Famous Rich and Hungry

Pricivius

I think the part regarding smoking/alcohol is that people can spend their benefits on whatever they like, but it's not acceptable to plead hunger and demand more benefits if you've smoked the cash or got drunk on it.


In my mind, the position with pets is slightly different in that if you had them before finding yourself on benefits, I can appreciate it would be extremely difficult to give them up. But, it's a difficult argument to suggest you are going hungry and need more benefits when you've chosen to buy dog food rather than feed yourself. What you're actually asking for, is money for dog food and that's not what the benefits system is for. I have every respect for those who manage on benefits and are able to look after their pets by making sacrifices, but it has to be acknowledged that if the point comes where you are choosing to go hungry and possibly make yourself ill in favour of your pet, that's your personal choice and not something the benefit system should cater for.

missprice

I think someone got the wrong end of my point.

I meant if a person so wishes to smoke or drink or both and go without food " them self" that's there choice and none of our business.
I did not mean they smoke or drink to the detriment of children.
In essence I suppose I mean the job seeker in between £50? To £71? A week. If they choose to not eat for the sake of a drink/smoke/whatever that's not my problem.

If the stay at home parent chooses to not eat one day so s/he can buy a bottle of wine/4 pack beer and that does not prevent the children from eating that's fine with me.

And back to my pet cat, she cost at the end of her life less than 50p a week for food. Even on job seekers if necessary I could have afforded her. And yes very lucky that she needed no vet visits.

paulineb_2

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

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.

I dont smoke and as someone who is in their 40s and has been living in my flat for 20 years now, if I went back on JSA, I personally don't see why I should need to be policed in the form of being given food vouchers, because some other people can't budget properly.

I also know from my previous work experience and seeing people who live in the area I live that cigarettes and alcohol are the least of what people do with the money they have.

Its exactly the same as someone who is on DLA. I used to manage a project for men who had long term alcohol issues, many of them were on DLA and we tried our best to get them to spend their DLA on the things they needed, such as care. What would happen was, they would get the care and then refuse to pay the bills.

Shops would open and sell alcohol at 6am in the morning (illegal), because these men would be at their doors at opening time desperate for a drink. Yes it was frustrating, but that is the way that the Government choose to give people benefits, on trust.

There are no easy answers, but stigmatising some people because others cant manage the money they have, isnt the way to go forward.

If that is done, it should be done with support and on a case by case basis. Not just a you are unemployed, here's your vouchers.

As I said on the other thread about this issue thats going on on discussion time at the moment, I used to work with homeless young people who sometimes had massive mental health problems as well as drug habits, people who had support packages coming out of their ears and who still couldnt cope. People who had been brought up in families who didnt care what they did or what they got up to.
Some are dead now. Some are in jail, but some actually managed to turn their lives around with support, getting a job, meeting a partner and they have jobs, kids, a mortgage, doing really well.

It is possible to see people and you think how are they going to manage out there, keep a roof over their heads, but they do.

Others struggle and will probably struggle all their lives. When youve worked with people with complex issues, maybe you see that people getting paid in food stamps is just a sticking plaster and probably wouldnt deal with the real issues.

paulineb_2

Pricivius wrote: »

I think the part regarding smoking/alcohol is that people can spend their benefits on whatever they like, but it's not acceptable to plead hunger and demand more benefits if you've smoked the cash or got drunk on it.


In my mind, the position with pets is slightly different in that if you had them before finding yourself on benefits, I can appreciate it would be extremely difficult to give them up. But, it's a difficult argument to suggest you are going hungry and need more benefits when you've chosen to buy dog food rather than feed yourself. What you're actually asking for, is money for dog food and that's not what the benefits system is for. I have every respect for those who manage on benefits and are able to look after their pets by making sacrifices, but it has to be acknowledged that if the point comes where you are choosing to go hungry and possibly make yourself ill in favour of your pet, that's your personal choice and not something the benefit system should cater for.

To be honest with you, if I was ever in the situation where I was being made ill in favour of my pet, Id have to have some real issues with budgeting or a massive bill I couldnt deal with.

Because its possible to eat cheaply even if you dont have a lot of income. Ive done it. I still do it, Im not on JSA any longer but I dont earn loads of cash, I spend far less on my pets food than I do on my own, less than the cost of one packet of cigarettes a week.

To be honest with you, there will always be people who play the system. There was another thread on this board where someone put in for a budget loan so that he could have a night out because he deserved it.

Now, in that situation, Id have far more respect for someone who had a couple of pets and struggled on than someone who was struggling with their budgeting and decided to get a budget loan so some of it could be spent on lager

Also, as Ive said above, some people get well above the single persons limit, a good couple of hundred pounds a week in benefits and more.

If you cant budget for yourself, kids and a couple of pets on £250 a week with minimal rent to pay, there really is something wrong.

I got less than £40 a week on JSA, it is important to remember that some people on benefit actually arent that skint, they get enough money to last them.

Georgiegirl256

missprice wrote: »

I think someone got the wrong end of my point.

I meant if a person so wishes to smoke or drink or both and go without food " them self" that's there choice and none of our business.
I did not mean they smoke or drink to the detriment of children.
In essence I suppose I mean the job seeker in between £50? To £71? A week. If they choose to not eat for the sake of a drink/smoke/whatever that's not my problem.

If the stay at home parent chooses to not eat one day so s/he can buy a bottle of wine/4 pack beer and that does not prevent the children from eating that's fine with me.

And back to my pet cat, she cost at the end of her life less than 50p a week for food. Even on job seekers if necessary I could have afforded her. And yes very lucky that she needed no vet visits.

I totally get what you are meaning, and yes technically, you are right, if say I get given £50 (or whatever it is) in JSA, than whatever I spend it on is my choice, it's up to me....what I have a problem with, is people then claiming that they can't afford food, they can't afford to eat.

