Support NeoGAF

[cyberheater]

Never mind that this 'generations of worklessness' shit is a myth, less than 1% of workless households have even two generations who have never worked, they are not 'scum'.

It's not a myth. I've known loads of families like that.

I do accept that there are lots of well meaning hard done by folks who are unable to currently work but there is also a strong contigent of scum who's made it their career to be work shy and leech of the rest of us. You seem to think these folks are a figment of the tabloid newspapers. They are not.

 

[PJV3]

It's not a myth. I've known loads of families like that.

I do accept that there are lots of well meaning hard done by folks who are unable to currently work but there is also a strong contigent of scum who's made it their career to be work shy and leech of the rest of us. You seem to think these folks are a figment of the tabloid newspapers. They are not.

I'm not sure why you think benefits create scum, they existed before the welfare state, remove benefits and a life of robbery and theft may be the result.

Victorian/Edwardian Britain was a violent and brutal place.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

It's not a myth. I've known loads of families like that.

I do accept that there are lots of well meaning hard done by folks who are unable to currently work but there is also a strong contigent of scum who's made it their career to be work shy and leech of the rest of us. You seem to think these folks are a figment of the tabloid newspapers. They are not.

I've known none, so it doesn't exist.

See? Anecdotal evidence is pointless and shouldn't be brought up in discussions when dealing with statistics.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I've known none, so it doesn't exist.

See? Anecdotal evidence is pointless and shouldn't be brought up in discussions when dealing with statistics.

Hmm? That's not really a logically correct response though. He's not arguing that everyone is, he's arguing that some are. If he knows anyone that is, he's met his conditions (though it's not exactly a wide sample, and of course statistically insignificant). Saying you've not met any and therefore there aren't any - and I know you were being sarcastic, don't worry - is therefore not the same thing as what he was saying.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Hmm? That's not really a logically correct response though. He's not arguing that everyone is, he's arguing that some are. If he knows anyone that is, he's met his conditions (though it's not exactly a wide sample, and of course statistically insignificant). Saying you've not met any and therefore there aren't any - and I know you were being sarcastic, don't worry - is therefore not the same thing as what he was saying.

Refuting anecdotal evidence rarely results in a logical response. It becomes a race to the bottom, which is why it shouldn't be brought up as it has absolutely no bearing on the discussion or the statistics.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Refuting anecdotal evidence rarely results in a logical response. It becomes a race to the bottom, which is why it shouldn't be brought up as it has absolutely no bearing on the discussion or the statistics.

Well, yeah and no. What he said is not very statistically relevant, but that only really matters if you're trying to say that X happens Y often. If you're attesting simply to the existence of something, anecdotal evidence is entirely valid. You don't need data to know that the car if front of you is blue. That doesn't mean all cars, or a lot of cars are blue, but you know there are some blue cars. So it's not all that useful, but it is at least true. What you said isn't. It was stated that it was a myth, he replied saying it isn't because he knows people to whom it's applicable. That's not the same as what you said.

 

[PJV3]

Well, yeah and no. What he said is not very statistically relevant, but that only really matters if you're trying to say that X happens Y often. If you're attesting simply to the existence of something, anecdotal evidence is entirely valid. You don't need data to know that the car if front of you is blue. That doesn't mean all cars, or a lot of cars are blue, but you know there are some blue cars. So it's not all that useful, but it is at least true. What you said isn't. It was stated that it was a myth, he replied saying it isn't because he knows people to whom it's applicable. That's not the same as what you said.

We're talking about benefits, "scum" exist, is it benefits causing it?, or are they "scum" anyway?

Spend ££ on benefits or ££££ on prisons etc dealing with them.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

We're talking about benefits, "scum" exist, is it benefits causing it?, or are they "scum" anyway?

Spend ££ on benefits or ££££ on prisons etc dealing with them.

What if the prisons are privately run?

Hmmm

 

[PJV3]

What if the prisons are privately run?

Hmmm

Better open another account in the Cayman islands.

 

[CyclopsRock]

We're talking about benefits, "scum" exist, is it benefits causing it?, or are they "scum" anyway?

Spend ££ on benefits or ££££ on prisons etc dealing with them.

You may be, but the myth being contested was that of 'generations of worklessness'.

Also, do you really think the solution to the problem we have is spending ££ on benefits? In fact, before we get into that, what do you think actually is the problem, at its heart? Not many people in this thread have actually explained what they think the problem with the current system is.

 

[PJV3]

You may be, but the myth being contested was that of 'generations of worklessness'.

Also, do you really think the solution to the problem we have is spending ££ on benefits? In fact, before we get into that, what do you think actually is the problem, at its heart? Not many people in this thread have actually explained what they think the problem with the current system is.

There is never going to be an ideal solution, some people benefit from a carrot, others from a stick. Some won't respond at all, whatever people do.

There is something wrong when prison and meagre benefits are the more appealing option.

 

[CyclopsRock]

There is never going to be an ideal solution, some people benefit from a carrot, others from a stick. Some won't respond at all, whatever people do.

There is something wrong when prison and meagre benefits are the more appealing option.

Right. But what is that something? In order to find a solution, one first has to know the problem they're trying to solve, afterall.

 

[Psychotext]

Change.org petition to get IDS to stand by his "I could live on £53 a week" claim for a year.

Before anyone says online petitions are pointless, Change.org regularly gets shit done. I've been involved in a number of their (highly effective) campaigns. This one is admittedly a bit of a STFU to a politician... but still, why not?

Petition aside, considerably more money is saved by people not claiming benefits that they're actually due than is claimed by scum families who have never worked and "benefits breeders". Don't get me wrong, I hate those sorts too (especially as I'm from a poor background and made something of myself) but lets not pander to Daily Mail style bullshit.

 

[CyclopsRock]

It's such a pointless one even if it succeeded though. Obviously he couldn't, and nor should he be expected to. He can't take a week off work and sit at home just to prove a point. Anyone that earns what he does would also have some savings so that if they did lose their job, they wouldn't immediately be unable to pay their bills. His wife's a multi-millionaire. He has four children eligible for child benefit should he lose his job etc etc. It's just a totally banal request to make.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Daily Mail, you never fail to disappoint. Disgusting front page, some will undoubtedly be nodding their heads in agreement however.

 

[sans_pants]

Right. But what is that something? In order to find a solution, one first has to know the problem they're trying to solve, afterall.

i think an ideal solution is to focus less on the 1% of program abusers and focus more on helping the people that need it. states aren't bankrupt because of poor people

 

[CHEEZMO™]

states aren't bankrupt because of poor people

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...nd-all-the-money-isnt-it-obvious-8553643.html

 

[PJV3]

It's such a pointless one even if it succeeded though. Obviously he couldn't, and nor should he be expected to. He can't take a week off work and sit at home just to prove a point. Anyone that earns what he does would also have some savings so that if they did lose their job, they wouldn't immediately be unable to pay their bills. His wife's a multi-millionaire. He has four children eligible for child benefit should he lose his job etc etc. It's just a totally banal request to make.

Agreed, make the cabinet live on the dole for a whole term of office, make them hold cabinet in a council estate community hall without the trappings of power.

Foreign dignitaries can be wined and dined at the local Kebab shop.

 

[Salvadora]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...nd-all-the-money-isnt-it-obvious-8553643.html

It’s a tricky argument to pull off, that the poor caused the debt so they should pay it back. Maybe that’s why most weeks there are stories in certain newspapers about a woman with 45 kids on benefits, who then bought a giraffe and now that’s on benefits but she said it was cramped so the council has put it up in the Shard

Completely dead on.

It's a daily headline for the Daily Mail.

 

[Exterminieren]

Daily Mail, you never fail to disappoint. Disgusting front page, some will undoubtedly be nodding their heads in agreement however.

Sickening.

I assume I missed the front page that said that Harold Shipman was an indictment of the middle classes way back when, yes?

 

[slider]

Daily Mail, you never fail to disappoint. Disgusting front page, some will undoubtedly be nodding their heads in agreement however.

Just saw it on Newsnight. Ugh, I'm lost for words.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Lotta Goons in this thread, huh?

 

[Psychotext]

It's just a totally banal request to make.

I think you're missing the point. He'd never do it, but just to have him try and detail how would suffice.

That he had the audacity to suggest it is laughable. Very few politicians have a clue what it's like to struggle to make ends meet.

 

[Salvadora]

For those that haven't seen the headline
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/319193925019643904/photo/1
I'm honestly speechless.

 

[Polari]

Uh I'm not too familiar with the benefits system, but if he had all those kids to "milk the benefit system" surely it wouldn't make sense to kill six of them off?

 

[PJV3]

Headline should have been- Cunt goes to prison.

