Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
SacaJawea

Welfare State State

Recommended Posts

.Who said all day? For that matter why NOT all day and get someone to look after her brood.

 

 

It's the assumption that it should be down to the rest of us tax payers to fund the upbringing up of a bunch of kids when there is any work that the mother could at the very least reduce the cost to the state for her obligation because the obligation in the first place is on her to feed those that she breeds.

 

Support, true support and true charity is to help in every way, and that includes at times motivating some people to help themselves.

 

I still don't see an answer spook. How can a mother with three kids spare any time to work? Childcare for three will cost more than she can earn. Explain how she can work to me, an actual solution not just a judgemental finger waggling.

If she has friends or family they could help out with childcare as people used to do not that many years ago. Or get together with others in a similar situation to share childcare if several took part time work. In reality if the will was there not to simply be a Welfare Witch she could at the very least provide some income to reduce the load on the working tax payers.

 

If all else fails she should seriously consider putting her unaffordable kids up for fostering in order that she would be able to reduce her dependence on others paying her bills. And before you ask, yes I AM being serious. This welfare state dependence has gone far too far.

 

Straight out of the made up bible.............WORD.

 

You are a pretty good troll Rev Spook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If she has friends or family they could help out with childcare as people used to do not that many years ago. Or get together with others in a similar situation to share childcare if several took part time work. In reality if the will was there not to simply be a Welfare Witch she could at the very least provide some income to reduce the load on the working tax payers.

 

If all else fails she should seriously consider putting her unaffordable kids up for fostering in order that she would be able to reduce her dependence on others paying her bills. And before you ask, yes I AM being serious. This welfare state dependence has gone far too far.

You are heartless and uncharitable. If you are demonstrating a 'Christian' attitude then we should all be very grateful that such obscene beliefs are rapidly dying out. Describing someone as a 'Welfare Witch' is something that could only be done by a Jesus Junkie!

Edited by Terse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spook, thank you for giving me something to think about, it is appreciated. I have identified as an agnostic for a very long time but was raised catholic. I like to think that although agnostic, the majority of my actions are christian in their nature.

 

It really is quite a eye opener to read your point of view on my circumstances and I appreciate the time you took to reply to me. Just make sure you keep that profane language under wraps, I will use it for you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If she has friends or family they could help out with childcare as people used to do not that many years ago. Or get together with others in a similar situation to share childcare if several took part time work. In reality if the will was there not to simply be a Welfare Witch she could at the very least provide some income to reduce the load on the working tax payers.

 

If all else fails she should seriously consider putting her unaffordable kids up for fostering in order that she would be able to reduce her dependence on others paying her bills. And before you ask, yes I AM being serious. This welfare state dependence has gone far too far.

 

Leaning on friends for the odd babysit is one thing, leaving three kids with them while you work is another entirely. A carer isn't permitted to look after more than three children either below a certain age, so even if she could find free care, it might have to be someone without kids. What are the odds, particularly when she's also got a father who needs care.

 

Do you seriously think a child's better off being fostered than staying with his mum for the sake of a welfare payment? Our society can afford to look after those in need. Why should we lower ourselves to forcibly separating mothers from children just because prejudiced idiots like you look down on them?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the cost of fostering would outstrip the cost of her benefits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the cost of fostering would outstrip the cost of her benefits?

 

Good point, fostering costs the welfare state too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the cost of fostering would outstrip the cost of her benefits?

 

Good point, fostering costs the welfare state too.

 

So yet ANOTHER thing wrong with the Socialist State.

 

Charity is about help, real help, not the perpetuating of something that is wrong.

 

People should provide for themselves whenever there is a way for them to do so. Not only when it is straightforward but whenever.

 

There are such people as the Undeserving Poor, and right now the Welfare Sate is pandering to far too many of them. Not just providing them with the wherewithal to live, but going very much further and supporting them, in the same lifestyle as that of someone in work, and well paid work at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So yet ANOTHER thing wrong with the Socialist State.

 

Charity is about help, real help, not the perpetuating of something that is wrong.

 

 

I think we've all seen that you know fuck all about charity, Spook. It's not about money (despite the Christian obsession with it), its about caring for those less fortunate than ourselves.

Go back to reading the lies in the Daily Mail - they're no worse than the ones in the book you regard so highly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charity is about help, real help, not the perpetuating of something that is wrong.

 

Who's wrong? Your wrong isn't my wrong. Who made you king?

 

 

People should provide for themselves whenever there is a way for them to do so. Not only when it is straightforward but whenever.

