Benefit cuts to hit more than 330,000 children

curty510

I'm all for helping those that need it, no one in this world should go hungry. But a also think a line does need to be drawn and wouldn't want the job of figuring out a fair system.

The last 12 years have been silly, tax credits obviously don't work as the system was open to abuse, and abused it got.

Bogof_Babe

curty510 wrote: »

I think a lot of people have become too dependant on benefits, I have found personally that you will always live too your means. If that means no sky tv, car, holiday then so be it. We never had a nice car or overseas holidays, but nowadays these items are classed as essential not luxury.

It would be a start if people reliant on benefits were only allowed to have PAYG mobile devices. I'm sure many are signing up to £40+ a month contracts in order to have the latest phone, which is a big chunk out of their £70~ a week JSA, and must contribute towards them falling into debt.

nannytone_2

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

It would be a start if people reliant on benefits were only allowed to have PAYG mobile devices. I'm sure many are signing up to £40+ a month contracts in order to have the latest phone, which is a big chunk out of their £70~ a week JSA, and must contribute towards them falling into debt.

people really do say some silly things/
for many people, a PAYG mobile would be more expensive than a contract phone!
a friend pays £12 a month on a contract that gives unlimited call minutes, unlimited texts and unlimited internet, far cheaper than any PAYG.

don't you realise that it is the 'convenience' of not having a bill that makes PAYG the more expensive option, in much the same way as using a pre pay utility meter is the most expensive way to pay

missapril75

nannytone wrote: »

don't you realise that it is the 'convenience' of not having a bill that makes PAYG the more expensive option, in much the same way as using a pre pay utility meter is the most expensive way to pay

I've never had a mobile phone but isn't it the case that the unit price per call might be more but PAYG allows it to be a cheaper total because you don't need to be making calls all the time?

SnooksNJ

roje wrote: »

I'm bored of reading about how 'the taxpayer' should not pay for 'other people's children.' It's a bizarre attitude. SOCIETY pays for its young, its old, its sick. That is what a decent and civilised community does. Investing in children now more than pays off down the line when they contribute to the system themselves.

I disagree with many of the questionable incentives my taxes are used for. Protecting the vulnerable is not one of them. The new budget has not hit families who do not work anywhere near as much as those who do. Every low income working family will lose a significant chunk of their monthly income next year thanks to the changes in tax credit rules. Many of these families are already attending food banks weekly, I volunteer for one and we frequently see families with working parents in full time jobs who are struggling to make ends meet. These are the people we are supposed to be helping. The shelf stackers and care assistants who work long hours to feed their families. Society would fall apart without its low income workers. Why are we so dishonest about it? Why do the government keep spouting this ridiculous rhetoric about aspiration? They know as much as any of us that we cannot operate without someone on the checkout, cleaning the bathrooms, driving the bus, crossing children over the road, packing the boxes, labelling the groceries, caring in the care homes. Why are people in these professions being penalised for not earning more? It isn't their fault that we do not value their professions as highly as others.

If you want everyone to be equal perhaps you would be better off moving to a more caring country like China or North Korea.

nannytone_2

missapril75 wrote: »

I've never had a mobile phone but isn't it the case that the unit price per call might be more but PAYG allows it to be a cheaper total because you don't need to be making calls all the time?

as i said ... £12 a month allows my friend unlimited calls, texts and internet usage.
far cheaper than having a landline and paying for calls and a broadband connection!
PAYG costs roughly 10 p per text and different amounts for calls. £12 a month on a PAYG wouldn't get you very far

curty510

I pay £10pm on Vodafone payg, unlimited texts. Ok I don't have a fancy iphone. Never seen the need for an expensive contract.

nannytone_2

i pay £7.50 a month on talk talk for unlimited texts, 200 minutes and some internet ... but i never use the internet on the phone.
so my contracts is cheaper ( i have a nokia 301 as i can't use a touch screen phone... but the handset is included in the monthly charge)

Bogof_Babe

nannytone wrote: »

as i said ... £12 a month allows my friend unlimited calls, texts and internet usage.
far cheaper than having a landline and paying for calls and a broadband connection!
PAYG costs roughly 10 p per text and different amounts for calls. £12 a month on a PAYG wouldn't get you very far

Care to share the network she's on? Sounds far too good to be true. I thought I was doing well with an old 3 contract that I've kept going, £13 for unlimited internet - however there's only something like 250 minutes and 2000 texts. (As I only use about 20 minutes a month and maybe 50 texts it wouldn't be a problem, but I don't use that as my main phone anyway.)

p00hsticks

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

It would be a start if people reliant on benefits were only allowed to have PAYG mobile devices. I'm sure many are signing up to £40+ a month contracts in order to have the latest phone, which is a big chunk out of their £70~ a week JSA, and must contribute towards them falling into debt.

So taking that thought to the logical extreme, shall we say that unless a person has a watertight signed employment contract that guarantees them employment throughout their working life, even if they fall ill, if they should not be allowed a contact phone in case they become sick or lose their jobs ?