Famous Rich and Hungry

missprice

claire16c wrote: »

Sounds like you were very lucky not to have any bills before that point though.

There was an article on a local forum the other day about an elderly lady who had a young cat & stupidly had been told by someone therefore not to get insurance. The cat ended up needing an op of some kind costing around £6/700 which she couldn't afford.

My old employers cat got a stomach problem and she was only around 3 years old. The costs ran into thousands. Luckily the insurance took care of it.

Surely if it comes to a point where you can not feed your children properly the pets have to go.

As for smoking, one lady said she had about £33 to feed her & her kids on for a week yet spent £12 on fags. That's about a quarter of her budget! Insanity.

Actually your right, I was darn lucky with my cat. Also in more recent years I have had more money and managed to save a little. So when she needed a vet it wasn't a huge drama. Had I still been on benefits however I would probably have gone to the PDSA. They do a damn fine job of looking after all animals within reason. Or I would have chosen to have her pts sooner. ( she had cancer first and had an ear removed,that was the biggest cost, then broke her leg only weeks later and I could not bear to have let her have another major operation so soon hence pts. Plus she may well not have coped at her advanced age minus a leg)

People make their choices in what to buy. A smoker may think they would prefer to smoke than eat.
A drinker may feel the same.
Or not.
Its not up to us to decide who spends how much on what.

In fact its none of our business. And should never be our business

Cloudydaze

missprice wrote: »

People make their choices in what to buy. A smoker may think they would prefer to smoke than eat.
A drinker may feel the same.
Or not.
Its not up to us to decide who spends how much on what.

In fact its none of our business. And should never be our business

So it's none of our business and should never be our business if:

- children are going hungry
- animals are not getting the medical attention they need

I think it is my business if children or animals are suffering because their 'carers' are spending all their money on booze & fags.

I'm shocked that anyone would think otherwise.

geoffky

Can i just point out that a person is only ever allowed to use a foodbank on three separate occasions per year..
To be allowed to use the foodbank they must of been processed and given a voucher by what is called a gateway organisation such as the jobcentre or citizens advice..
They are given food for just three days and that is it...

claire16c

missprice wrote: »

Actually your right, I was darn lucky with my cat. Also in more recent years I have had more money and managed to save a little. So when she needed a vet it wasn't a huge drama. Had I still been on benefits however I would probably have gone to the PDSA. They do a damn fine job of looking after all animals within reason. Or I would have chosen to have her pts sooner. ( she had cancer first and had an ear removed,that was the biggest cost, then broke her leg only weeks later and I could not bear to have let her have another major operation so soon hence pts. Plus she may well not have coped at her advanced age minus a leg)

People make their choices in what to buy. A smoker may think they would prefer to smoke than eat.
A drinker may feel the same.
Or not.
Its not up to us to decide who spends how much on what.

In fact its none of our business. And should never be our business

The elderly lady was very lucky in that once someone found out about it, they set up a gofundme page and the money got raised, not sure what would have happened otherwise.

Preferring to smoke over feeding their kids more food though?

This is why sometimes I think it would be better than a percentage was given in food vouchers like in the US.

If someone wants to spend their own money on fags go ahead, but if its everyone else's taxes being spent on it, then what a waste of money. Literally going up in flames.

paulineb_2

FBaby wrote: »

What is never appreciated is that people on benefits are rich in time. They can afford to spend the time to budget, look for the best deals, cook everything from scratch etc... things that are much more of a challenge for full-time working people.

Personally, Id rather have had a job. And the last time I worked 35 hours a week, there were still at least 2 clear days at the weekend or during the week to get shopping in etc

Also, people work different shift patterns, I used to work a 4 day on and 4 day off nightshift which gave me 3 clear days, I actually think if people who work full time cant spend the time to budget and cook from scratch its often a time management and not a full time job issue

I have a friend who is always saying she doesnt have enough time to cook therefore she eats junk, it can take me 30-45 mins to cook something from scratch.

If people have a freezer they can batch cook as well.

paulineb_2

missprice wrote: »

Actually your right, I was darn lucky with my cat. Also in more recent years I have had more money and managed to save a little. So when she needed a vet it wasn't a huge drama. Had I still been on benefits however I would probably have gone to the PDSA. They do a damn fine job of looking after all animals within reason. Or I would have chosen to have her pts sooner. ( she had cancer first and had an ear removed,that was the biggest cost, then broke her leg only weeks later and I could not bear to have let her have another major operation so soon hence pts. Plus she may well not have coped at her advanced age minus a leg)

People make their choices in what to buy. A smoker may think they would prefer to smoke than eat.
A drinker may feel the same.
Or not.
Its not up to us to decide who spends how much on what.

In fact its none of our business. And should never be our business

Even Jack Monroe used value brand wine in her cooking when she was skint, she said she made a bottle last a month and it cost £3, she got criticised for that.

To be honest I think part of the argument is taxpayers money, people don't like that taxpayers money is spent on non essentials such as booze, cigarettes. However as Ive said elsewhere on the forum, some people on benefits are not that poor. I understand that kids are expensive, but theres one neighbour of mine who has 6 kids and will get a lot of benefit, some people will spend the excess on non essentials.

