Suggested: Subforum for boaters on benefits

[Arthur Marshall]

As questions in this subject are now fairly common, and the replies tend to drift away from the matters concerned into general debate about benefit claimants' motivations and, often, characters, it might be valuable to have a specific place for this. Would make sensible suggestions easier to find, experience easier to share and probably cut down the aggro from those who just want a fight or demonstrate their political position.

It would also show that we're not entirely focussed on well off folk with expensive boats but have some comcern for the whole spectrum of boating folk.

Edited May 1 by Arthur Marshall
resiting apostrophes!

[MtB]

24 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

As questions in this subject are now fairly common, and the replies tend to drift away from the matters concerned into general debate about benefit claimants' motivations and, often, characters, it might be valuable to have a specific place for this. Would make sensible suggestions easier to find, experience easier to share and probably cut down the aggro from those who just want a fight or demonstrate their political position.

It would also show that we're not entirely focussed on well off folk with expensive boats but have some comcern for the whole spectrum of boating folk.

 

Yes it could be titled "Boaters on Benefits - No Politics" 

[Ianws]

It's hard to separate benefits and politics, for a whole host of reasons. A subforum would probably be useful for people seeking advice and those with useful experience or knowledge to share. Given the subject, its probably inevitable it would become political or judgemental at some point. Hopefully, that wouldn't completely derail it if enough contributors posted with the right intentions. 

[LadyG]

I suspect that people claiming Benefits dont want to be identified, so in a way its a non starter. 

Each Benefit provided by the UK govt will be assessed on individual circumstances, so if one person is getting a mooring paid, does not mean everyone will.

 

[tree monkey]

8 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

As questions in this subject are now fairly common, and the replies tend to drift away from the matters concerned into general debate about benefit claimants' motivations and, often, characters, it might be valuable to have a specific place for this. Would make sensible suggestions easier to find, experience easier to share and probably cut down the aggro from those who just want a fight or demonstrate their political position.

It would also show that we're not entirely focussed on well off folk with expensive boats but have some comcern for the whole spectrum of boating folk.

 

I don't think it's a bad idea, but i think it would need heavy moderation after seeing the reaction to the most recent post, plus the other issue is there already exists a very good source of information on FB

Edited May 2 by tree monkey

[Arthur Marshall]

46 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I suspect that people claiming Benefits dont want to be identified, so in a way its a non starter. 

Each Benefit provided by the UK govt will be assessed on individual circumstances, so if one person is getting a mooring paid, does not mean everyone will.

 

I don't agree. There's no shame in claiming benefits - millions of working people do, as well as us pensioners. It's no different from any other form of unearned income.

[LadyG]

6 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I don't agree. There's no shame in claiming benefits - millions of working people do, as well as us pensioners. It's no different from any other form of unearned income.

I passed no opinion of my own.

Read my post again.

What makes me laugh is that people who have children, make that decision knowing that they are heavily dependant on the state for the next sixteen or more years, but dont view this as a Benefit.

Edited May 2 by LadyG

[tree monkey]

20 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I passed no opinion of my own.

Read my post again.

What makes me laugh is that people who have children, make that decision knowing that they are heavily dependant on the state for the next sixteen or more years, but dont view this as a Benefit.

And the state is heavily dependent upon those children when they grow up and become wage earners

Edited May 2 by tree monkey

[Kingdom Isambard Brunel]

Should we encourage the dross of society to come and live on canal boats?   Just sticking the needle in.

[Arthur Marshall]

45 minutes ago, Kingdom Isambard Brunel said:

Should we encourage the dross of society to come and live on canal boats?   Just sticking the needle in.

Judging by some of theposts in the political ghetto, they're already here.

[LadyG]

1 hour ago, tree monkey said:

And the state is heavily dependent upon those children when they grow up and become wage earners

No, no, we currently import far more than we are currently producing, so they can become ready made tax payers.

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, LadyG said:

I passed no opinion of my own.

Read my post again.

What makes me laugh is that people who have children, make that decision knowing that they are heavily dependant on the state for the next sixteen or more years, but dont view this as a Benefit.

What makes me cross is how many OAPs moan about benefit claimants while pocketing their couple of hundred quid a week, especially those well off enough to own property.

However, this is a thread about setting up a subforum, not a political debate and I'd be grateful if the powers that be that actually run this place would think about it. I don't actually give a toss about any other members' opinions, to which they are of course perfectly entitled. They just aren't relevant.

