Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjc50 | Hacker News Reader

> 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

Is this actually possible? People claim it happens a lot, but without being specific on what they mean. Note that most UK visas involve "no recourse to public funds" https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-funds--2/p...

> the level of welfare spending is unsustainable in the long term

Reducing this means either an expansion of employment in run-down areas like Blackpool, or reducing benefit levels and hoping that people die quietly.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1117/161117-austerit...

View on HN

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?

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-...

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.

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.

(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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com