- Joined
- 9 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 1,457
90% of people that receive benefits work I hope you know that.
Tory Government to take from the poor to give to the old?
- Thread starter cheesyboy
- Start date
90% of people that receive benefits work I hope you know that.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 940
- Location
- Manchester
So as I said, the same as everybody else.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 10,607
- Location
- Sussex, UK
Why are they "stupid" threads in your view? Do you support peadophilic content on OCUK?
What's your point? A net withdrawal from the system is a net withdrawal however you stack it up. Some people pay more than they take - should they be expected to subsidise you just because you don't earn enough?
(I say yes, but I'm consistent)
They're stupid for exactly the reasons that are dictated in the threads.
Is there any chance you could make this: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18470594 thread again.
£6.31 * 37.5 * 52 = £12,304.50 with a take home of £11,322. (943.50 a month).
Rent for a studio flat here: £450
Council Tax: £120*10/12 = £108
Gas/Electric/Water: £60
Phone/Internet: £20
Food/household supplies: £100-120
Clothing: £30
Travel: £66 (monthly bus pass, more if you have to drive)
Total = £854
That's assuming you never eat out, don't smoke, drink or buy anything for entertainment. Never go anywhere but work and home you're left with £89.50 a month. It would take nearly 2 years to save £2,000 working full time.
But forced abortions are A-OK?
What has that got to do with what I put? Whilst I appreciate your effort on this thread to 'educate' everyone, don't just randomly quote things with a random fact.
He was speaking about a benefit cap. I then mentioned that a cap should not be above minimum wage.
I thought it wouldn't need explaining, but it seems you need it. Government sets minimum wage, indirectly saying that is the minimum someone can live off(whether or not the current MW is high enough is a different argument), therefore benefits shouldn't exceed that mark.
In reality the only people that would claim even close to this mark would be the unemployed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 10,607
- Location
- Sussex, UK
So you support the paedophilia on ocuk?
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,383
- Location
- Darwen
Yet a lot of those people on minimum wage can and do claim £50 a week in working tax credits, so clearly the minimum wage is nowhere near enough to live off.
If it was I'm sure the authorities would have shut this place down a long time ago. Just because you think something is, doesn't mean it actually is.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 940
- Location
- Manchester
You were trying to suggest that "extra" benefits some receive are the same as the base state spending every single person benefits from and therefore I also see "benefits" as the norm. But you seem to have latched on to how much I put in/get out now.
Could always work more hours I suppose? Get a 2nd job? Like people use to?
What scares me most about those proposals is that many of them have case studies around the world and do not work/end badly i.e. "food stamps" = black market, higher crime, more innocent people suffer, etc. its been proved time after time. Whoever came up with a lot of these ideas should not be in any position to run a country. I don't normally vote but congratulations they have given me a reason to, to try and make sure they don't get in again. (I even have to wonder if that is the idea - its hard to imagine anyone seasoned in politics would be so naive).
Why don't you just say "you're a paedophile if you like Japanese cartoons" Instead of going with the fallicious question? Or are you trying to be underhanded and sneaky without "personally attacking" someone so you don't get a suspension because quite a few mods actually like Japanese cartoons.
Thank you sir. Guess you missed the part where I said it's a different argument. Well done you.
Still stands that benefits shouldn't exceed minimum wage. Whether it's £6.31, £7.35 (extra £50 a week if working the max 48 hours a week) or £100.
Tax credits are like a top up to minimum wage, and offer greater flexibility for government to target where needed, whilst allowing businesses to use a competitively priced labour resource (i.e. not pricing unskilled workers out of the labour market).
Government can give more of a top-up to, for example, working parents than to single adults, since government wants people to have children to provide future workers, and doesn't want those children brought up in too much poverty, since poverty-raised children are lower performers.
See my post above about reducing housing costs.
Council tax needs to be completely overhauled too, its a ridiculously punitive tax.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,383
- Location
- Darwen
Yeah but you just said NMW is the minimum the government says people can live off, the fact they allow people to claim Tax Credits shows it isn't, so please do continue with your smart arse attitude.
The cost of living still goes up.
Yes, indirectly. Someone who is single with no kids.
Why should someone who is working 48 hours a week get less than someone who claims benefits?
The ballpark does change once kids are brought into the equation, but that support is open to everyone.