scheme is also a big contributing factor to the lack of social housing.
B x
By mine @meandlis . I think any person who is not physically or mentally disabled should not be getting full time benefits and benefits should be capped. There is no incentive for ppl to work. Ppl are happy to bide the time and wait until council provides the next thing.Immoral? By whose moral code?
Joe, don't get me wrong. I am not saying benefits should be scrapped. But abusing benefits and ensuring that benefits are spent on right things (instead of a 12 pack) needs to be regulated is all I am saying."Immoral"??
Really?
How about electric or help with travel... extra costs to help meet the care of someone who's disabled...?
I could go on...
"The ones we've given them"?In our neck of the woods there is actually a direct correlation to a high level of immigration and under-investment in council housing.
You can't let tens of thousands of people with nothing into the country, house them, not build new houses, then wonder why there's no council houses left.
Now I'm not suggesting torches and pitchforks against the immigrants, I'm simply suggesting build more houses to replace the ones we've given them. You simply can't have the population increasing faster than you can build the accomodation to support it. It simply doesn't make sense.
I appreciate not replacing the houses the government sold on the 'Right To Buy' scheme is also a big contributing factor to the lack of social housing.
B x
Re-read the thread - it is my supposition that abuses of the system are minor and used as a stick to beat people who actually need (and are entitled to) benefits.Joe, don't get me wrong. I am not saying benefits should be scrapped. But abusing benefits and ensuring that benefits are spent on right things (instead of a 12 pack) needs to be regulated is all I am saying.
Do not look at one word in my message and I am not implying that benefit system is immoral..I think ppl abusing it is.
I agree. Once again..I am only suggesting benefits not be abused and that is regulated and agree with everything taht you and @Baldricknkaz say."The ones we've given them"?
The stats show that immigrants are far more likely than the native population to live in private rented a/c and around 91% of all new social tendencies are taken up by UK-born people.
Migrants and Housing in the UK: Experiences and Impacts - Migration Observatory
https://assets.publishing.service.g...ocial_housing_lettings_in_England_2014-15.pdf
So what qualifies you to be the moral arbiter for an entire country? What about people who have lost their jobs through the collapse of a company/industry?By mine @meandlis . I think any person who is not physically or mentally disabled should not be getting full time benefits and benefits should be capped. There is no incentive for ppl to work. Ppl are happy to bide the time and wait until council provides the next thing.
I did boss. And I agree.Re-read the thread - it is my supposition that abuses of the system are minor and used as a stick to beat people who actually need (and are entitled to) benefits.
But that is to ignore the evidenceI agree. Once again..I am only suggesting benefits not be abused and that is regulated and agree with everything taht you and @Baldricknkaz say.
Oh boy.. I am not getting into this. Morals are personal and societal codes ..So what qualifies you to be the moral arbiter for an entire country? What about people who have lost their jobs through the collapse of a company/industry?
That's the irony - you do realise that swinging is deeply frowned up by many people in the UK today. Given half the chance, I bet a fair number of those people would like to ban swinging, somehow.Oh boy.. I am not getting into this. Morals are personal and societal codes ..
I am no expert and don't want to be drawn into controversies.
I strongly disagree. Some people need help under exceptional circumstances. Sometimes things just happen.I am for a system that does not allow benefits for anything but a roof over one's head, food on a plate and a cup of non-alchoholic beverage.
Anything else or support that is used for anything else is immoral. Probably not illegal but lawmakers should ensure the taxpayer's money is not abused.
Uh...That's exactly what I have been saying. Tackle the abusers and ensure benefits don't get abused while providing for needy and vulnerable.I strongly disagree. Some people need help under exceptional circumstances. Sometimes things just happen.
Imagine God forbid you lose everything in a fire. Imagine your transport breaks down. You lose your job. You have no relatives.
Under your system you can't come back from that. You have no money for clothes, not able to get transport and even if you could get to a job interview you'd be going looking like a wreck. You'd have to be supported by the state indefinately with no quality of life.
And what about the disabled? Are they not allowed a better quality of life other than a house, warm meal and a hot beverage.
No Sir not for me. I am happy for my taxes to contribute to help the unfortunate to get back on their feet. We need to tackle the abusers of the system not the helpless, the needy and the vulnerable.
