hypochondriac Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 You've been reading the Daily Mail way too much mate. When I was living on benefits I could barely afford to eat. Let alone any of the other things you mention. It's a complete fallacy. Hmm is it? Its just that I deal with quite a lot of families on benefits and something they all have in common is their massive flatscreen tellys... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 Hmm is it? Its just that I deal with quite a lot of families on benefits and something they all have in common is their massive flatscreen tellys... Maybe they bought them before they went on benefits / were made redundant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 If you aspire to have more money, then earn it! I have always worked, yet people on benifity can affort: Designer clothes, Massive TV (and elictricity bill), smoking, drinking, and holidays. This is money taxed from people that earn it and thrown away to lazy bums! Plus, in every 3 pounds the government spend 1 pound of it goes to welfare!!!!!!! We need to save money, and the country from the dept (which is still rising, thanks to Labour) I find it funny that when the goverment makes cuts its wrong, yet spending money you do not have to win votes, selling gold at its lowest price, as well as raiding the pension pot is fine! (PS not a tory either!) Wrong - £1 in every £3 goes on welfare AND PENSIONS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 Maybe they bought them before they went on benefits / were made redundant? Possibly. It is interesting though that from my experience the poorest in society are often the ones most desperate to have the large flashy display of wealth like an absolutely massive TV (and I mean ones that are clearly too big for the room). A couple have sky as well and that is in no way necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 Wrong - £1 in every £3 goes on welfare AND PENSIONS Bet that goes up under the new scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarehamRed Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 Wow. This that what we aspire to for our fellow Countrymen? We can do better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 Hmm is it? Its just that I deal with quite a lot of families on benefits and something they all have in common is their massive flatscreen tellys... Ok, I can only speak form my own experience. As I said above, I was living on JSA & Housing for a year. I was struggling to afford bills, rent (housing was less than my rent) and food. I often went hungry, and eventually had to move back in with my parents, as I was getting deeper and deeper into debt. It has taken almost two years (I moved home in July 2011) to pay off all these debts, halt court orders and cease bank threats (within the last month or so). I'm not saying there aren't those that abuse the system, and live well off it. But to attempt to paint this as the general picture is wholly unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 Wow. This that what we aspire to for our fellow Countrymen? We can do better. Agree...just trying to put things into perspective, albeit in a slightly provocative way... (and, no, I'm not suggesting two "wrongs" make a right either...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 They never once paid for travel to any of my interviews. I was told it is part of what Job Seekers Allowance comes out of. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3597717 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3597717 Can't say I'm surprised. With perhaps one or two exceptions, Job Centre staff are utterly clueless. Completely devoid of anything resembling compassion or empathy. They are not there to help people, simply to take benefits away at any possible moment. I can assure you I was told I responsible for these payments myself. Great when you are living on the outskirts of London, and travelling to an interview in Central, costing £9 for a round trip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 2 April, 2013 Author Share Posted 2 April, 2013 Can't say I'm surprised. With perhaps one or two exceptions, Job Centre staff are utterly clueless. Completely devoid of anything resembling compassion or empathy. They are not there to help people, simply to take benefits away at any possible moment. I can assure you I was told I responsible for these payments myself. Great when you are living on the outskirts of London, and travelling to an interview in Central, costing £9 for a round trip. Mileage does vary. Been on the dole twice, once in Wigan and another time in Liverpool. Wigan was a complete pain in the arse. People just like you said, trying to get me to take clerical jobs ( I was a qualified software engineer, ffs ). Liverpool was sound. They could see that I wasn't going to be on the dole long after the first interview, and gave me no sh!te whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 2 April, 2013 Author Share Posted 2 April, 2013 David Cameron @BritishPM Iain Duncan Smith says he could live on £53 a week if he had to. Yeah, of course Iain. And that's why you claim £39 breakfasts on expenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 Mileage does vary. Been on the dole twice, once in Wigan and another time in Liverpool. Wigan was a complete pain in the arse. People just like you said, trying to get me to take clerical jobs ( I was a qualified software engineer, ffs ). Liverpool was sound. They could see that I wasn't going to be on the dole long after the first interview, and gave me no sh!te whatsoever. It's not even the jobs they were putting me for. It was more the way they did it. As I said, I was straight out of uni, all my experience & qualifications in politics or journalism. I accept that these aren't jobs the Job Centre are going to get through v often. But then they would pack me off to Poundland for an interview. I had no problem with that, went to the interview in trousers, shoes, shirt, tie & blazer. Answered the questions honestly, what have you been up to last few years "uni, working in politics, writing - published in magazines, newspapers, academically". I was then told I was on probation for deliberately trying not to get the job, as I was deemed 'unsuitable' for the role. Basically, I was over-qualified, and that was