Benefit cuts to hit more than 330,000 children

Weary_soul

Imo for the majority they are not a lifestyle choice as anyone trying to exist on the pittance they pay would already know.

Thats just sound bites that the Tories have brainwashed people into believing is true because it suits their political agenda.

poppasmurf_bewdley

Weary_soul wrote: »

£3.44 actually.

That's enough to buy:

A dozen fishcakes - Iceland 89p
907grams Roast Potatoes - Iceland 89p
15 Thick Pork & Beef Sausages 750g - Iceland £1.59

Total: £3.37

That's enough for quite a few meals. OK, not a great variety and maybe not so healthy, but hey it's food. There nothing on that list that I haven't eaten in the last year or so.

I well remember one complainant at an MP's surgery a few years ago berating him on the amount of money she received and how she couldn't make ends meet. "Do you know how much frozen chips costs?" she shouted at him, and he responded with: "No madam, I don't, but I do know how much five pound of potatoes costs."

Weary_soul wrote: »

£3.44 actually.

Enough to buy 10 cigarettes.

Sort of puts things into perspective doesn't it?

Weary_soul

Sort of puts things into perspective doesn't it?

Yes, that some people on here are just hard, pitiless individuals without a shred of compassion towards their fellow man.

Fatherof2mids

Interesting reading both the article and the responses.

I think for all argument on both sides, we appear to be losing sight of one fact. That this particular round of benefit cuts (specifically the lowering of the threshold and increase of the taper) will hit the working poor hardest rather than those out of work, as those out of work will not hit the threshold either way.
Whilst there are those who work the minimum to get the maximum top up, there are others who are at capacity either through personal circumstances or the employer being at capacity.
It is difficult for a minimum wage employee to increase hours past 24 as they begin to attract extra costs to the employer.

I would like to have seen a new system introduced whereby contributions are given greater weight and sanctions on spending are given to those who choose benefits as a lifestyle. Ie no more 20% of income on booze and 20% on fags

poppasmurf_bewdley

Weary_soul wrote: »

Yes, that some people on here are just hard, pitiless individuals without a shred of compassion towards their fellow man.

Yes, just as there are some people on here who are happy to shovel unlimited amount of cash from the taxpayer to the !!!!less, lazy and can't be ar*ed, without a thought of how that money is raised or where it comes from.

Fatherof2mids

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

Yes, just as there are some people on here who are happy to shovel unlimited amount of cash from the taxpayer to the !!!!less, lazy and can't be ar*ed, without a thought of how that money is raised or where it comes from.

Now, now.

This is the problem with debates like this both sides take it to the extremity of there argument and kills the point.
I agree that the curse word and lazy can take advantage of the system, but I would rather that AND that allow the needy to be helped than cut to the bone and provide for neither.

SnooksNJ

Weary_soul wrote: »

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/killed-benefits-cuts-starving-soldier-3923771

The message here is if you have a family member who is struggling contact them daily, bring a care package over,and check the meds to make sure they are taking them. If they don't have them go to the pharmacy and pick up a refill. Running to the papers because you believe Ian Duncan Smith is responsible is crazy talk.

poppasmurf_bewdley

SnooksNJ wrote: »

The message here is if you have a family member who is struggling contact them daily, bring a care package over,and check the meds to make sure they are taking them. If they don't have them go to the pharmacy and pick up a refill. Running to the papers because you believe Ian Duncan Smith is responsible is crazy talk.

A very, very sensible comment.

Weary_soul

SnooksNJ wrote: »

The message here is if you have a family member who is struggling contact them daily, bring a care package over,and check the meds to make sure they are taking them. If they don't have them go to the pharmacy and pick up a refill. Running to the papers because you believe Ian Duncan Smith is responsible is crazy talk.

No, not imo, and nor do many other people. Sorry, he is the minister responsible for these draconian and (imo) unfair benefit measure after all.

rogerblack

SnooksNJ wrote: »

The message here is if you have a family member who is struggling contact them daily, bring a care package over,and check the meds to make sure they are taking them. If they don't have them go to the pharmacy and pick up a refill. Running to the papers because you believe Ian Duncan Smith is responsible is crazy talk.

And if you don't have any family or friends because of your condition, you're pretty much screwed.