 

[ghst]

Just saw it on Newsnight. Ugh, I'm lost for words.

what was it?

edit: i see. well, looks like cyberheater was right all along. time to put those flags down, pinkos. it's clear who the real enemy is.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I think you're missing the point. He'd never do it, but just to have him try and detail how would suffice.

That he had the audacity to suggest it is laughable. Very few politicians have a clue what it's like to struggle to make ends meet.

But the £53 figure is arbitrary. It's what the guy who asked him makes on his stall. (Which sort of makes the guy asking if IDS could run his stall before saying "Of course not. He wouldn’t have the first idea how to relate to people. I’m having to sell to low-income people who are worried about money and I doubt Mr Duncan Smith could begin to understand the kind of market I operate in.” sound odd - If he's making £53 a week on his stall, it doesn't sound like he knows how to operate in that market either, but that's by the by). He also gets £108 a week in combined working tax credits and rental assistance. Not lavish, obviously, but it puts into context the arbitrary nature of the £53 a week demand.

 

[D4Danger]

You have to be a real peice of shit to turn a story about 6 children burning to death into that.

 

[NekoFever]

You have to be editor of the Daily Mail to turn a story about 6 children burning to death into that.

Fixed, since they're synonyms.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Change.org petition to get IDS to stand by his "I could live on £53 a week" claim for a year.

Before anyone says online petitions are pointless, Change.org regularly gets shit done. I've been involved in a number of their (highly effective) campaigns. This one is admittedly a bit of a STFU to a politician... but still, why not?

Petition aside, considerably more money is saved by people not claiming benefits that they're actually due than is claimed by scum families who have never worked and "benefits breeders". Don't get me wrong, I hate those sorts too (especially as I'm from a poor background and made something of myself) but lets not pander to Daily Mail style bullshit.

Don't underestimate IDS.

Also the guy who made the challenge turned out to be a lying scumbag.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9968031/IDS-challenged-to-live-on-53-a-week-by-man-who-gets-156.html

 

[kmag]

Don't underestimate IDS.

Also the guy who made the challenge turned out to be a lying scumbag.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9968031/IDS-challenged-to-live-on-53-a-week-by-man-who-gets-156.html

It's impossible to underestimate IDS.

 

[PJV3]

Don't underestimate IDS.

Also the guy who made the challenge turned out to be a lying scumbag.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9968031/IDS-challenged-to-live-on-53-a-week-by-man-who-gets-156.html

WOOOOOSH.
The story is about IDS dropping a clanger, an 'I don't know', or 'it would be hard', and this wouldn't have been a story.

And I can't believe the Telegraph is investigating the bloke "likes a bet on the horses", Jesus.

The Woosh Is to the Telegraph, not you.

 

[Psychotext]

Mr Duncan Smith told the Wanstead and Woodford Guardian, his local paper: “I have been unemployed twice in my life so I have already done this. I know what it is like to live on the breadline.”

The first time was after leaving the Army when he was in his late 20s. The second period is thought to have been when he was made redundant from a property company — and after he had married Betsy, the daughter of the 5th Baron Cottesloe.

Excellent. lol

Fair play though, he was properly unemployed... once, after "retiring" from the army (I guess he didn't bother saving any of his wages, which is why he struggled).

 

[Rourkey]

Uh I'm not too familiar with the benefits system, but if he had all those kids to "milk the benefit system" surely it wouldn't make sense to kill six of them off?

His motivation was getting a bigger council house and getting his other 5 children's child maintenance of £12k a year which he lost when his mistress moved out with them.

He didn't mean to kill them.

 

[hodgy100]

living on £53 per week is probably doable depending on your situation. if it included having to pay a mortgage or rent, then i can see the issue, but you live in a property provided by the council, id argue £53 is more than enough to get by, its more than I've had to live on in the past two years.

 

[Psychotext]

That would barely cover my gas, electricity and water... maybe. I'd need to check my bills.

 

[PJV3]

I don't think anybody is claiming people automatically die or cease to function when they get £57, Kids manage to survive picking through rubbish in India, Humans can cope with all sorts of terrible shit. So unless IDS topped himself, he would get by on the dole.

It's a silly story like Brown's Bigot episode, a politician walks into a lamppost basically.

 

[Polari]

living on £53 per week is probably doable depending on your situation. if it included having to pay a mortgage or rent, then i can see the issue, but you like in a property provided by the council, id argue £53 is more than enough to get by, its more than I've had to live on in the past two years.