my fault, and I deserved to be docked payments for this. I was also told (on more than one occasion I should add) that I should lie and tell potential employers I had not been to uni, which would mean all the placement I did through uni would also be gone. Which would make me a 21 year old with no experience at all and no qualifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 2 April, 2013 Author Share Posted 2 April, 2013 It's not even the jobs they were putting me for. It was more the way they did it. As I said, I was straight out of uni, all my experience & qualifications in politics or journalism. I accept that these aren't jobs the Job Centre are going to get through v often. But then they would pack me off to Poundland for an interview. I had no problem with that, went to the interview in trousers, shoes, shirt, tie & blazer. Answered the questions honestly, what have you been up to last few years "uni, working in politics, writing - published in magazines, newspapers, academically". I was then told I was on probation for deliberately trying not to get the job, as I was deemed 'unsuitable' for the role. Basically, I was over-qualified, and that was my fault, and I deserved to be docked payments for this. I was also told (on more than one occasion I should add) that I should lie and tell potential employers I had not been to uni, which would mean all the placement I did through uni would also be gone. Which would make me a 21 year old with no experience at all and no qualifications. Well unfortunately Kelv, this is the reality of what getting people into work actually means. I wouldn't actually mind if the jobs were there or more importantly, entry level paid enough to incentivise participation in employment. It doesn't, and few governments have done anything to address the global seepage of opportunity to the Far East and assorted parts of the third world. The net result is that people just end up getting punished for circumstances outside of their control. Exactly the same thing is going on with the bedroom tax. You don't have to pay it if you move to a smaller property, although there aren't enough smaller properties. Your account there is shocking, but not surprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 Yes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 Ok, I can only speak form my own experience. As I said above, I was living on JSA & Housing for a year. I was struggling to afford bills, rent (housing was less than my rent) and food. I often went hungry, and eventually had to move back in with my parents, as I was getting deeper and deeper into debt. It has taken almost two years (I moved home in July 2011) to pay off all these debts, halt court orders and cease bank threats (within the last month or so). I'm not saying there aren't those that abuse the system, and live well off it. But to attempt to paint this as the general picture is wholly unfair. Why? As I said it clearly isn't the case for some people such as yourself but that doesn't mean it isn't the general picture. I actually have no idea, I'm just commenting on the experiences I have had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 Why? As I said it clearly isn't the case for some people such as yourself but that doesn't mean it isn't the general picture. I actually have no idea, I'm just commenting on the experiences I have had. So you are pap as well as Iain Duncan Smith, nice one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 I am all for raising the minimum wage to a living wage, however someone needs to define what a living wage is. At the lower end, I am guessing that is a roof over your head, food on the table and clothes on your back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 I am all for raising the minimum wage to a living wage, however someone needs to define what a living wage is. At the lower end, I am guessing that is a roof over your head, food on the table and clothes on your back. I'm not against the principle, I just think it is hard to deliver. For example, you can set a min wage, and people sign employment contracts on that basis. Once the cost of living starts to rise again, that min wage becomes irrelevant, requiring it to be changed again. I struggle to see many employers agreeing to constant reassessing of and readjusting to new min. wages. Very simplistic, granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 If £57 isn't enough to "live on" (after all the bills etc have been accounted for) what amount should we be aiming for and how should it be funded? I know I'm pre-empting the spending pledges in Labour's general election manifesto here but just wondering what ballpark figures we're talking about here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 When you've only got 57£ a week to live on that's what you have to do isn't it? Unless you like sponging from parents and grannies and stuff that is. When I was a grad student I was pretty poor, living in West London on not much, you get used to it in the end.. What aways gets me when people moan about their meagre disposable revenues is when they light up about 3 fags whilst they're doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 2 April, 2013 Author Share Posted 2 April, 2013 If £57 isn't enough to "live on" (after all the bills etc have been accounted for) what amount should we be aiming for and how should it be funded? I know I'm pre-empting the spending pledges in Labour's general election manifesto here but just wondering what ballpark figures we're talking about here Introduce rent controls. Use the money saved from housing benefit to ensure people are properly looked after. Basically, take from the rich to give to the poor. Too simple? