MSE News: MPs vote to limit benefit rises to 1%

dori2o

ILW wrote: »

People should feel a sense of duty to limit the amount of support they require and strive to be self sufficent. Or that is my opinion anyway. Others feel the state owes them a living whatever they do or don't do.

It comes down to a choice between being able to live or not able to live, and with salaries as low as they currently are, people quite rightly claim the top up provided by the Government.

It is not the fault of the low paid, the blame lies fully with employers who have allowed their salaries to fall way below that which a person can live on without state help.

Employers are bleeding the country dry due to the subsidy placed on the pittance they pay their employees.

ILW

dori2o wrote: »

It comes down to a choice between being able to live or not able to live, and with salaries as low as they currently are, people quite rightly claim the top up provided by the Government.

It is not the fault of the low paid, the blame lies fully with employers who have allowed their salaries to fall way below that which a person can live on without state help.

Employers are bleeding the country dry due to the subsidy placed on the pittance they pay their employees.

So do you think employers should cut their profits, raise their prices or cut down on staffing levels to pay for increased salaries?

shedboy94

dori2o wrote: »

I see you have taken the Daily Mails bait hook line and sinker.

Lol, why does everyone have to fall back onto the Daily Mail arguement?

Who are these people who don't incurr ANY additional costs?

My child has asthma....I don't incur any additional costs, yet I could claim DLA for him

Instead of believing the Governments propaganda, why not look into the actual figures of Alcoholics/Asthma sufferers who claim DLA.

Yes, there are plenty.

As for ADHD, I guess you're another idiot who claims the illness doesn't exist despite heavy medical evidene that it a very real condition that childern and adults suffer from.

Are you an expert on it?

I fell sorry for those who had that condition as children and were simply written off as naughty and didn't get the help that is desperately needed for any child with any of the behaviour conditions.

As for costs, again there are many for people who suffer from ADHD, you're just too ignorant to see it.
And what costs might they be?

I can't believe you are so ignorant as to believe that everyone who claims DLA is genuinely in need of financial assistance.

shedboy94

dori2o wrote: »

It comes down to a choice between being able to live or not able to live, and with salaries as low as they currently are, people quite rightly claim the top up provided by the Government.

It is not the fault of the low paid, the blame lies fully with employers who have allowed their salaries to fall way below that which a person can live on without state help.

Employers are bleeding the country dry due to the subsidy placed on the pittance they pay their employees.

What about those who pop out child after child despite having no means of supporting their own children, because they know they will get more and more money each time? There is a huge difference between those who already have children and their circumstances change for the worse, and those who continue to have children whilst unemployed/on a low income.
And the amount of "single" mothers who keep popping them out despite apparently having no regular partner is quite high indeed from what I see on a daily basis.

Morlock

ILW wrote: »

Working is not the point, if state support is more than any contribution.

What about pensioners who in 25 years of retirement can cost the state over double the amount they have paid in over their working lives? Or is it just single mothers who are not worthy?

dori2o

Like I said, because you cannot physically see wheelchairs, scooters, walking sticks, ramps, hand rails, hoists etc etc it does not mean that there are no extra costs. Many, just like some disabilities are hidden.

As for those with ADHD, there are of course additional expenses with transport, diet, carers, medical tests/treatment (some of which are not available on the NHS), counselling/play therapy etc (most of which is not available on the NHS), clothing (kids with ADHD tend to go through many more clothes than normal kids), medications, repairs to home (many kids with behaviour problems tend to also have anger issues and cause a lot of damage to doors, walls etc etc, all of which requires funds to repair them), respite care (most of which is not available on the NHS).

To claim there are no additional costs shows you cannot distingush the truth from behind your bigotted views.

As for those with Asthma, yes I believe some kids do get DLA in exceptional circumstances where round the clock, or a significant amount of care is required. For a kid with mild asthma they would be unlikely to meet the conditions for either the mobility or the care component.

I'm yet to meet an alcoholic who gets DLA and I know a few, one being my BIL who's been an alcoholic/Drug Addict for the past 25 years and has never been awarded DLA, neither have any of the people he hangs around with.

ILW

Morlock wrote: »

What about pensioners who in 25 years of retirement can cost the state over double the amount they have paid in over their working lives? Or is it just single mothers who are not worthy?

The choices are very limited around getting old, in most cases it cannot be avoided. Having children you know you cannot support is irresponsible in my view.

Morlock

dori2o wrote: »

The vast majority of the population, other than probably the top 5-10% get more out of the country than they pay in.

Exactly, what a stupid argument.

dori2o

shedboy94 wrote: »

What about those who pop out child after child despite having no means of supporting their own children, because they know they will get more and more money each time? There is a huge difference between those who already have children and their circumstances change for the worse, and those who continue to have children whilst unemployed/on a low income.
And the amount of "single" mothers who keep popping them out despite apparently having no regular partner is quite high indeed from what I see on a daily basis.

I haven't mentioned them, we were discussing your bigotted views on the disabled.

If you had bothered to look at my past posts you would see I have no problem limiting benefits to those who have more children than they can afford.

What I do have a problem with is that EVERY benefit claimant is tarnished by Biggots such as yourself who claim they shouldn't be allowed this that or the other.

I worked for 16 years before I was forced to claim DLA as without it I would have had to finish work altogether.

I was made redundant from a job which paid around £30k inc overtime and took the first job I could get which had a salary of £12k. I still had bills from when I had the other job and tax credits was the only way we could continue to live in OUR house and not move to a rented house where not only would we have got the tax credits we were getting but would also have been eligible for LHA and CTB.

Biggots like you assume everyone is on the take, when in fact they are not. A small MINORITY are, and even with UC and PIP that will never be stopped.

But to hit those who are entitled, who follow the rules, who have paid and continue to pay their dues is wrong, especially when for every 1 person you remove from benefit who is playing the system, you also remove 20 more who should be getting it.

ILW

Morlock wrote: »

Exactly, what a stupid argument.

I heard that anyone averaging over £27k for their working life would tend to break even if they only have one child between two adults. If that is true it would suggest around 40% of the population.