just stop all benefits.

nicknameless

The_White_Horse wrote: »

so why did he commit suicide? because his benefits were cut or because he was clinically depressed?

I have a friend who had clinical depression and they worked. occasionally they may have had a week or two off when it got really bad, but for the majority of the time, they worked.

I also know a black cab driver with clinical depression. He also works full time.

It really is so black and white for you isn't it?

Clinical depression is clinical depression is clinical depresssion. I also have a close colleague who suffers, and which fortunately our employer accommodates understandingly. But some people are totally incapacitated for periods, some extended, some approaching permanent - through illness. Some don't have that understanding employer.

To answer your question the benefit cuts put him in a position where he felt (obviously influenced by the depression) that he was becoming an excessive burden to those around him as he felt he couldn't support himself in the absence of the financial support he'd previously had.

At least that was the tone and tenor of the suicide note, which unfortunately I don't have to hand to quote verbatim to you.

And if you're going to argue that we shouldn't have a safety net for people in that position then there's really no point answering you further.

I thought you were on a wind up originally.

PaulF81

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

But I understood India said they did not need it and did not want it?

They still bought military hardware and signed major contracts for exports as a result of the diplomacy created.

The statement they published was aimed at the peasants who don't have enough brain cells to realise what is really going on. (Typically daily mail readers).

**sparkles**

Forever wrote: »

There is a tiny percentage of people like this but everyone else gets a bad name because of it.
QUOTE]

i disagree with this

its not a 'tiny' percentage at all, well not where i live/work anyway

also i dont believe everyone claiming benefits gets a bad name because of the lazy ones, as i said in my previous posts benefits are a necessity for some and should be readily available.

daily i meet people who dont work and its always obvious the ones who want to work/did work and the ones who dont

george howell summed it up perfectly....the sence of entitlement is unbelievable FOR SOME!!!

Forever

PaulF81 wrote: »

They still bought military hardware and signed major contracts for exports as a result of the diplomacy created.

The statement they published was aimed at the peasants who don't have enough brain cells to realise what is really going on. (Typically daily mail readers).

Moving away from the Daily Wail, the BBC have reported that MPs have expressed concern that aid results in over dependence on this money rather than collecting money nationally from taxes.

"The Commons International Development Committee said dependable tax revenues were a far better route out of poverty than reliance on overseas aid."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19351396

Let alone all the reports of money ending up in dictators pockets plus there is the probe regarding the MP, Mitchell, who gave 16m to a dictator in Rwanda who is known to violate human rights.

And why we are supporting India's space program with foreign aid, I have no idea. I don't buy that we wouldn't have got these contracts without foreign aid either. After all, India did say no to receiving this money in the first place!

With this global recession which is going to see rich countries get poorer and poorer countries get richer, this system of giving away money is now defunct.

We need to support our own people before other countries. Especially the under 25s.

Forever

RJP33 wrote: »

It's not meant to be a huge amount though, only a short term safety net. If it's comfortable, it's too much.

Agree with you about foreign aid, particularly to a country like India who have the resources to look after themselves now.

The bit in bold was my point RJP33

pqrdef

The_White_Horse wrote: »

why diodn't you take out insurance cover?

But we invented National Insurance to make sure that everybody did have insurance cover. That's what benefits are.

If you want to insure twice, that's your problem.

borkid

The_White_Horse wrote: »

the simply truth is benefits are way too high. people on benefits should not be able to afford nice clothes, holidays, run cars, have sky, broadband, cigarettes etc.

they should have the most BASIC essentials to live on. and no more. it is a SAFETY net and no more.

The end.

How do you know where the money comes from? My daughter worked from the age of 15 all through university. She was working when she became chronically ill and there is no cure just coping strategies. She tried a part time job ( before ESA) 20hrs per month but after 9 months she had to give it up because she relapsed again. She has a car, if she didn't she would be housebound as she is too ill to walk to the bus stop let alone use the bus/ carry her shopping etc. She doesn't fund the car neither does her benetfits, I do. It is a gift from me so that she at least has a semblance of a normal life and I know she will be able to collect her prescription or visit the doctors when necessary without me having to take her (over an hours round trip for me).

There is a huge difference between people on benefits due to ill health and those on benefits due to no job. You seem quite happy to tar both with the same brush.

barbiedoll

Total benefits for people on low incomes 22.08%

This is the interesting figure. It's the amount that taxpayers spend on topping-up the wages of the low-paid, people who work for organisations such as Vodaphone, RBS, Top Shop, Tesco etc etc. The taxpayers are subsidising these companies (amongst others) most of whom manage very effectively to [STRIKE]dodge[/STRIKE] minimise the amount of tax that they pay to the British Government. So we're paying their staff wage costs AND their tax bill.


This is who we should be targeting!

ILW

barbiedoll wrote: »

This is the interesting figure. It's the amount that taxpayers spend on topping-up the wages of the low-paid, people who work for organisations such as Vodaphone, RBS, Top Shop, Tesco etc etc. The taxpayers are subsidising these companies (amongst others) most of whom manage very effectively to [STRIKE]dodge[/STRIKE] minimise the amount of tax that they pay to the British Government. So we're paying their staff wage costs AND their tax bill.


This is who we should be targeting!

Are we all prepared to pay more though.
Example: Waitrose employees are all "partners" and it is generally considered that their T and Cs are better than Tesco or Sainsburys. Trouble is that most people just buy at the cheapest supplier.

Forever

**sparkles** wrote: »

QUOTE=Forever;56451191]There is a tiny percentage of people like this but everyone else gets a bad name because of it.
QUOTE]

i disagree with this

its not a 'tiny' percentage at all, well not where i live/work anyway

also i dont believe everyone claiming benefits gets a bad name because of the lazy ones, as i said in my previous posts benefits are a necessity for some and should be readily available.

daily i meet people who dont work and its always obvious the ones who want to work/did work and the ones who dont

george howell summed it up perfectly....the sence of entitlement is unbelievable FOR SOME!!!

Well I don't know anyone who is deliberately not working. And if I thought anyone was committing fraud, I would tell the authorities straight away. As should everyone.

And again, I will provide a breakdown of how the benefits are spent. This shows that the total for unemployed people is only 2.58% of the total bill...

- Total benefits for families with children 18.11%
- Total benefits for unemployed people 2.58%
- Total benefits for people on low incomes 22.08%
- Total benefits for elderly people 41.64%
- Total benefits for sick and disabled people 15.17%
- Total benefits for bereaved people 0.36%

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn13.pdf

The biggest groups are the elderly people and people on low incomes who cannot afford to keep a roof over their heads.