Awesome dad is awesome...

In the grand scheme of things his £53 a week is not harming the country.

If people used this energy to bash the likes of corporate companies and high earners, who find ways of fiddling their tax bills, then the country would not be in a position it is in right now.

Too much money is not being spent within the UK, that's the problem we have here. NOT someone who has paid into the benefit pot and is now unfortunately unemployed due to the tax dodging companies that carry out business in the country...

I agree with the statement that his priorities are wrong, but at the end of the day we cannot tell this person how he should spend his money. Maybe this is something the government needs to take a step on.

Housing benefits is more of a problem than JSA
 
That would be my sentiments exactly.

If I was out of a job - I would be making it my NO.1 priority to get another one. Even if it meant spending 12 hours a day searching for one... I would make damn sure I tried every single avenue to get back into work and pay my own way in life - even if it ment doign voluntary work just to get experience to try a different role.

The mere fact people in the UK these days see no problem in telling people they are out of work and claiming benefits - and bascially getting everything handed to them.... the fact they don't see it as a negative thing.....is really worrying.

It would annoy me even having to tell people I didn't have a job....
 
Last edited:
rossk26 said:
In the grand scheme of things his £53 a week is not harming the country.

If people used this energy to bash the likes of corporate companies and high earners, who find ways of fiddling their tax bills, then the country would not be in a position it is in right now.

Too much money is not being spent within the UK, that's the problem we have here. NOT someone who has paid into the benefit pot and is now unfortunately unemployed due to the tax dodging companies that carry out business in the country...

I agree with the statement that his priorities are wrong, but at the end of the day we cannot tell this person how he should spend his money. Maybe this is something the government needs to take a step on.

Housing benefits is more of a problem than JSA
Click to expand...

His £53 on it's own isn't.

When you take into account the 2 million odd other people on JSA, it suddenly becomes a whole different matter - and how many of them do you think are also squandering it on luxuries that many people who work can't afford, due to being taxed to the hilt in order to pay that JSA?
 
Haggisman said:
His £53 on it's own isn't.

When you take into account the 2 million odd other people on JSA, it suddenly becomes a whole different matter - and how many of them do you think are also squandering it on luxuries that many people who work can't afford, due to being taxed to the hilt in order to pay that JSA?
Click to expand...

Does that money disappear once they spend it?
 
rossk26 said:
In the grand scheme of things his £53 a week is not harming the country.

If people used this energy to bash the likes of corporate companies and high earners, who find ways of fiddling their tax bills, then the country would not be in a position it is in right now.

Too much money is not being spent within the UK, that's the problem we have here. NOT someone who has paid into the benefit pot and is now unfortunately unemployed due to the tax dodging companies that carry out business in the country...

I agree with the statement that his priorities are wrong, but at the end of the day we cannot tell this person how he should spend his money. Maybe this is something the government needs to take a step on.

Housing benefits is more of a problem than JSA
Click to expand...

53*Every Other Claimant Who Has Spare.

And the reason those 'tax dodging' people don't pay large percentages of tax is because their contribution even if a lower percentage is much more than that of a normal salary person. How about we start charging them massive amounts and then they turn around and just go to another country. Even less money for the economy. There was a simple thread about the way tax works in this economy. Found the thread Here
 
~Divine~Wind~ said:
To all of you stating "the money isnt his" it clearly is as the benefits people have given it to him.

OP also stated he has worked in the past, no doubt paying into the benefits pot.

So I've worked now solid for the past 7 years or so, house with mortgage, BB, Bills and I get fired/made redundant. I claim JSA while I look for a job.....

Everyone gonna go all benefits nazi on me despite me paying into the whole thing thru PAYING tax??

It's not as if OP is a chronic dole scrounge now is it?
Jesus wept people get some perspective.

One thing tho OP, I hope you've told them yer missus lives with ya.
Good luck with the job searching :)
Click to expand...

Your situation would be completely different. You would have purchased the house and bb etc whilst working and under the assumption that your income will continue.

The OP has taken out Sky HD and BB knowing that he has no income from working. The job seekers allowance is exactly that, money to aid you in seeking a job. Not to take out a new contract with Sky to watch movies.
 
LeJosh said:
Does that money disappear once they spend it?
Click to expand...

It depends how far you're taking the argument but once spent the money is in the hands of private corporations when you're talking about Sky and BT - who will in turn pay some tax on it but whether that's better or worse for us overall than it remaining in public hands will vary according to your point of view.

My point here isn't that he shouldn't be allowed to spend the money but merely that if finances are a struggle that perhaps it would be better not to stretch them to pay for some items which are luxuries until there is a greater supply of income again. Maybe it's the overly-cautious part of my brain here but I'm thinking about contingency funding for any emergencies.
 