I'm happy to accept the organisers' decision, and, having made the suggestion and explained why,  I'm not going to get involved in any further discussion.

[tree monkey]

7 minutes ago, LadyG said:

No, no, we currently import far more than we are currently producing, so they can become ready made tax payers.

 

Nothing no about my statement, children become adults who become tax payers, I never mentioned immigration 

[LadyG]

35 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

 

Nothing no about my statement, children become adults who become tax payers, I never mentioned immigration 

But children cost the UK economy about £10k per annum for about twenty years, and there are fewer of them year on year, so even if they work from age 17 to 67 , (more likely 22 to 62), and contribute say 5% in tax towards pensions, there s not enough to support their own parent generation.

[MtB]

58 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Judging by some of theposts in the political ghetto, they're already here.

 

Judging by some of the boats on the system, they're already here.

 

 

[tree monkey]

9 minutes ago, LadyG said:

But children cost the UK economy about £10k per annum for about twenty years, and there are fewer of them year on year, so even if they work from age 17 to 67 , (more likely 22 to 62), and contribute say 5% in tax towards pensions, there s not enough to support their own parent generation.

 

I said nothing about any of that, all I said is children grow up into tax payers

 

 

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

 

I said nothing about any of that, all I said is children grow up into tax payers

 

 

It's another Ponzi scheme, just like the 'housing ladder'. 

 

We need ever more children, to grow up and look after the burgeoning population of old gits. 

 

 

[tree monkey]

6 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

It's another Ponzi scheme, just like the 'housing ladder'. 

 

We need ever more children, to grow up and look after the burgeoning population of old gits. 

 

 

 

Honestly I am aware of this, it's just the original comment completely ignored the long term tax take and productive life of those 'state supported' children.

 

Much of that support is education and health both of which society benefits from long term, mind you I'm looking forward to claiming my increased pension because I didn't have any children so all that unspent support will be coming back in spades 

[GUMPY]

Between December 2024 to February 2025 there seems to be a large number of 18-24 year olds that are economically inactive.

nearly as many unemployed and inactive as there are employed.

 

 2.97 million young people aged 16 to 24 who were economically inactive, down 92,000 from the previous year. The inactivity rate for young people was 40.2%, down from 42.2% the year before. 

 

 643,000 young people aged 16 to 24 who were unemployed, 105,000 more than the previous year. The unemployment rate for young people was 14.6%, up from 12.8% from the year before.

 

 3.77 million young people aged 16 to 24 in employment, 117,000 more than the previous year. The employment rate for young people was 51.1%, up from 50.4% the year before.

 

Does this mean they haven't grown up

 

 

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05871/

 

[cuthound]

5 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

as well as us pensioners. It's no different from any other form of unearned income.

 

I disagree, I feel that I earned my pensions by working before I retired.

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, cuthound said:

 

I disagree, I feel that I earned my pensions by working before I retired.

Well, you didn't. If that was true, then people who didn't work (for example, because they were raising kids, caring for parents) wouldn't get one.

Any contributions you made to the support systems while working went to pay pensioners living at that time, same as workers now pay for yours. All you earned was your earnings, plus any private pension scheme you paid into. The state pension is a benefit. And a taxable one at that, quite rightly.

How you feel may set your attitude to other claimants, but has nothing to do with why you get a pension.

Edited May 2 by Arthur Marshall

[LadyG]

Those who don't have their pension contributions stacked up for forty years have different type of pension paid, those who paid the maximum get more. I think I get four scales of payment, there is no one Govt pension paid to all.

[Ianws]

11 hours ago, LadyG said:

But children cost the UK economy about £10k per annum for about twenty years, and there are fewer of them year on year, so even if they work from age 17 to 67 , (more likely 22 to 62), and contribute say 5% in tax towards pensions, there s not enough to support their own parent generation.

Is this a back of a fag packet calculation, based on what you believe to be true or was true in the distant past. or is it based on some recent accredited national statistics.

I do think a space to ask for, or give, advice around claiming benefits, without it becoming political or judgemental, would probably help a fair few people. Especially with it being a bit of a unique situation, with general benefits advice not being easily applies to people lining aboard.

 

A problem would be keeping the judgemental or political comments out of the conversation. I'm sure we have all seen how such posts in a thread can overwhelm any useful advice or drive new, or less resilient members away.

 

I know Facebook groups covering this issue have also been mentioned but not everyone can access them or wants to engage with Facebook.. 

Edited May 2 by Ianws
Spelling