 

There are such people as the Undeserving Poor, and right now the Welfare Sate is pandering to far too many of them. Not just providing them with the wherewithal to live, but going very much further and supporting them, in the same lifestyle as that of someone in work, and well paid work at that.

 

There are such people. The OP doesn't seem like one to me. You've still not come up with a viable way of her getting off benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys

Im a single mother.

I survive by taking benefits and living on a reservation (Hence my nickname)

I have 3 kids and yeah more than one father.

My Dad has been put in a home and he has Alzheimers. He had promised me Id never have to be taking benefits no matter what happened; but ... the government take all his money wow ..that why I get benefits.

Great life yeah

And what point are you trying to make ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leaning on friends for the odd babysit is one thing, leaving three kids with them while you work is another entirely. A carer isn't permitted to look after more than three children either below a certain age, so even if she could find free care, it might have to be someone without kids. What are the odds, particularly when she's also got a father who needs care.

Why should an arrangement not be entered into that has a responsible family member or even a close friend look after the kids for at least a few hours each week? We're not talking about a “carer” we're talking about someone to mind the kids while mum goes out to work.

In any case her father is getting care.

 

Do you seriously think a child's better off being fostered than staying with his mum for the sake of a welfare payment?

In some circumstances definitely yes. There is no need for loss of contact, the costs to the tax payer would be reduced, and in all probability the kid(s) would be better clothed and fed.

Fostering doesn't need to be a formal arrangement though and involving Social Services. It can be done within the family, or within the Christian community.

Our society can afford to look after those in need. Why should we lower ourselves to forcibly separating mothers from children just because prejudiced idiots like you look down on them?

For one thing we can NOT afford to provide the level of care that the horrible Welfare State delivers. Vast sums of money are having to be borrowed, reserves raided, in order to do what we do now. For another we MUST change what so many have come to expect as being normal, we simply can't afford not to do so.

 

Who decides what is right and wrong? Common sense and common decency. Those who possibly can work should work, those who can but will not should get NOTHING from the state. Even a reduction in dependence on tax payers money should be not just a thing to be made to do, it should be a thing that people should WANT to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who decides what is right and wrong? Common sense and common decency.

You have amply demonstrated that you know nothing about either of those qualities, Spook.

Hey, here's an idea - while the mother's at work, leave the kids with some 'man of the cloth.' I mean, you can always rely on them, can't you? :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should an arrangement not be entered into that has a responsible family member or even a close friend look after the kids for at least a few hours each week? We're not talking about a "carer" we're talking about someone to mind the kids while mum goes out to work.

 

A few hours a week? What sort of job pays enough to keep four people on a few hours a week? Give me some examples of what you're specifically talking about. Give me a scenario that would enable someone in that situation to be off benefits.

 

 

 

For one thing we can NOT afford to provide the level of care that the horrible Welfare State delivers. Vast sums of money are having to be borrowed, reserves raided, in order to do what we do now. For another we MUST change what so many have come to expect as being normal, we simply can't afford not to do so.

 

Er, yes we can. We are doing, our books are relatively balanced despite a huge health and government pensions bill. Welfare isn't the problem on the IOM, we've currently got around 200 unemployed women signing on. Is that a massive issue? What does it cost us Spook, what's the figures you're basing this assessment on?

 

 

Who decides what is right and wrong? Common sense and common decency. Those who possibly can work should work, those who can but will not should get NOTHING from the state. Even a reduction in dependence on tax payers money should be not just a thing to be made to do, it should be a thing that people should WANT to do.

 

 

Your 'perpetuate something that is wrong' was directed at charity, not welfare. People want to help without being judgemental, no matter what the circumstances.

 

Single mothers probably do want to work, I'm sure they'd like to provide more than benefits can. There's not much they can do though unless they're particularly high earners, as childcare isn't affordable.

 

 

 

How do you know she doesn't want to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what point are you trying to make ?

 

Im making a real mess of trying to say the Welfare State is in a right state.

Some decent, accessible and affordable nursery provision would be a better way of spending money rather thanthrowing it here there and everywhere as I described. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may be allowed to step outside the Slim v Spook 'discussion' for a moment.

 

Isn't the fundamental issue here whether:

 

  • The State should ask a person requiring ongoing nursing home care (I assume that this is the case but it is not made 100% clear in the original post) to contribute towards the costs?
  • Or should the State pay his costs so that his daughter does not have to make a claim on the State for welfare?
  • Or should the State pay for both?

As I understand it the normal practice is the first one. I personally think that this is reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...