Haggisman said:
His £53 on it's own isn't.

When you take into account the 2 million odd other people on JSA, it suddenly becomes a whole different matter - and how many of them do you think are also squandering it on luxuries that many people who work can't afford, due to being taxed to the hilt in order to pay that JSA?
Click to expand...

So those 2 million odd other people are not worthy of JSA? Should they not be given any money at all by the government?

At the end of the day the government is still going to give them this money, so what difference does it make what they spend it on?
 
semi-pro waster said:
It depends how far you're taking the argument but once spent the money is in the hands of private corporations when you're talking about Sky and BT - who will in turn pay some tax on it but whether that's better or worse for us overall than it remaining in public hands will vary according to your point of view.

My point here isn't that he shouldn't be allowed to spend the money but merely that if finances are a struggle that perhaps it would be better not to stretch them to pay for some items which are luxuries until there is a greater supply of income again. Maybe it's the overly-cautious part of my brain here but I'm thinking about contingency funding for any emergencies.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand why his girlfriend shouldn't have sky and bb though when she has a full time job?

To me it all sounds a bit preachy because he's getting something for "free."

Also once the money is at sky it goes to pay for wages, new projects which then fuels jobs etc. Like you said, depends how far you want to take the scenario. It's just not as cut and dry as "he spent x amount in a couple months, he should be lynched and ridiculed" like what people are doing in this thread. It's quite sad.
 
lee1101 said:
Your situation would be completely different. You would have purchased the house and bb etc whilst working and under the assumption that your income will continue.

The OP has taken out Sky HD and BB knowing that he has no income from working. The job seekers allowance is exactly that, money to aid you in seeking a job. Not to take out a new contract with Sky to watch movies.
Click to expand...

its his money, he may have savings? he might be claiming while he gets another job and doesnt intend to sit on his ass all his life?

Some of you lot on here preach like your perfect, your not.
 
ants83 said:
its his money, he may have savings? he might be claiming while he gets another job and doesnt intend to sit on his ass all his life?

Some of you lot on here preach like your perfect, your not.
Click to expand...

Unless your me.

But I don't preach like I know it all when I don't, as that would be an imperfection.
 
ants83 said:
its his money, he may have savings? he might be claiming while he gets another job and doesnt intend to sit on his ass all his life?

Some of you lot on here preach like your perfect, your not.
Click to expand...

Its got nothing to do with being perfect. Just spend your JSA on what its intended to be spent on.

Finding a job isnt hard, but finding your dream job is. If someone is that desperate to work then they will find a job easily. Work in Asda or in a restaurant or do some labouring or telesales! Theres jobs everywhere but not everyone wants to do them
 
Last edited:
rossk26 said:
So those 2 million odd other people are not worthy of JSA? Should they not be given any money at all by the government?

At the end of the day the government is still going to give them this money, so what difference does it make what they spend it on?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that, but I doubt the OP is an isolated case, and it stands to reason that if the govt. were to pay out less in benefits, then they would have more money to pay into other projects, which would perhaps benefit everyone instead of allowing a select few to waste money on TV packages of which 90% is completely rubbish which they will never watch anyway (particularly if they are actually looking for a job instead of just making a token effort).
 
Hmmm.....whilst your dad has gifted you an amazing thing, i can't help but think you may learn nothing from this.
Straight away you subscribed to luxuries (as has been said) and missed the point of the JSA. You said yourself you had 0 income coming in......yet you spend what you have on sky and bb.
Again, BB fair enough, for job seeking online, but dude, seriously, detroit waves made the perfect post, you need to grow up. It may not seem fair that you can't enjoy such fineties, but life can be like that.
To me it does kind of show that you lack the deeper undestanding of how hard it 'can' be and could be for you if your dad didn't swoop in and save the day.
What do you think your dads 'true' thoughts are knowing (if indeed he does know) that your 'allowance' is being spent on tv channels? He may not say anything, but i'll bet he's disappointed. I certainly would be if it were my son.
We all tend to learn from our mistakes mate. It's ok saying your gf pays for this and that, but go back to detroit waves epic post, it speaks volumes of truth.
You're still young, and maybe feel you have the right to do what you want without such burdens, but don't use that as an excuse, otherwise you'll still be paying for youthful mistakes...when you're much older.

Your dad sounds like a true father, looking after his kid(s), but you gotta stand on your own feet mate and do your bit, don't let your dad down by frittering the opportunity to put some of that money aside for times when you 'really' do need it. Buying SkyHD shows you don't really need the money......or your priorities are well out of whack!

This aint about jealously or high horses, most of it is about common sense....and maybe some moralilty too.

Good luck to you bud, hope things work out for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom