Happy Face 29 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 People on benefits shouldn't have a telly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 People on benefits shouldn't have a telly? People on benefits, not working , with a council house which i'm paying for should not have a 50" plasma and skyHD no see that link i sent, within the first row of houses how many sky dishes can you see? oh woe is me, i need benefits, i can't afford this and that, but aye a £50 a month sky sub no bother, they can fuck right off. (Nevermind the fact they'll do anything in their power to avoid the work the polish and stuff will happily do here) i've a mate who works in the agency here and the stories she sends me are unreal like, Plenty of people in council houses work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 National service and public service is the way forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 But you see the contradiction there. Deserving peoples benefits arent enough....but EVERYONE's benefit should be capped. When I see deserving people struggle on a pittance, I think they should get enough to cover them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 But you see the contradiction there. Deserving peoples benefits arent enough....but EVERYONE's benefit should be capped. When I see deserving people struggle on a pittance, I think they should get enough to cover them. I think your muddying the waters here. ( I could be wrong ) It's one thing to say you know people struggling on a pittance, but I would be surprised if you know anyone personally getting £26,000 in benefits and struggling. In my humble opinion, any way you cut it, £26,000 is not a pittance. I'm sure there are people out there who get nowhere near this amount and struggle, but that's a whole different conversation really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 But you see the contradiction there. Deserving peoples benefits arent enough....but EVERYONE's benefit should be capped. When I see deserving people struggle on a pittance, I think they should get enough to cover them. I think your muddying the waters here. ( I could be wrong ) It's one thing to say you know people struggling on a pittance, but I would be surprised if you know anyone personally getting £26,000 in benefits and struggling. In my humble opinion, any way you cut it, £26,000 is not a pittance. I'm sure there are people out there who get nowhere near this amount and struggle, but that's a whole different conversation really. so you're saying this is a political vote winning policy that will have little effect....given so few people actually receive 26k. strange to support something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10876 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 But you see the contradiction there. Deserving peoples benefits arent enough....but EVERYONE's benefit should be capped. When I see deserving people struggle on a pittance, I think they should get enough to cover them. HF, surely the people you're speaking about could get assistance in a different form. Not JSA, or child benefit and the like, but simple assistance from (say) the Armed forces budget? I'd rather an extra billion went into that fund, than a billion goes into the benefit system if I'm honest. I agree with Ant, if you're on benefits and out of work, you shouldn't be spending £50 on Sky a month. Nor should you be watching it on a massive tv. I know it's unworkable, but JSA should reduce over time. Say I were to lose my job tomorrow because of circumstance out of my control, the state should support me for the 1st month at full pay, the next at a lower rate and so on and so forth until I don't recieve benefits. Child Benefit is another problem, There should definitely be a cap on that, as it's a choice. Hate to be brutal, but even if the pregnancy is a mistake, the birth is still a choice. Hard working families should be assisted if their combined income isn't sufficient to provide for their kid. But parents who sit on their arse watching (or appearing on) Jeremy Kyle should get fuck all. I've no problem paying tax to provide for the poorest in society, I have an issue with them thinking I owe them it. As someone said before, there are jobs out there but the chavs are too fucking workshy to do it, so the Polish or whomever are doing it instead. Put it this way, I live round the corner from Brixton where there is plenty of unemployed Brits, yet the staff in shops, the waitresses, the cleaner, they're all foreign. Now, why aren't they doing the jobs? It's not beyond them, they just think it's beneath them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CleeToonFan 1 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 People on benefits shouldn't have a telly? People on benefits, not working , with a council house which i'm paying for should not have a 50" plasma and skyHD no see that link i sent, within the first row of houses how many sky dishes can you see? oh woe is me, i need benefits, i can't afford this and that, but aye a £50 a month sky sub no bother, they can fuck right off. (Nevermind the fact they'll do anything in their power to avoid the work the polish and stuff will happily do here) i've a mate who works in the agency here and the stories she sends me are unreal like, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 99 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Its a subject that really boils my piss. Sadly there are so many people working the system it clouds the subject and hides those that really need it. Personally I think if the state has to help you live then you shouldnt be allowed to buy tabs, beer should be limited and you should be drug tested and benefits stopped if you take owt. Im not suggesting they should have no pleasure, but the money is there to pay bills and put food on the table not buy a fucking 50" plasma and get stoned every night playing Fifa. Another thing, though I think they stopped it, why they send out £50 or £150 whatever it was when you have a child? Again Id say yes do that, but means test it. I know its harsh but houses should be looked at as well. Of course if a landlord knows that your rent is paid by someone else he will howk the price up. The incentive should be there to want to work. Tbf though, the job centre whole thing needs changing. As an employer, I would never currently advertise in the job centre. Done it once and it was horrific. Thats wrong though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 The woman being interviewed on the BBC news is earning herself zero sympathy, "Why should I have to move to a less well off area?" I think the answer is obvious to most people. That the woman on the radio who had 7 kids? