Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,386
- Location
- Darwen
Poll: Benefit cap vote.
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 886
Plenty would argue they shouldn't, was welfare ever intended to fund non essentials?
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,386
- Location
- Darwen
So because they got made redundant or lost their job through other means you begrudge them little luxuries?
Why not just put them in prison or chain gangs.
Are you seriously telling me that I should be buying beer for welfare claimants?!
No, and you're not.
Plenty would be wrong. Welfare is not 'bare essentials and nothing else' it is to ensure the wellbeing of individuals and a basic decent standard of living.
Well if you are suggesting that people need alcohol to attain a basic level of living we have bigger problems then the benefit cap.
Yes correct, i was the same, 20 years and i got made redundant, had to make a claim for a few months until some work picked up and what a job getting some money out of this system, 7 weeks i had to wait for £69
.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,386
- Location
- Darwen
No but some people wouldn't be averse to just giving people on benefits bread and water to live off. You're not allowed to have fun on benefits because you are stealing money from the tax payers apparently.Well if you are suggesting that people need alcohol to attain a basic level of living we have bigger problems then the benefit cap.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,386
- Location
- Darwen
They can spend it on whatever they want, the government gives them a set amount, if they spend it all on fags, sky and beer who are you to tell them not to.
You seem to forget losing your job doesn't mean companies stop chasing you for money.
You seem to forget losing your job doesn't mean companies stop chasing you for money.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 886
I'm not? Oh good.
I would argue that beer isn't part of "a basic decent standard of living".
Because the money is supposed to be for keeping them in a basic standard of living. If they can afford to spend it on "fags, sky and beer" then they're getting too much, which is the point of this thread.
What a crazy country/world we live in sometimes.
The government decides that it isn't fair that wages haven't risen with inflation when benefits have risen with inflation. So instead of allowing wages to rise with inflation they have decided that stopping benefits rising with inflation is the only fair answer.
Great logic there. If people's lives didn't depend on it I would find it comical.
It's pitching workers v benefit claimants yet again, they are really going after benefits aren't they, totally demonising benefit claimants, and the majority of the public lap it up asking the question 'if we don't get a rise in line with inflation then why should the benefit claimants get it?', when the real question they should be asking is 'why aren't we getting pay rises in line with inflation?!'.
It's probably a very clever little strategy by the government - lets demonise benefit claimants so much so that the workers demand benefits are capped while we sit back looking like the decision had nothing to do with us.
Yet another thing that tells me something is very wrong with the way this country is being run.
The government decides that it isn't fair that wages haven't risen with inflation when benefits have risen with inflation. So instead of allowing wages to rise with inflation they have decided that stopping benefits rising with inflation is the only fair answer.
Great logic there. If people's lives didn't depend on it I would find it comical.
It's pitching workers v benefit claimants yet again, they are really going after benefits aren't they, totally demonising benefit claimants, and the majority of the public lap it up asking the question 'if we don't get a rise in line with inflation then why should the benefit claimants get it?', when the real question they should be asking is 'why aren't we getting pay rises in line with inflation?!'.
It's probably a very clever little strategy by the government - lets demonise benefit claimants so much so that the workers demand benefits are capped while we sit back looking like the decision had nothing to do with us.
Yet another thing that tells me something is very wrong with the way this country is being run.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,386
- Location
- Darwen
It's none of your business, what if someone goes to a cheap supermarket and stocks up on no frills food and spends the rest on luxuries.
If you ever lose your job and I hope not, please come here and make a post about it and we will tell you what you can and can't spend your money on, I'm pretty sure you would tell us to **** off.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 886
Agreed. Some people in this thread seem to want to demonise their own viewpoint though. Claiming that benefits is pocket money from the government to spend on whatever they wish.
You misunderstand me,
I'm not suggesting cutting from people who need assistance, just people who don't (people earning well above the national average who are claiming free TV/Bus pass/Fuel allowance).
In relation to wage distribution the same logic applies (decrease wages at the top & increase wages in the bottom to reduce the dependence on the state through top-ups).
As much as people like to avoid it - we effectively have the tax-payer subsidising big business profits via tax credits & top-ups.
As has been said, a lot of people in work claim benefits. Since public sector pay is being capped at a 1% rise and some low paid private sector workers haven't seen a payrise in years then a rise in benefits may be the only thing allowing them to survive.
^^^ this tbh...
If we didn't still have paper money then perhaps a smart card system would be viable... it would be much easier to monitor and control spending then as you'd have a better idea of what claimants were (in general) spending benefits on and whether the level of benefits being paid out were sufficient to meet their needs.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,386
- Location
- Darwen
Don't get me wrong I completely agree, but there is no way to police this other than affecting benefits for EVERYONE.
Why should genuine claimants be punished for the scroungers and dossers let alone being tarred by the same brush.
News just in! - people on any benefits have never worked a day or paid any tax ever.
Contribution based JSA is a myth like the Minotaur or the Harpy.
More (stupid) news at 11.
