We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Now then...do exercise or have your benefits cut ??
Comments
-
Taking the upper limit of 90 minutes and assuming you are walking at an average of 4 miles per hour that would mean you are covering about 6 miles per day which gives you 42 miles per 7 day week. For each mile you would typically burn about 100 calories meaning you would be using about 4000 calories each week. Given that a pound of fat contains 3500 calories that means if you walk every day for an hour and a half then you could be losing just over a pound a week.Make of this what you want. I :
am obese
Walk for an hour to an hour and a half pretty much every day - and definitely not at stroll speed. Most weeks I do at least one dance class a week.
I'm pointing this out because a lot of people fall into the trap of over estimating the amount of exercise they do and underestimating the calories they consume.
Some of these porkers would have to get though an awful lot of exercise if the Government thinks they can get them to lose a meaningful amount weight. I don't even think the problem lies with the quality of the food being eaten. What I think needs to be addressed is the HUGE amounts people are stuffing in their gobs. I am amazed when I am out and about in my town centre and almost 90% of people there think they need to eat just because they are there. Even though we have been in recession for 5 years it seems the increase in number of food outlets seems to be accelerating:eek:0 -
RevolvingDoor wrote: »Nice attitude, I wonder if you would class yourself as part of the underclass if you lost your job and had to claim benefits, if you have a job that is. Again, I have nothing against offering obese people on benefits free exercise sessions but it is the taking away of benefits if they don't comply that is the unethical (and highly stupid) part.
In order to justify the indefensible it always comes back to the person who has just lost their job etc. It has been stated time and again (eg post #81) that this is not the sort of person for whom welfare should be restricted unreasonably, and certainly not whom one would call underclass just because they are on benefits. The underclass are the can't work/won't work brigade who choose a life on welfare. The only argument that the left can put up for maintaining such individuals without sanction or imposing any incentive for them to pull their weight is that they don't exist at all. Such is the paucity of the argument.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
Well thats what they are saying...
Overweight or unhealthy people who refuse to attend exercise sessions could have their benefits slashed, in a move proposed by Westminster Council.
What a stupid idea, lets make people healthier so they live longer and claim more benefits.
We should be encouraging people to smoke, drink and legalise drugs.0 -
johnny_storm wrote: »
We should be encouraging people to smoke, drink and legalise drugs.
I don't think the welfare underclass needs any encouragement to do those things.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
Same old prejudice stereotyping the 'underclass'. Its all very sad and ugly George!GeorgeHowell wrote: »I don't think the welfare underclass needs any encouragement to do those things.0 -
Same old prejudice stereotyping the 'underclass'. Its all very sad and ugly George!
Let's examine that a bit further then. My definition of underclass in this context is those individuals who choose a life on welfare through no other reason that their disinclination to work for a living and to pull their weight.
In a free democracy they have a right to be so, but also in a free democracy taxpayers have the right to baulk at contributing to their economic welfare, certainly beyond a subsistence level.
Such individuals clearly have no motivation, no enterprise, no self-respect, no community spirit, and live empty and pointless lives. Is it sensible and right to leave such a situation as it is without trying to do something about it ? Would not bringing them back into the world inhabited by normal working people be to their benefit as well as that of society ?
Have you actually thought any of this through, and do you have the capability to do so ? Do you actually have a position on it that makes any sense and actually addresses the key issues ? Are you actually capable of commenting on it intelligently, beyond making rhetorical slurs about alleged sad and ugly prejudices ?No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
Why can't they go to their local library and borrow cooking books for free? They can walk there and help lose weight in the process.
Or they could learn to cook online (because no matter how 'poor' they claim to be they always have the sky package and broadband.)
How do you know that?'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »In order to justify the indefensible it always comes back to the person who has just lost their job etc. It has been stated time and again (eg post #81) that this is not the sort of person for whom welfare should be restricted unreasonably, and certainly not whom one would call underclass just because they are on benefits. The underclass are the can't work/won't work brigade who choose a life on welfare. The only argument that the left can put up for maintaining such individuals without sanction or imposing any incentive for them to pull their weight is that they don't exist at all. Such is the paucity of the argument.
The welfare system is there for people to use when they are not working just like the NHS is there for people when they need medical help. People shouldn't be denied help just because someone deems them unworthy. How do you think a system like that would ever be put into place anyway? Ridiculous.0 -
RevolvingDoor wrote: »People shouldn't be denied help just because someone deems them unworthy.
Oh yes they should if they are mumping off the rest of society for no reason other than their own idleness and irresponsibility. It is institutionalised theft.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
I'm sick of seeing fat lazy people everywhere too ill to work but not too ill to be out shopping everyday and stuffing their face off the tax payer. Oxygen thieves in my book the lot of them, time for a cull I think!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards