Household finances at breaking point

MFW_ASAP

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I have but one log on by all means ask the moderators to check.

I have often wondered why people feel the need to have so many logons. No doubt there is a classification for it.

I don't need them to check, I'll just throw mud and hope some sticks... Oh.

grizzly1911

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I don't need them to check, I'll just throw mud and hope some sticks... Oh.

Doesn't mayonnaise have a shelf life or perhaps it just needs a life?

MFW_ASAP

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Doesn't mayonnaise have a shelf life or perhaps it just needs a life?

Still throwing mud, shortchanged?

Going4TheDream

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Nor am I.



I was responding to a comment that implied that 'more and more' people are finding it 'more and more' tough..... which I find misleading, wrong, exaggerated, and typical of woolly thinking these days.

You talk as if you think I have never had such hard times myself, but I do know financial conditions well before today's high benefits availability and so feel qualified to talk about it.

Of course it's hard for some. Of course there are some genuinely tough cases. An of course I sympathise with them, and if anyone in my family were in that position I would give all the help (financial and non financial) I could.

But the economy is improving. There were 250,000 new jobs last quarter. Identify any of the specific people of which you speak, and ask yourself how hard they tried to secure any of these jobs...... or ask how 'responsibly' they allocated the funds they had through either work or benefits.

This concept that benefits are so low that many people have to decide whether to eat themselves or feed the kids is utter nonsense. It is the fodder of the gutter press who will never disclose that actual reasons for any such family they highlight - simply because it can never be 'genuine'. Behind every such case there is a bunch of reasons. Behavioural reasons. Behaviour that will never be modified by paying out more - or even by pouring out sympathy.

Show me a person on benefits that they 'can't possibly' live on, and I can guarantee that down the street there will be another 9 (with exaclty the same income and commitments) who are living on it. I have oodles more sympathy for the 9 than I do the one.

I am not without heart at all. It's just that I reserve it for 'real' cases, the large majority of whom 'manage'. These people need (if anything) more opportunities. Simply throw more money at them and it gives no incentive do do anything for themselves.

I don't believe I actually mentioned 'benefits' anywhere in my response to your post.

Try perhaps the concept of zero hours, which I did mention, and understand why some people are struggling

grizzly1911

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Still throwing mud, shortchanged?

I think you started it as usual Reno. SAD lamps and accusing me of being shortchanged.

Loughton_Monkey

Going4TheDream wrote: »

I don't believe I actually mentioned 'benefits' anywhere in my response to your post.

Try perhaps the concept of zero hours, which I did mention, and understand why some people are struggling

I think we ought to start again!

My post #19 was responding directly to Dryhat's post #16

You jumped in with your post #25 aimed mainly at my drinking habits. Fair enough. Which is why I spent time giving my honest views to you. Mainly about the concept of 'feed ourselves or our kids' myth created only by behaviour and not lack of money.

Benefits are paid to just about everybody. An awful lot of them in work. Zero Contract people all get 'top up' benefits for any period they got little or no work don't they?

As you can tell, and as I repeat, I have every sympathy with people on low incomes. Benefits or not. But given that it comes from the taxpayer, I would hope to see it spent wisely. For example, it is staggering that we should pay the same money to an unmarried mother with two kids as the next door neighbour would bring home earning £23,765. Benefits - especially where children are involved - are particularly generous and well, well, well, beyond the basic need for food.

Going4TheDream

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I think we ought to start again!

My post #19 was responding directly to Dryhat's post #16

You jumped in with your post #25 aimed mainly at my drinking habits. Fair enough. Which is why I spent time giving my honest views to you. Mainly about the concept of 'feed ourselves or our kids' myth created only by behaviour and not lack of money.

Benefits are paid to just about everybody. An awful lot of them in work. Zero Contract people all get 'top up' benefits for any period they got little or no work don't they?

As you can tell, and as I repeat, I have every sympathy with people on low incomes. Benefits or not. But given that it comes from the taxpayer, I would hope to see it spent wisely. For example, it is staggering that we should pay the same money to an unmarried mother with two kids as the next door neighbour would bring home earning £23,765. Benefits - especially where children are involved - are particularly generous and well, well, well, beyond the basic need for food./QUOTE]

I see, I have read the posts and yes you make sense. *maybe I must pay more attention*

MFW_ASAP

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I think you started it as usual Reno. SAD lamps and accusing me of being shortchanged.

Nope, you dragged me into an argument you were having with Mayonaise. How about we try just ignoring each other? You stick to arguing with people but don't drag me into it. I'll stick to debating house prices and the economy and acknowledge that you don't have a decent opinion on that and so it's pointless engaging you in discourse?

That way we'll both be happy.

grizzly1911

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Nope, you dragged me into an argument you were having with Mayonaise. How about we try just ignoring each other? You stick to arguing with people but don't drag me into it. I'll stick to debating house prices and the economy and acknowledge that you don't have a decent opinion on that and so it's pointless engaging you in discourse?

That way we'll both be happy.

You are still at.

Dear oh dear how sad.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's a shelter study, so obviously seen not even worthy as toilet paper on here.

It's a shame that there isn't better, less obviously skewed research out there and known about this. Sure plenty of people would try and rubbish the source, no matter what it is, if they don't like the message but it's also true that shelter has made a habit of setting out to get the answer it wants and stacking its surveys in a way that gets them.

We know that some proportion of benefit claimants who claim to be struggling are struggling because of their own behaviour and not the amount they receive. What we don't know is whether it is 5% or 50%.. However, it's also extremely likely that a large number, probably the majority imo, of people struggling on benefits aren't struggling because they are wasteful.