4 ms·

But if you come from the EU you do not need a visa, do you? >Reducing this means either an expansion of employment in run-down areas like Blackpool, or reducin

But if you come from the EU you do not need a visa, do you? >Reducing this means either an expansion of employment in run-down areas like Blackpool, or reducing benefit levels and hoping that people die quietly. Not reducing means that the country eventually goes bankrupt. And then there won't be any benefits for anyone at all, will there? To put it another way, if your principle holds true, why don't we just increase benefits until they are 100% of the economy?

pjc50 9y ago
EEA nationals are not entitled to HB until they have worked in the UK: http://www.housing-rights.info/02_4_EEA_workers.php#housing-and-benefits http://www.housing-rights.info/02_4_EEA_workers.php#housing-... https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-rules-to-stop-migrants-claiming-housing-benefit https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-rules-to-stop-migrant... There are other ways of closing the gap, such as addressing tax avoidance. It's not that the UK is a poor country, but it's an increasingly unequal one. And a lot of the Crown dependencies operate as tax havens.
- Boothroid 9y ago
  Women are always first in the queue and they do indeed house women that have never worked. Just because you quote that page doesn't mean that's the policy that's followed. You honestly think that tax avoidance is the cause of the deficit? Point is, it's not an either or. Let's follow up whatever ways we can find of eliminating the deficit - it's still utterly shameful and wrong that someone should be able to get themselves pregnant and be supported by the state in relative comfort whilst someone that has paid in for decades is refused housing. Your defence is to avoid addressing this and instead deflect by talking about generalities.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    (are we still talking about EEA nationals or have we gone back to the old Tory demon of "single mothers"?) > "get themselves pregnant" I hadn't realised there was such a problem with parthenogenesis among women in this country, that pregnancies were happening without men being involved at any point. So, what's your solution? Mandatory abortions? Divorce ban? Women with babies in homeless shelters? Living in cardboard boxes on the street? What's an acceptable fatality rate for the children in this scenario? I'm talking about specifics, the extremely brutal ones of what exactly is required for people to remain healthy in these circumstances. A person presents at the benefit office holding a baby. She is homeless. What specifically should the response of the system be? What questions to ask? Why? What outcomes are acceptable?
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      Come on, we need to start being honest about things if you truly want to see positive change: if a woman decides to get pregnant she can pick up a man for sex at the drop of a hat, tell them she's on birth control - reasonable chance of becoming pregnant. Women have much more control than men over reproduction - a man can use primary birth control but can't injunct a woman to use an abortifacient, for example. A woman can hide her (non-)use of contraceptives (eg coil, pill, cap) whilst a man generally can't. A woman may lie about where she is in her menstrual cycle. A man can ordinarily choose to avoid pregnancy (covertly with vasectomy; or condoms, withdrawal) but not too initiate it. Presumably you knew all this but chose to be a dick about it. There seems little point anyone trying to debate with you about sensible policies if that's your starting point.
      - pjc50 9y ago
        What does your first paragraph have to do with anything, though? Are you saying that in those circumstances the father has no responsibility at all? Have we forgotten the decade or more when the Child Support Agency was trying to make fathers partially responsible for their children in order to reduce benefits cost? (also this thread started with "able bodied person that has paid in nothing and caused their own homelessness by arriving in the UK without a job or means to support themselves", and I'm not sure that being born is what's meant by "arriving in the UK without a job".)
        pbhjpbhj 9y ago
        My experience of those on benefits (being such myself) is not extensive but I've still come across those who've chosen to have a child, as a single mother already with children, with no long term partner, and no family income except welfare. They end up in a larger home, seemingly with more money. I can't believe I just happen to know the few people in my area who have done this. It may no longer be a major problem as it was 20+ years ago when my mother would tell me about which of her school pupils had chosen pregnancy over working in a factory (I would have!) but it seems undeniably to be a problem. Women can and do choose independently of men to have a child and use men only for the procreative act. Women on benefit do it, clear in the knowledge that they can get a better standard of welfare accommodation and more income that way. There are often emotional reasons too, we all desire for someone to love us. Quips about parthenogenesis don't address that problem. That was my rather verbose point. Yes, feel free to return to the point at hand. Treatment of immigrants with children fits in to a broader picture and can't be divorced from how we treat the native population.

