Living on £53 a week.....

The_White_Horse

mildredalien wrote: »

I genuinely can't tell if you are being sarcastic....

If you assume rent and utilities are paid (water, gas, council tax, electric.) then £53 a week isn't an awful lot for every other expense you may need. Food and household goods, bus/train fares or running a car (if you want people to get jobs they need to be able to get to interviews), you'll need access to the internet to be able to search for jobs and apply online, a phone to contact potential employers or the job centre (or perhaps even family or friends!!). Even if someone on benefits has no social life, no method of entertainment, never does anything that gives them the slightest enjoyment out of life that's still not a great deal to live on each month.

running a car?????? these people shouldn't be running cars. you should have to work to run a car. hateful lefties. why do you people think scroungers should have the same as people who work to afford things??? I just can't get my head around the abject stupidity of the lefty.

The_White_Horse

mildredalien wrote: »

Oh my bad, I was replying before I saw your later post, I guess you weren't being sarcastic. As you were!

and what do you disagree with in my second post exactly?

HappyMJ

The_White_Horse wrote: »

the whole point is this: people that don't work are entitled to nothing. they should be grateful for every £ they receive and have it drummed into them that every £ is in effect stolen out of the pockets of those who do work and they should be ashamed to be a beggar living in this way.

the benefit should be a "safety net" to help those who fall on bad times - and be paid at a much higher level to actually help those people.

the workers, who work and pay tax are in it together to assist each other when times are tough. people don't work to support a money grubbing underclass that never has and never will contribute.

That's kind of contradictive....

How about scrapping all contributions based unemployment benefits and require every worker to take out unemployment insurance with a private insurance company which is paid out from gross salary (a tax deduction) in which the benefits paid out are related to the premium they have paid over the last 24 months and when that runs out then they get...let me see...almost nothing from the state provided income based job seekers allowance. That means only people who have contributed will get a decent amount and anyway genuine jobseekers shouldn't be out of work for much more than a year or two. Then private insurers will be footing the bill and the rest of the tax pot can go to other things.

The_White_Horse

a scheme like that could work. as long as those who choose not to partake in it, get nothing should they lose their jobs.

the point is, people need to take responsibility for their families and people that don't work should not expect or think they are entitled to a lifestyle comparable to those who do. look at this mildred person, thinking the out of work need to run cars! hahahaha laughable. a car is a MASSIVE and COSTLY LUXURY. LUXURY. if you don't work, you don't have. I suppose she thinks they need a rolex as well. afterall, if they want to go to an interview they need to know the time. what about an iphone as well, so they can find the place on googlemap (or whatever iphone use)? do me a favour.

HappyMJ

The_White_Horse wrote: »

a scheme like that could work. as long as those who choose not to partake in it, get nothing should they lose their jobs.

Yes that's right self funded would get nothing in my dream world is an option...or to get the bare minimum in benefits just enough to exist. Why we have have contributions based job seekers allowance I really don't know when only people who are supported by a partner or who have over £16,000 in cash or assets really benefit. Anyone else is better off claiming income based JSA.

mildredalien

The_White_Horse wrote: »

and what do you disagree with in my second post exactly?

It just confirmed that your views were serious ones and not an April fools or something.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't refer to me as 'that mildred person' and talk about me in the third person thanks.

From the few points you have made I can see that there isn't much for me to say, you clearly have very solid views and I for one am not going to waste any more of my time on them. I sincerely hope that you are never in the unfortunate position of having to claim benefits.

moneyinmypocket

If 53 is what's left after all main bills have been paid except food then that's easy living - that's 212 a month for food - you would only be on this for a short time while u get a job - easy what's the problem

ukcarper

moneyinmypocket wrote: »

If 53 is what's left after all main bills have been paid except food then that's easy living - that's 212 a month for food - you would only be on this for a short time while u get a job - easy what's the problem

Problem it isn't you have to find every thing apart from rent and council tax out of that £53.

headcone

Fishingtime wrote: »

I think this has been done before a few years back. I forget who did it.

Michael Portillo if I remember correctly.

Seemed to change his viewpoint somewhat as well.

Graham_Devon

Fishingtime wrote: »

I think this has been done before a few years back. I forget who did it.

Prescott did something like it I think?