Benefits street

[redken1]

Benefits street is not about balanced reporting to enable the viewer to make an informed judgement on the pros and cons of the welfare benefits system. If that were the case the programme makers would have interviewed benefit claimants who are desperately seeking work and/or have recently been made redundant after many years of employment, allowing them to give their accounts of the misery and despair they face living out of work. I accept that there is a small hardcore of unemployed people who are work-shy, but this Daily Mail style gutter journalism is hardly conducive to stimulating a constructive debate on this thorny issue with a view to finding a solution, as WR6133 rightly points out. Let’s not kid ourselves here - the programme makers had an agenda and knew full well that the content would fan the flames of division which already existed in our communities as a consequence of austerity. And they certainly succeeded in that regard. You don’t need to take my word for it – the statements from local residents/officials in and around James Turner Street on the fallout from the programme, are testimony to the fact. A representative of the local school, Oasis Academy Foundry said, “What form of media makes children scared to go to school? These children feel they are in a circus.”

[Vulcanboy]

Well, this is indeed a difficult subject area. As one who has earned an embarrassingly high salary for many years ( by some standards) and worked recently on the minimum wage (£6.08 per hour) of late, I feel that some of the residents of Benefits street should get a job. Full stop! ... OMG! have I said the wrong thing? Richard

[Trev]

Yes this is indeed a tough issue; Benefits Street itself; one of the worst examples of media exploitation of people/situation even though many of us must admit we watch and listen for various reasons. The point should be made though that if our benefits system was geared more towards getting people back to work rather than supporting a status that, provided they have a low enough drive and desire, encourages people to live on benefits then we would all be better off.

I have an example very, very close to me that I absolutely know the correct details off; two guys in the same profession which has plenty of work on offer where, within reason they could both earn a decent whack. One works 50+ hours a week, owns his own house and has saved several tens of thousands towards his next property investment. The other works two or three days a week and earns just enough to keep his (and his family's) head above water but not enough to lose the benefits of most of his rent paid, support for child minding and other benefits.

The difference between the two in terms of profession, age, family background and ability is very, very little. What makes them different is drive and desire, what allows them to be different is our benefits system. I am one of six kids brought up in a 3 bed council house who definitely benefitted from state support. My Dad worked full time, long hours and often took extra work at the weekend so that we could have our annual holiday, a colour TV an any other 'luxuries'. If he had decided to only work two or three days a week we literally would not have had enough to eat let alone spare cash for a mobile phone, booze and fags as many on benefits seem to be able to afford today.

I am 100% for state aid and support for those who, for whatever reason, are unable to support themselves and their families and very happy to pay a considerable sum in tax to this cause. What I am not happy to do is to pay one single penny to support people who don't want to work and our current system asks far too many to decide between working and losing benefits or staying at home. If we are all honest with ourselves, given the choice what would we decide if we could work less hours and have the same money? The system needs to be reformed.

[Dabz]

Well, this is indeed a difficult subject area. As one who has earned an embarrassingly high salary for many years ( by some standards) and worked recently on the minimum wage (£6.08 per hour) of late, I feel that some of the residents of Benefits street should get a job. Full stop! ... OMG! have I said the wrong thing? Richard

A really interesting comment - "an embarrassingly high salary". I'm really interested in this - I agree that we now have a social stigma attached to earning higher amounts. Possibly because the fallout of the thatcher years?

[redken1]

I know we are wandering away slightly from the subject matter on this thread, but I think there are a couple of important points we need to consider when discussing the welfare system and particularly benefit payments. Firstly, IMHO I think meaningful full employment (jobs where employees feel valued, not zero hours contracts) in the UK under a global free market system is a pipe dream. Secondly, two of the biggest drains on the benefits expenditure are Working Tax Credit (WTC) and Housing Benefit (HB). Approx 20 per cent of housing benefit claimants are in work and of course 100 per cent of WTC claimants are in employment. HB is not paid to the claimants, but to their landlords who set the rents and in many cases are wealthy owners of numerous properties exploiting the system. WTC is paid to the employees of some of the richest international companies in the world and awards are made irrespective of the Employers/businesses’ profits, in effect we as taxpayers are subsidising their wages. Damn right there is a benefits culture. As I have said already, I accept that there is a hardcore of unemployed work-shy, but the stick without the carrot approach will simply not work. Previous governments failed and so will this one in my opinion. Interestingly, we are told that many of the measures introduced under the welfare cuts will ‘make work pay’ yet employed claimants of HB are not exempt from ‘bedroom tax’ penalties, to highlight one disincentive example.

[Grey haired bloke]

Well said Redken1,
it's widely acknowledged and beyond argument that more benefits are paid to people IN work and claiming than to people out of work and claiming.
There has to be something drastically wrong with a system where an employee's wages, like you say, employed by some of the richest international companys in the world are allowed to get away with not only government subsidised wages in the way of benefits but also massive tax avoidance, the rot goes from bottom to top and as always, those at the bottom are far more likely to be shafted than those at the top, it's always been that way and I can't ever see it changing.

[Kevinb]

Get them filling potholes. It will probably only take four to fill an average hole or maybe two regular and a fat one. Probably last longer than the so called tarmac they are using

[wiltshire builders]

The trouble with this tv show (I refuse to call is a documentary) is that they're not just reporting the facts and allowing us to make up our own minds.
They're telling us what to think and giving a face to what the media and the government are telling us are the cause of all the countries problems.

Think about every time the rightwing press runs a story about illegal immigrants, it's always acompanied by a stock photo of some swarthy looking foreigners congregating on the street.
You then associate foreign faces with illegal activity and are naturally wary.

Not everyone on benifits has a roll up hanging out of their mouths and a can of special brew in their hand but this is the image that springs to mind due to years of brainwashing.

[Dabz]

I've deliberately not watched it - I know the one-sided journalism would just piss me off

[FJ_Biker]

Well said Ken.

I do not watch this program as it is just media sensationalism

The sad thing it there are two welfare systems in this country, corporate and social.

I believe there are around 5 million people getting help from the government to pay their mortgages and rent in various forms of tax credits etc. Things have gone terribly wrong over time, the welfare system was not designed for this. We are now subsidising more mortgage and rental payments than people on the dole.

I know there is no easy answer to this but blaming people on the dole for Britons financial problems is barking up the wrong tree in my books. I wish I bookmarked the item I read last month, the figures showed it was only 0.2% to 0.4% of people on the dole were actually fiddling the system.