When I was on JSA there was little excess cash. I got around £3700 a year on JSA as a single person, no top ups. Some people with kids will probably get the equivalent of £14 000 a year and more.

However, there could be people who have been made redundant, still locked into mobile phone contracts and cant cancel them. It happens, you only need to look at the debt forum on here to see there are all sorts of reasons why people end up in debt.

Dare I say it, a tv programme with someone on benefit who actually manages their money well and doesn't fit the stereotypical benefit claimant who has extras and can't cope wouldn't spark the type of debate that the progamme makers are looking for.

paulineb_2

claire16c wrote: »

The elderly lady was very lucky in that once someone found out about it, they set up a gofundme page and the money got raised, not sure what would have happened otherwise.

Preferring to smoke over feeding their kids more food though?

This is why sometimes I think it would be better than a percentage was given in food vouchers like in the US.

If someone wants to spend their own money on fags go ahead, but if its everyone else's taxes being spent on it, then what a waste of money. Literally going up in flames.

To be honest, when I was in full time work I didnt stop and think, are people on JSA smoking, as far as Im concerned taxes get spent on many things I dont agree with, far more important to me than if people smoke or not.

If people think that those who were unemployed should get food vouchers, fair enough, but speaking as someone who doesn't smoke, I really wouldn't have wanted the stigma and there is a stigma of having to rock up at a supermarket and pay for my shopping in food vouchers incase I might have spent some of it on a packet of fags or a bottle of wine.

I know many people on benefit who get by, dont have massive outgoings, dont smoke, but have the occasional drink. Where do you draw the line?

Someone not to spend any money on non essentials until they find a job? Speaking as someone who lives in a very poor area and who has been unemployed for two spells in the last 4 years, its isolating enough being unemployed (and I did do voluntary work) without there being absolutely nil in your life to look forward to.

Im not saying that the stuff people look forward to should be alcohol, cigarettes on a daily basis and a fantastic social life, but it can be difficult enough for some people.

Someone like me on JSA of 71 pounds a week, I was hardly going to have tons left over to do anything ridiculous with it anyway.

Also, I would expect food vouchers would only be redeemable in certain supermarkets, leaving people possibly worse off, because when you are trying to track down bargains, its important that you have as wide a selection of shops to get things from.

I do a lot of my own shopping in places like poundland, poundworld, that aren't technically supermarkets but sell things cheaply.

Also, food vouchers can still be abused, my local shop apparently allows people to cash in their milk tokens for beer and cigs, so if theres a shopkeeper who only cares about the sale, they'll be letting people exchange the food vouchers for anything they like anyway.

paulineb_2

balletshoes wrote: »

for me its had the opposite effect - i've googled to find out where my nearest food bank is, and i'll be donating there.

Ive donated to the Tussell Trust this year, I was involved in a fundraising zumbathon for a food bank in the Glasgow area and I make a donation to a local food bank whenever I can.

paulineb_2

claire16c wrote: »

Sounds like you were very lucky not to have any bills before that point though.

There was an article on a local forum the other day about an elderly lady who had a young cat & stupidly had been told by someone therefore not to get insurance. The cat ended up needing an op of some kind costing around £6/700 which she couldn't afford.

My old employers cat got a stomach problem and she was only around 3 years old. The costs ran into thousands. Luckily the insurance took care of it.

Surely if it comes to a point where you can not feed your children properly the pets have to go.

As for smoking, one lady said she had about £33 to feed her & her kids on for a week yet spent £12 on fags. That's about a quarter of her budget! Insanity.

But if you arent feeding your kids properly, thats a budgeting issue. Cant just be down to pets, it costs me around £2-3 a week to feed my pets, much less than Id spend on food for myself. If someone really is that awful at budgeting where they have nil left over, Id find it hard to believe that they would spend that extra £2-3 on the kids rather than the pets anyway.

My cats have never cost me thousands in pet bills. I had one cat that had to be PTS 7 years ago, I had had him ten years before that and he had never been at the vet in his life. Two of the cats I have just now have been to the vet once each in 7 years.

Yes, some people have pets that need more expensive care, however, I had my pets when I was working full time, absolutely no way was I going to give them up when I ended up out of work.

I dont have insurance for my pets either and the reason for that is, my mum had every single one of her pets insured and every time a cat was unwell and she tried to claim, there was always some loophole. She even insured one of her cats who had an existing problem that she disclosed to the insurer and they said if he had that problem again and she needed to get him treatment, they would cover it. He did and they didnt.

If people have insurers who pay up everytime an animal needs treatment, fabulous, but you have insurance companies that dont and in that case, all you are doing every month is paying money out to a company to get absolutely nothing back.

Georgiegirl256

missprice wrote: »

People make their choices in what to buy. A smoker may think they would prefer to smoke than eat.
A drinker may feel the same.
Or not.
Its not up to us to decide who spends how much on what.

In fact its none of our business. And should never be our business

I totally disagree, and think that a proportion of benefits should be given in vouchers.

If people can afford to smoke then they can damn well afford to buy food....which IMO is what the money should go on rather than fags. People have a damn cheek to moan that they can't afford to feed their families....but hey, guess what? They can afford to smoke!

If it comes down to the choice of feeding your family or buying a pack of cigarettes, then people need to get their priorities in the right order.