Georgiegirl256

paulineb wrote: »

I dont smoke and as someone who is in their 40s and has been living in my flat for 20 years now, if I went back on JSA, I personally don't see why I should need to be policed in the form of being given food vouchers, because some other people can't budget properly.

I also know from my previous work experience and seeing people who live in the area I live that cigarettes and alcohol are the least of what people do with the money they have.

Its exactly the same as someone who is on DLA. I used to manage a project for men who had long term alcohol issues, many of them were on DLA and we tried our best to get them to spend their DLA on the things they needed, such as care. What would happen was, they would get the care and then refuse to pay the bills.

Shops would open and sell alcohol at 6am in the morning (illegal), because these men would be at their doors at opening time desperate for a drink. Yes it was frustrating, but that is the way that the Government choose to give people benefits, on trust.

There are no easy answers, but stigmatising some people because others cant manage the money they have, isnt the way to go forward.

If that is done, it should be done with support and on a case by case basis. Not just a you are unemployed, here's your vouchers.

As I said on the other thread about this issue thats going on on discussion time at the moment, I used to work with homeless young people who sometimes had massive mental health problems as well as drug habits, people who had support packages coming out of their ears and who still couldnt cope. People who had been brought up in families who didnt care what they did or what they got up to.
Some are dead now. Some are in jail, but some actually managed to turn their lives around with support, getting a job, meeting a partner and they have jobs, kids, a mortgage, doing really well.

It is possible to see people and you think how are they going to manage out there, keep a roof over their heads, but they do.

Others struggle and will probably struggle all their lives. When youve worked with people with complex issues, maybe you see that people getting paid in food stamps is just a sticking plaster and probably wouldnt deal with the real issues.

You actually make a very good point. About it not being fair in those who can budget, and that everyone shouldn't be treat the same. You're right, I don't know how it would ever be policed.

FBaby

If it is their choice to smoke rather then eat what is the point of the programme which is supposedly based on the outcome of people with no choice but to starve.

paulineb_2

FBaby wrote: »

If it is their choice to smoke rather then eat what is the point of the programme which is supposedly based on the outcome of people with no choice but to starve.

As I said before, person who doesnt drink, doesnt smoke and is struggling on benefits wont make for as much debate as someone who is on benefits and not managing their money well and who is a smoker.

missprice

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

I totally get what you are meaning, and yes technically, you are right, if say I get given £50 (or whatever it is) in JSA, than whatever I spend it on is my choice, it's up to me....what I have a problem with, is people then claiming that they can't afford food, they can't afford to eat.

Well in my very untechnical method of looking at the people I know who are on benefits, I have seen that most times when they don't have enough money to feed the family, its because some unexpected bill came in.

Then you often get the choice of pay it now or get charged more for paying it late. Or a direct debit came out at the wrong time and one default payment to the bank if between £6 and £35 for that direct debit bouncing then has a knock on effect.

Here I will tell you that once upon a time, I was so good with the pittance I got on benefits, it took me 3 weeks to realise I had not been paid. By the time I did realize I was in only £120 of debt to the bank. Sounds like not much but it took me a bit over a year to recover. Then of course you are in a panic and complete tailspin wondering if your benefits will suddenly be stopped again for no reason and with no warning.plus every month your getting charged an unauthorized overdraft fee. It made me want to quit life at the time.

People need help sometimes, and when your unlucky enough to have to use benefits it doesn't help that even now 20 years after my experience people are still not paid on time. Bad times happen to us all and we don't all have the nous needed to fight for stuff or the willingness to go up against this vicious machine called the benefits agency.

Mr_F_Dorsetty

Deanied wrote: »

Am I the only one who wondered why some of them had pets when they could barely afford to feed themselves? Interesting priorities.

This is not directly aimed at the person I quote, it is simply because that viewpoint underlies many posts. In other words it is not personal, it's just an example.


Charles Booth Esq. (1840-1916) really does have a great deal to answer for with regard to UK society, even now.

It was his work which came to the wholly incorrect conclusion that 'poor people' are poor because it is their fault. That is clearly and empirically not the case.

Relative or true poverty is a situation created by all in society, the poor do not create nor choose their position in the hierarchical model which nearly all societies have.

Why does someone have a pet when they are poor? Why does someone smoke? Why does someone poor do anything other than just be poor....

Because poor people are just like 'us' just with less life choices and less social tools in most cases. Or how about if the poor person with the dog used to be a rich person who suddenly became poor? Are they do get rid of their dog?

I've lived on a sink estate myself, though I grew up in my parents 15th century manor house with a 5 acre garden, so I have been very fortunate to have seen both sides of the coin.

People who live on a sink estate want exactly the same out of life as a middle England, Daily Mail reader. Yes, they may smoke weed but then the DM reader drinks single malt.

The UK suffers so badly from 'Othering'; it's them over there, it is all their fault. Really?

The UK's society runs on 'inclusion by consumerism', if you cannot consume then you have basically zero public profile whilst you're informed by all media and peer group pressures that you are worthless.

Why do you think so many people on sink estates have all the latest gizmo's but also massive rent arrears?

Paying your rent doesn't get you included in society but the latest iPhone does. They do not want to be worthless and sneered at, they want to appear higher up Maslow's scale than 'psychological'. But that is where middle England wants them, mostly because that solidifies middle England's view of itself.

How dare poor people want to be something, is the underlying driver.

The happiest developed countries to live in are those in N Europe. It would seem to be because in those societies everyone takes responsibility for everyone else - if they see someone poor then they ask why and how society has let that person down - not that it is the persons own fault as it is in the UK.

Occasionally there are TV shows which highlight these issues, but soon enough people forget and the society continues along the same path as before.