For all the benefit frothers out there

ninky_2

mardatha wrote: »

I might never have been rich or never be rich, but I hope I have a compassion and understanding of human life that is not often found in this forum.

recession certainly seems to bring out the worst in people. envy, hatred, blame and anger.

ninky_2

carolt wrote: »

Where's your proof for this ninky? You object to others posting this, but you have no more proof of your assertion than s/he does.

The fact is we've all seen plenty of people on benefits who smoke/drink/have Sky/wear brands.

How do you know this is all on credit?

i only talk from personal experience. the people i know on benefits who have disposable income fund it on credit. of course you could also do a fantasy benefit soa and see how much 'better' off you would be if you were out of work and how much disposable income this would leave you. i think this would reveal the truth.

there's also the case that money spent on fags doesn't indicate wealth. i don't spend money on fags, booze, sky etc but i'm sure i'm far better off than people on benefits.

ninky_2

carolt wrote: »

We got by on a combination of spending through savings, family generosity and credit - this enabled us to have clothes, (v cheap) holidays (visiting family), and some quality of life. But with no savings and a less generous family, our only resource would have been debt - shitloads of it. Or starvation.

.

and how do you know this isn't the case for people on benefits? plenty of people on benefits borrow money from friends and family all the time.

moggylover

ninky wrote: »

absolute rubbish. if this happens it is funded by credit cards. and therefore no more 'affordable' to them than to others.

I'm afraid that it isn't rubbish ninky! There are plenty of people on benefits who do spend their money on exactly those sort of things. They don't usually manage to pay their bills so quickly, nor feed their families decent food, but they do manage to spend on the wrong things and I often wonder how (and also why:o).

moggylover

carolt wrote: »

Where's your proof for this ninky? You object to others posting this, but you have no more proof of your assertion than s/he does.

The fact is we've all seen plenty of people on benefits who smoke/drink/have Sky/wear brands.

How do you know this is all on credit?

TBF, the "brands" are no more expensive than anything else on the high street and many of them are much better lasting/quality. Much as Lonsdale (for instance) get a lamping as "chav", their leather trainers are excellent and cheap (around £20 so long as you are not looking for this years model) and last ages, and their clothes keep their shape and don't need constant mending at the seams:D My gardening baggies are Lonsdale and I have had them years:o:o

ninky_2

moggylover wrote: »

I'm afraid that it isn't rubbish ninky! There are plenty of people on benefits who do spend their money on exactly those sort of things. They don't usually manage to pay their bills so quickly, nor feed their families decent food, but they do manage to spend on the wrong things and I often wonder how (and also why:o).

yes but this option is also open to those not on benefits. let's not confuse two different issues here - genuine availability of disposable income and bad spending decisions (i.e. not paying for utilities or putting aside money for food shopping).

ILW

ninky wrote: »

yes but this option is also open to those not on benefits. let's not confuse two different issues here - genuine availability of disposable income and bad spending decisions (i.e. not paying for utilities or putting aside money for food shopping).

The difference is that those not on benefits are wasting their own cash. Those on benefits have a duty to be a little more careful as it is other peoples money they are wasting.

ninky_2

ILW wrote: »

The difference is that those not on benefits are wasting their own cash. Those on benefits have a duty to be a little more careful as it is other peoples money they are wasting.

not at all. there is no compulsion about how benefits are spent (other than housing benefit obviously). it's a very authoritarian attitude to expect to dictate what people spend their money on - where do you draw the line?

also just because you are not on benefits doesn't mean you are spending your own money - plenty of waged people spend on credit and some of them will end up unable to repay their debts.

ILW

ninky wrote: »

not at all. there is no compulsion about how benefits are spent (other than housing benefit obviously). it's a very authoritarian attitude to expect to dictate what people spend their money on - where do you draw the line?

also just because you are not on benefits doesn't mean you are spending your own money - plenty of waged people spend on credit and some of them will end up unable to repay their debts.

I would not necessarily agree with the "their money" part. It is cash that has been given to them to support themselves and their family. This is money has been taken from others.

ninky_2

ILW wrote: »

I would not necessarily agree with the "their money" part. It is cash that has been given to them to support themselves and their family. This is money has been taken from others.

so should those who work in other jobs as funded by the taxpayer also have a prescriptive list of how they are allowed to spend?

surely all money is 'taken from others' as some point? and by spending it (even if on booze and fags), a lot of it gets put back into circulation - in fact, most of it goes back in taxes.....