Now then...lower benefits for the Northerners ??

grizzly1911

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

There is no logic in excluding property from comparisons, it is part of the cost of living. And as I've said before I've seen no data to demonstrate that the difference lies only in property costs.

I only exclude housin g as that can be catered for under HB as a separate item. I don't dispute it is major factor that needs resolving,

It is day to day living costs that are in question.

Fuel, energy, phones, shopping form main supermarkets from anecdotes from people on here and IME suggests there is little or no difference.

Items of discretionary spend where property will play a part the cost of a pint, eating out, entertainment will be affected.

Transport costs and food may well be higher in north energy consumption, relatively, is likely to be higher as it is colder.

I use the word "north" in anywhere that isn't in Conrad's belt.

Zero_Sum

N1AK wrote: »

Surely by your logic public transport isn't essential they could walk!? If you take the view that benefits should be calculated to allow no leeway for any form of non-essential then benefits could be cut considerably. If however you accept that some minor frivolities are important to maintaining a positive mental state for many then you might allow for the fact that most people claiming benefits may from time to time do such wondrous things go to the cinema on an orange wednesday.

So how do people get to a job interview?
Or a disabled person get to the shops?
Or someone in ill health get to a hospital appointment?

GeorgeHowell

Zero_Sum wrote: »

So how do people get to a job interview?
Or a disabled person get to the shops?
Or someone in ill health get to a hospital appointment?

We hope and assume that people actively seeking work, genuinely disabled or in ill health would receive enough in benefits to do these things and also to enjoy a few modest luxuries in life like going to the cinema now and again. Most Conservative supporters (and even perhaps a few UKIP) would support this safety-net approach.

What is of issue are the workshy, f e c k less underclass, who have no intention of working of they can possibly help it, and who mostly breed prolifically in order to milk the system to its utmost. For these, reversion to a basic subsistence level is the only solution as regards giving them, and their children when they grow up, the incentive to lift themselves out of the mire and do something productive and fulfilling with their lives.

This distinction is continuously and conspicuously ignored by those intent on condemning the notion that welfare is too generous, too onerous on the taxpayer, and actually not beneficial in the longer term to many of those it purports to help.

**Patty**

Fantastic

Us Northerners can pack up every work-shy, sofa-sitting, sorry-!!! never-done-a-days-work Rab C Nesbitt lookalike & send them south. Cos they'll get more benefits.

Coming to a home near you, Mr Osbourne.

GeorgeHowell

**Patty** wrote: »

Fantastic

Us Northerners can pack up every work-shy, sofa-sitting, sorry-!!! never-done-a-days-work Rab C Nesbitt lookalike & send them south. Cos they'll get more benefits.

Coming to a home near you, Mr Osbourne.

Won't be easy, the council houses in the south are already stacked to the gunnels with those types, they certainly don't only exist up north.

**Patty**

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Won't be easy, the council houses in the south are already stacked to the gunnels with those types, they certainly don't only exist up north.

What makes you think they live in council houses?

Those types are all in private renting! :eek:

Zero_Sum

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

We hope and assume that people actively seeking work, genuinely disabled or in ill health would receive enough in benefits to do these things and also to enjoy a few modest luxuries in life like going to the cinema now and again. Most Conservative supporters (and even perhaps a few UKIP) would support this safety-net approach.

What is of issue are the workshy, f e c k less underclass, who have no intention of working of they can possibly help it, and who mostly breed prolifically in order to milk the system to its utmost. For these, reversion to a basic subsistence level is the only solution as regards giving them, and their children when they grow up, the incentive to lift themselves out of the mire and do something productive and fulfilling with their lives.

This distinction is continuously and conspicuously ignored by those intent on condemning the notion that welfare is too generous, too onerous on the taxpayer, and actually not beneficial in the longer term to many of those it purports to help.

No, the issue is why should those in the north recieve less for part essential things that cost more, than those in the south

ukcarper

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

We hope and assume that people actively seeking work, genuinely disabled or in ill health would receive enough in benefits to do these things and also to enjoy a few modest luxuries in life like going to the cinema now and again. Most Conservative supporters (and even perhaps a few UKIP) would support this safety-net approach.

What is of issue are the workshy, f e c k less underclass, who have no intention of working of they can possibly help it, and who mostly breed prolifically in order to milk the system to its utmost. For these, reversion to a basic subsistence level is the only solution as regards giving them, and their children when they grow up, the incentive to lift themselves out of the mire and do something productive and fulfilling with their lives.

This distinction is continuously and conspicuously ignored by those intent on condemning the notion that welfare is too generous, too onerous on the taxpayer, and actually not beneficial in the longer term to many of those it purports to help.

According to the entitled to web site this is what people get after housing costs based on adults being 35

A single person gets £71 a week, a couple gets £111, if they have one kid they get £194 then another £64 for each additional kid.

Do you think a real terms cut across board is ans.

artisan_2

It's colder and wetter up is the wild frontier so anything gained on lower costs goes on heating and clothes.

Moby

http://www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures
Ignore the bigotry of the Colonel Blimp Daily Mail types working out their own anger and read the facts. Its shameful the way we treat people in this country. Common themes run throughout.... its about life chances/opportunities...education etc. No one is born a parasite....people become that way because of the world they are in! Reducing benefits for such people will only exacerbate the problem in the long term through further social strife. The children of such families suffer and often become tomorrows criminals placing further strain on public services.Only an idiot would believe that cutting the benefits for such people would be seen as an incentive to change. Take it from me as someone who works every day with such people they would not get that message; they would turn to other more dishonest ways to fund their lifestyle...usually by preying on other disadvantaged people.