pjc50 9y ago

EEA nationals are not entitled to HB until they have worked in the UK: http://www.housing-rights.info/02_4_EEA_workers.php#housing-and-benefits http://www.housing-rights.info/02_4_EEA_workers.php#housing-... https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-rules-to-stop-migrants-claiming-housing-benefit https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-rules-to-stop-migrant... There are other ways of closing the gap, such as addressing tax avoidance. It's not that the UK is a poor country, but it's an increasingly unequal one. And a lot of the Crown dependencies operate as tax havens.

Boothroid 9y ago
Women are always first in the queue and they do indeed house women that have never worked. Just because you quote that page doesn't mean that's the policy that's followed. You honestly think that tax avoidance is the cause of the deficit? Point is, it's not an either or. Let's follow up whatever ways we can find of eliminating the deficit - it's still utterly shameful and wrong that someone should be able to get themselves pregnant and be supported by the state in relative comfort whilst someone that has paid in for decades is refused housing. Your defence is to avoid addressing this and instead deflect by talking about generalities.
- pjc50 9y ago
  (are we still talking about EEA nationals or have we gone back to the old Tory demon of "single mothers"?) > "get themselves pregnant" I hadn't realised there was such a problem with parthenogenesis among women in this country, that pregnancies were happening without men being involved at any point. So, what's your solution? Mandatory abortions? Divorce ban? Women with babies in homeless shelters? Living in cardboard boxes on the street? What's an acceptable fatality rate for the children in this scenario? I'm talking about specifics, the extremely brutal ones of what exactly is required for people to remain healthy in these circumstances. A person presents at the benefit office holding a baby. She is homeless. What specifically should the response of the system be? What questions to ask? Why? What outcomes are acceptable?
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    Come on, we need to start being honest about things if you truly want to see positive change: if a woman decides to get pregnant she can pick up a man for sex at the drop of a hat, tell them she's on birth control - reasonable chance of becoming pregnant. Women have much more control than men over reproduction - a man can use primary birth control but can't injunct a woman to use an abortifacient, for example. A woman can hide her (non-)use of contraceptives (eg coil, pill, cap) whilst a man generally can't. A woman may lie about where she is in her menstrual cycle. A man can ordinarily choose to avoid pregnancy (covertly with vasectomy; or condoms, withdrawal) but not too initiate it. Presumably you knew all this but chose to be a dick about it. There seems little point anyone trying to debate with you about sensible policies if that's your starting point.
    - pjc50 9y ago
      What does your first paragraph have to do with anything, though? Are you saying that in those circumstances the father has no responsibility at all? Have we forgotten the decade or more when the Child Support Agency was trying to make fathers partially responsible for their children in order to reduce benefits cost? (also this thread started with "able bodied person that has paid in nothing and caused their own homelessness by arriving in the UK without a job or means to support themselves", and I'm not sure that being born is what's meant by "arriving in the UK without a job".)
      - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
        My experience of those on benefits (being such myself) is not extensive but I've still come across those who've chosen to have a child, as a single mother already with children, with no long term partner, and no family income except welfare. They end up in a larger home, seemingly with more money. I can't believe I just happen to know the few people in my area who have done this. It may no longer be a major problem as it was 20+ years ago when my mother would tell me about which of her school pupils had chosen pregnancy over working in a factory (I would have!) but it seems undeniably to be a problem. Women can and do choose independently of men to have a child and use men only for the procreative act. Women on benefit do it, clear in the knowledge that they can get a better standard of welfare accommodation and more income that way. There are often emotional reasons too, we all desire for someone to love us. Quips about parthenogenesis don't address that problem. That was my rather verbose point. Yes, feel free to return to the point at hand. Treatment of immigrants with children fits in to a broader picture and can't be divorced from how we treat the native population.