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 Introduce rent controls. Use the money saved from housing benefit to ensure people are properly looked after. Basically, take from the rich to give to the poor. Too simple? The richest 1% of society contribute c.30% of all tax revenues and the top 50% of the working population contribute 90%. How much more do you want to squeeze out of "the rich"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 2 April, 2013 Author Share Posted 2 April, 2013 The richest 1% of society contribute c.30% of all tax revenues and the top 50% of the working population contribute 90%. How much more do you want to squeeze out of "the rich"? Don't muddle the argument, trousers. It's not just about squeezing money out of the rich. More about pulling one lever to get the machinery of the economy working again. Rent controls wouldn't just lower the housing benefit bill; it'd be a universal benefit to anyone renting accommodation, an escape for anyone stuck in unemployment, and end to the practice of paying housing benefit to those in full time work and more disposable income for everyone. Who knows, it might actually pay to work. Sacrifice of the private landlord industry and short-term house prices too high a price to pay for all that, trousers? I think it's a bargain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 Don't muddle the argument, trousers. You started it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 Blimey, if you pay £50 a month for water then you need to stop using so much. For a family of 3 we pay £34 a month. Gas and electric together is £68. Our house isn't metered for water. We've just moved in and I'm asking them to do it as they lumped a "rateable value" of almost £100 a month for water. I was paying £20 a month for 2 people on a meter before - ridiculous difference! £68 for gas and electric? Do you never have the heating on?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 The richest 1% of society contribute c.30% of all tax revenues and the top 50% of the working population contribute 90%. How much more do you want to squeeze out of "the rich"? You're right trousers, we're paying working people at the bottom of the heap far too little. We need a living wage to enable them to pay fair levels of tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 2 April, 2013 Author Share Posted 2 April, 2013 You started it... Don't play the slippery eel with me, mate! You started it when you asked how spending might be financed. I know I shocked the f**k out of you by actually suggesting something . I'd advise listening to some real politicians waffle interminably about nothing for a bit. You'll feel better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 Don't they need clothes, shoes, bus fares then? You would imagine someone that worked and then lost their job would already own clothes and shoes. You'd hpe that a new job could be found before these wore out. The benefits are there to keep you alive until you get the next job nothing more. Bus fairs for job interviews are another matter. I'd be more than happy for my taxes to help pay for those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braunton Saint Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 Don't muddle the argument, trousers. It's not just about squeezing money out of the rich. More about pulling one lever to get the machinery of the economy working again. Rent controls wouldn't just lower the housing benefit bill; it'd be a universal benefit to anyone renting accommodation, an escape for anyone stuck in unemployment, and end to the practice of paying housing benefit to those in full time work and more disposable income for everyone. Who knows, it might actually pay to work. Sacrifice of the private landlord industry and short-term house prices too high a price to pay for all that, trousers? I think it's a bargain. This to me is the root of the whole issue. The current costs of living, even to a relatively basic standard, are beyond much of the work available. IMO, if the govt really want to make work pay for a significant portion of the population then it is essential that the costs of living which fall within their power to assert at least some control over are regulated to some extent. It seems to me that this government spouts a lot of rhetoric regarding making work pay, to achieve this they appear to have set a course which involves making unemployment a much less comfortable place (although anyone who has been unemployed in the past might describe it as anything but comfortable). How about they do make work pay....pay for a holiday once a year, an affordable roof over your head, decent food, heating on when it is cold. Either the average wage needs to rise, or by some method the cost of living needs to fall. Controlling rents might be a useful step in a direction that would benefit what will soon be a majority of people in the UK in addition to the wider economy. This at the expense of a relatively small number of private landlords in comparison to the large hedge funds and company pension schemes who are investing for long term returns and asset value anyway. IDS should try living on job seekers for five months, I had that experience after redundancy from a relatively well paid job, I will put money on it he will be popping the anti depressants like sweets after three months....and I wonder if he would take a job in Poundland? I wonder if anyone remembers a programme transmitted when the conservatives were still in opposition, in which IDS spent two weeks living in a flat on an estate up north I think....I am sure he never lasted the two weeks before he had to leave on 'official matters'. I find myself increasingly sceptical of his motives and the wider agenda of this government......add to this that tonight's 5 live drive time devoted a small segment to a government suggestion that the national minimum wage could be scrapped to make the economy 'more flexible'....would that idea really make work pay? It would I suppose make a part time supermarket worker become full time, albeit on 3 quid an hour. Frustrating times! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 £57. Not a lot of money. I pay more than that on one monthly utility bill. And yet, this is apparently enough dough to get by on for a week in 2013. Iain Duncan Smith, who gets around £225 per day after tax, reckons he could live on £57 a week if he had to. There is a petition here calling on him to do it. http://www.change.org/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week#share I doubt we could even get by on £57 per person per week. What about you? Is that really all IDS earns? No wonder we have such awful politicians with ****-poor pay like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 Exactly the same thing is going on with the bedroom tax. You don't have to pay it if you move to a smaller property, although there aren't enough smaller properties. I know nothing about this, but I was under the impression the shortage was always houses with more bedrooms not less? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjwills Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 £57 a week to live on, just about doable if you do not mind living on basic poor quality food, that will clog your arteries, and lead to an early death, on £57 a week you will not be able to eat healthily, is this what we are trying to promote. It will get even worse when they expect to farm you out to some company on a work placement to get your benefits. So not only are you eating crap to survive on, but now you have to pay out of your meagre benefits to get to the slave labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 2 April, 2013 Author Share Posted 2 April, 2013 I know nothing about this, but I was under the impression the shortage was always houses with more bedrooms not less? The Department of Work and Pensions own impact assessment recognises that there aren't enough smaller properties to move in to. On a separate note, playing into the SNP's hands. 90% of Scottish MPs voted against this tax. http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2013/mar/bedroom-tax-could-lead-homelessness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjwills Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 Blimey, if you pay £50 a month for water then you need to stop using so much. For a family of 3 we pay £34 a month. Gas and electric together is £68. I take it your out at work all hours, think the poor sods that are out of work, they have to stay at home, and in this freezing winter we have just gone through, the heating costs to keep it at a livable temperature. Pensioners get a heating allowance regardless of how much they are on but the unemployed are not so fortunate. Hypothermia is a killer in winter, and when the food you have to live on is substandard, the conditions get even more chronic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 I remember the days when you could put down the deposit on a new Capri Ghia, have a week in Butlins, buy your girl a fish supper and still have change from £57. Mine you I grew up in Albania. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 The Department of Work and Pensions own impact assessment recognises that there aren't enough smaller properties to move in to. On a separate note, playing into the SNP's hands. 90% of Scottish MPs voted against this tax. http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2013/mar/bedroom-tax-could-lead-homelessness It's not a tax FFS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 2 April, 2013 Author Share Posted 2 April, 2013 I remember the days when you could put down the deposit on a new Capri Ghia, have a week in Butlins, buy your girl a fish supper and still have change from £57. Mine you I grew up in Albania. Feck off, Charlie. You're supposed to annoy me, not amuse me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 Some on benefits are doing OK though http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22003165 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 No, not from my current lifestyle, £57 just ain't realistic (just about half fills my car with diesel) but if I went skint and lost everything then suppose I would have to learn a bit quick but as pensioner would get more than that anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 £57 a week to live on, just about doable if you do not mind living on basic poor quality food, that will clog your arteries, and lead to an early death, on £57 a week you will not be able to eat healthily, is this what we are trying to promote. It will get even worse when they expect to farm you out to some company on a work placement to get your benefits. So not only are you eating crap to survive on, but now you have to pay out of your meagre benefits to get to the slave labour. £57 is plenty of money to buy food for just one week, easy to buy decent stuff in Tescos and Sainsburys. It's only an issue if you think they should be able to visit M&S or Waitrose for the weekly shop, might stretch things a little then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 Some on benefits are doing OK though http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22003165 At least I'm not the only one going off on an almost amusing tangent... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 I just had an evening meal for c.£2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 2 April, 2013 Author Share Posted 2 April, 2013 Hmm is it? Its just that I deal with quite a lot of families on benefits and something they all have in common is their massive flatscreen tellys... You always go on about flatscreen tellies, hypo. Have you actually tried to buy a CRT lately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 2 April, 2013 Author Share Posted 2 April, 2013 Some on benefits are doing OK though http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22003165 Scrounger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 £57 is plenty of money to buy food for just one week, easy to buy decent stuff in Tescos and Sainsburys. It's only an issue if you think they should be able to visit M&S or Waitrose for the weekly shop, might stretch things a little then. after bills it closer to £40 a week. Asda/Aldi level perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 Scrounger. Net revenue generator, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 Some on benefits are doing OK though http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22003165 "We're in it together". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 2 April, 2013 Share Posted 2 April, 2013 £57 is plenty of money to buy food for just one week, easy to buy decent stuff in Tescos and Sainsburys. It's only an issue if you think they should be able to visit M&S or Waitrose for the weekly shop, might stretch things a little then. Problem is you need more than just food to live a half decent standard of living in this country. If you are looking for work you will need a phone, ideally an internet connection. plus there's clothes, travel, toiletries etc. I expect I could just about survive if I had to but having some out-of-touch rich tory ***t say he could I find offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now