just stop all benefits.

PaulF81

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

No they are paying the market rate because they can fill their jobs at that rate. Force them to pay more and there will just be more unemployment. If it's not considered enough to live on (which opens up a whole different debate due to the relative definition of poverty), then it's better to have top up welfare than have these people unemployed and have to pay them 100% welfare.

Fully agree with this. And they should receive far more for being in work than those who aren't, tiered depending upon how long they have held down a job.

The opposite should be true for those living like the cast of shameless.

Yorkie1

Catden wrote: »

Sorry to quote myself folks, but I didn't receive a reply. I was born with my illness & have tried many times to get any sort of life or health insurance unsuccessfully.

You've asked on the wrong board. This is the house prices etc debate board.

You need to go to the insurance board.

mazza111

I hear ya Catden. It would be hard for me to get insurance for my dd too with the condition she's got.

But no, people on these boards will still class her as a scummer or whatever. They are forever going to tar the sick and the disabled with the same brush as people who don't want to work.

PaulF81

You people just don't listen and live in a complete fantasy land. It's no wonder the state ends up having to pay your way, you are living on the planet zog.

mazza111

And you need to wake up and see that not everyone is as fortunately as you. Some people can't work.

LITTLE_MISS_PIGGY

we are on ESA due to an accident and statutory sick pay running but would love not to be but with 3 children to raise we are are struggling with what they give us to live on with all the bills we have cut back as far as we can and buy a lot of reduced foods but it never seems to go anywhere we have a car because we live in the middle of nowhere and one of my children is autistic and 2 have hypermobility which means they cant walk very far so how would these cards help us (yes my partner smokes and we have the odd glass of wine) we still need to pay all the regular bills and the shops closest to us i can guaranteee they wouldnt take them. And yes if it was possible for me to go out to work i would but with 2 ill children who only do half days at school because they are in pain i have to be home and my partner is waiting for the all clear to go back to work

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

concerned43 wrote: »

Really? wish I had known that when the 33 year mother of two little ones sat across from me two weeks ago in tears as she described her cancer and that she had to wear a colostomy bag, she's exhausted, going through chemo and although she and her husband had worked full time, she no longer can because of her cancer and he (her OH) has had to shorten his hours in order to look after her and the kids.
The cannot meet their mortgage repayments and fear they will be repossessed and homeless....but don't worry White Horse - she wont be bleeding the country dry as she refused to apply for DLA and other benefits because she felt she could not cope with the stress of it all!
and in the end I managed to persuade the mortgage company to lesson their monthly payments but even then she won't have enough thereafter to meet their other financial obligations...the car will go next which means she will just have to suffer the 1.5 hour journey to hospital on the bus to receive her chemo treatment and the OH won't be able to get into work without the car and thus I expect him to lose his job because of it ! but hey ho that's life in your world white horse - one world which I hope I will NEVER live in!!!

I thought I'd bump this in the hope that The_White_Horse responds to it.

A._Badger

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

I thought I'd bump this in the hope that The_White_Horse responds to it.

Leaving aside TWH's deliberately provocative comments, that is, however tragic, just one case and only an imbecile would base policy on a single emotive case.

The fact remains that the benefits 'culture' in the UK is far too widespread and far too generous to the undeserving. Instead of shroud waving, it would be more sensible for the professionally concerned to campaign against the squandering of welfare benefits, so that the genuinely needy can be given more.

There is, after all, only so much cake to go round - it is not an infinite commodity.

GeorgeHowell

A._Badger wrote: »

Leaving aside TWH's deliberately provocative comments, that is, however tragic, just one case and only an imbecile would base policy on a single emotive case.

The fact remains that the benefits 'culture' in the UK is far too widespread and fat too generous to the undeserving. Instead of shroud waving, it would be more sensible for the professionally concerned to campaign against the squandering of welfare benefits, so that the genuinely needy can be given more.

There is, after all, only so much cake to go round - it is not an infinite commodity.

This is hitting the nail right on the head. As soon as cutting welfare is mentioned the powers of the left and the do-gooder industry reel out all the genuine hardship cases that they can muster and play the 'nasty party' card.

For the vast majority of people such cases are just the sort of examples of where welfare should not be cut. If anything it perhaps should be increased. It is the f e c kless, workshy, over-breeding scroungers who should be cut out of welfare in order to pay for it, and not the general taxpayer.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

A._Badger wrote: »

Leaving aside TWH's deliberately provocative comments, that is, however tragic, just one case and only an imbecile would base policy on a single emotive case.

Are you seriously suggesting that genuine cases are very much in the minority and that most benefit cases are bogus and undeserving?

Or it the case that actually, the claimants that are undeserving are very much in the minority and only an imbecile would base policy on a single (or minority of) emotive undeserving case?