How do you pay your gas, electric, water and internet bills? Where I live in a house with three other people they come to £42 a month for me alone, so that would leave me with £42.50 a week. How much do you spend a week on food? Also, I assume you have a computer, so how would you plan to replace that if it broke (just as an example of a "big" purchase made practically impossible)?

 

[Psychotext]

Just checked, paying my gas, electricity and water alone would take up all but £800 of that. I guess I could live off rice and turkey for a year if I didn't go anywhere, didn't have a phone and didn't have internet (assuming my council tax and rent was covered).

I guess my electricity bill would be lower without internet at least.

 

[SKINNER!]

Just checked, paying my gas, electricity and water alone would take up all but £800 of that. I guess I could live off rice and turkey for a year if I didn't go anywhere, didn't have a phone and didn't have internet (assuming my council tax and rent was covered).

I guess my electricity bill would be lower without internet at least.

rice...and turkey?

Check out Warren Buffett here!

 

[PJV3]

rice...and turkey?

Check out Warren Buffett here!

I'm sure it's a Pot Noodle variety.

 

[Psychotext]

Turkey is about the cheapest meat I can find (£ per kg). Or am I not allowed meat?

I guess maybe Iceland minced horse might be better on a budget?

 

[SKINNER!]

Turkey is about the cheapest meat I can find (£ per kg). Or am I not allowed meat?

I always thought turkey was pricy compared to, say, tuna or processed shit canned meat like spam or corned beef.

I'm sure it's a Pot Noodle variety.

Oh gosh, Pot Noodles 7 days a week would kill me.

 

[hodgy100]

How do you pay your gas, electric, water and internet bills? Where I live in a house with three other people they come to £42 a month for me alone, so that would leave me with £42.50 a week. How much do you spend a week on food? Also, I assume you have a computer, so how would you plan to replace that if it broke (just as an example of a "big" purchase made practically impossible)?

I spend about £20 a week on food, my bills ( electric / gas / phone / internet ) haven't cost me more than £80 pm in the past 2 years. Yes its damn cold when I'm home!

On that budget I would have £12 spare a week.

Obviously if my pc broke I would have been stuffed I would have had to save up to replace the parts as cheaply as I could depending on what was wrong, and yes that kind of budget makes big purchases difficult to impossible. and I wouldn't like to have to raise more people than just myself on that budget.

Job seekers isn't supposed to allow you luxuries. its supposed to sustain you until you can find work.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Just checked, paying my gas, electricity and water alone would take up all but £800 of that. I guess I could live off rice and turkey for a year if I didn't go anywhere, didn't have a phone and didn't have internet (assuming my council tax and rent was covered).

I guess my electricity bill would be lower without internet at least.

If you were living in a council flat your heating and electricity bills would be lower. Even your internet bill would be lower since you wouldn't have access to Virgin Media on an estate.

 

[PJV3]

If you were living in a council flat your heating and electricity bills would be lower. Even your internet bill would be lower since you wouldn't have access to Virgin Media on an estate.

I don't know about the heating, when I lived in a council flat, it was a bastard to get warm, it was a shitty* prefab with massive windows.

*the outer rendering was made from crushed toilets.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

I don't know about the heating, when I lived in a council flat, it was a bastard to get warm, it was a shitty prefab with massive windows.

Ours wasn't so bad when I was a kid. I always found it too warm if anything.

 

[broony]

I spend about £20 a week on food, my bills ( electric / gas / phone / internet ) haven't cost me more than £80 pm in the past 2 years. Yes its damn cold when I'm home!

On that budget I would have £12 spare a week.

Obviously if my pc broke I would have been stuffed I would have had to save up to replace the parts as cheaply as I could depending on what was wrong, and yes that kind of budget makes big purchases difficult to impossible. and I wouldn't like to have to raise more people than just myself on that budget.

Job seekers isn't supposed to allow you luxuries. its supposed to sustain you until you can find work.

Your £12 a week would easily be swallowed looking for work - interview clothes, jobs paper, bus / train fares for interviews, phone calls, stamps and so on.

 

[seb_n]

Job seekers isn't supposed to allow you luxuries. its supposed to sustain you until you can find work.

This is exactly right, I work full time and earn a reasonable wage but i would still have to save up for a new PC. No reason for someone on benefits to be able to have the ability to buy a luxury item without some financial planning.