B x
As long as I don't use tax dollars (benefits) to pay for it..I am fine. It takes money away from a mother of three who has to pay for electric or a old person's residence or a disabled person. Benefits at the end of day in government hands is a pool of money to be redistributed so having a fair system to monitor is not too much to ask..Is it? I think we are saying the same thing dude.That's the irony - you do realise that swinging is deeply frowned up by many people in the UK today. Given half the chance, I bet a fair number of those people would like to ban swinging, somehow.
What gives them the 'moral' right to tell you how to live your life, any more than you can say how another should live theirs?
Hmm?
Uh...That's exactly what I have been saying. Tackle the abusers and ensure benefits don't get abused while providing for needy and vulnerable.
I am for a system that does not allow benefits for anything but a roof over one's head, food on a plate and a cup of non-alchoholic beverage.
Anything else or support that is used for anything else is immoral. Probably not illegal but lawmakers should ensure the taxpayer's money is not abused.
So you're saying that money creates moralsAs long as I don't use tax dollars (benefits) to pay for it..I am fine. It takes money away from a mother of three who has to pay for electric or a old person's residence or a disabled person. Benefits at the end of day in government hands is a pool of money to be redistributed so having a fair system to monitor is not too much to ask..Is it? I think we are saying the same thing dude.
Money to be redistributed as benefits should be given out and used morally is all I am sayingSo you're saying that money creates morals
?
Gracias B. I was scratching my head as to why you thought I said anything different. Glad we are on the same page.I started writing that back on the last page in response to this:-
All the other stuff got posted as I was writing and I wasn't trying to join in a crusade against you or anything like that.
I was simply writing a response to that post in which you hadn't yet mentioned giving benefits to the vulnerable and needy
B x
But morals differ from person to person. I'm not convinced that your morals are a better judge of what is acceptable for me, any more than my morals are better to tell you what is acceptable for you.Money to be redistributed as benefits should be given out and used morally is all I am saying
Ok.But morals differ from person to person. I'm not convinced that your morals are a better judge of what is acceptable for me, any more than my morals are better to tell you what is acceptable for you.
It doesn't work.
"The ones we've given them"?
Hats off to hardworking people like you and the abuse that you mention by the neighbour is what is immoral to me. He is taking things away from ppl who need it most. Hence my call earlier about regulated benefits. He clearly has enough money to be going on holiday and buy a 12 pack..Why is he on benefits again? Why isn't that immoral? That's the immorality I was talking about.Ok 14 years ago we lost everything, got out of bed, had breakfast and at 10am we were thrown out of our home, no fault of our own. We were homeless with a baby and all we had was our car to live in.
We still carried on working, we asked our local housing for help and we were placed on a point system, after three months we were given a roof over our heads. There is always hope and help when you need it and being homeless certainly puts things into perspective here.
It's the people who don't want to do anything apart from get everything for free and openly brag about it, if this had happened today we would not have had the help that we received. There simply isn't any homes here for people and our homeless is on the increase.
There should be more help getting people who can back into work. There are so many people that deserve help and can't sadly.
Our neighbour decided to swan off on another holiday yesterday, his second this year and all on benefits.. This shouldn't be a ticket for a luxury lifestyle and with some it is.
He has a bad back, walks everyday to the shop to get his 12 cans, doesn't own a cooker as he claims he doesn't need one having take aways every night. Has a newish car on the road, holidays to spain and owns a tourer caravan which is pitched in a well known site. All on benefits.Hats off to hardworking people like you and the abuse that you mention by the neighbour is what is immoral to me. He is taking things away from ppl who need it most. Hence my call earlier about regulated benefits. He clearly has enough money to be going on holiday and buy a 12 pack..Why is he on benefits again? Why isn't that immoral? That's the immorality I was talking about.
Bad back ok... But getting all of this beyond food, shelter is beyond belief.He has a bad back, walks everyday to the shop to get his 12 cans, doesn't own a cooker as he claims he doesn't need one having take aways every night. Has a newish car on the road, holidays to spain and owns a tourer caravan which is pitched in a well known site. All on benefits.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?