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4389 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 This is where the Tories laugh their cocks off at how fucking stupid people are in this country. It looks like you've all bought into the idea that EVERY benefit claimant has never worked - scapegoating at its very best. How long should a family where the bread winners get after losing their jobs before they get purged? - 3 months, 6 months a year? Should they have to give up their possessions as soon as the p45 hits the mat? Unless you can give me some figures that show that the majority of benefit claimants, whether affected by this or not, have never worked or been in the same situation for years then I sincerely hope you never have to face it yourselves. Of course everyone knows the family who've never worked who has a house full of plasmas - I'm not saying they don't exist but do you really think its a fucking doddle? BTW 26k does sound a lot and instinctively I'd agree its too much but if you include housing benefit in the South East I'd imagine it leaves precious little once everything else is taken into account - why do you think they can't fill jobs for that amount? The saving from this is supposedly 270m - four and half new fucking royal yachts and about 10% of what most individual banks will be paying in bonuses - but the cunts have got you hating the scoungers - as I said laughing their cocks off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10876 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 This is where the Tories laugh their cocks off at how fucking stupid people are in this country. It looks like you've all bought into the idea that EVERY benefit claimant has never worked - scapegoating at its very best. How long should a family where the bread winners get after losing their jobs before they get purged? - 3 months, 6 months a year? Should they have to give up their possessions as soon as the p45 hits the mat? Unless you can give me some figures that show that the majority of benefit claimants, whether affected by this or not, have never worked or been in the same situation for years then I sincerely hope you never have to face it yourselves. Of course everyone knows the family who've never worked who has a house full of plasmas - I'm not saying they don't exist but do you really think its a fucking doddle? BTW 26k does sound a lot and instinctively I'd agree its too much but if you include housing benefit in the South East I'd imagine it leaves precious little once everything else is taken into account - why do you think they can't fill jobs for that amount? The saving from this is supposedly 270m - four and half new fucking royal yachts and about 10% of what most individual banks will be paying in bonuses - but the cunts have got you hating the scoungers - as I said laughing their cocks off. Not what people are saying at all. They're saying the people who've genuine disabilities, who've genuine need for subsistence should receive it. The problem is the mentality of the nation. Far too many people think they're owed something by the country, which means people who do work are keeping people who can't be arsed in Nike trainers and Sky movies. There are people who're scraping by and the tax they pay is paying others who'd rather not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4389 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I agree on that point - so why doesn't nobody ever mention the people who are doing fine and then find themselves out of work in a recession - as I said how long is it before they count as "scum" and have to give up their benefits? The generations of scroungers is an issue which needs to be addressed but scapegoating everyone isn't the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10876 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I agree on that point - so why doesn't nobody ever mention the people who are doing fine and then find themselves out of work in a recession - as I said how long is it before they count as "scum" and have to give up their benefits? The generations of scroungers is an issue which needs to be addressed but scapegoating everyone isn't the answer. Because those people generally haul themelves off benefits as soon as possible as they've too much pride to scrounge, they just need a buffer for the time being. So nobody mentions them, because they're not the issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4389 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I agree on that point - so why doesn't nobody ever mention the people who are doing fine and then find themselves out of work in a recession - as I said how long is it before they count as "scum" and have to give up their benefits? The generations of scroungers is an issue which needs to be addressed but scapegoating everyone isn't the answer. Because those people generally haul themelves off benefits as soon as possible as they've too much pride to scrounge, they just need a buffer for the time being. So nobody mentions them, because they're not the issue In the past yes - thing about recessions is that people need longer buffers. Don't get me wrong, I've argued before about responsible family planning which is a factor as well and I do think to an extent that people thinking they have a right to live in Westminster is stupid but in the scale of things this is small beer - it certainly isn't "why the country is fucked" as LM and others put it. The country is semi-fucked because of wealth inequality and pissing about with 270m in order to stir the Mail readership isn't going to change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30679 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 No one is talking about taking away buffers or safety nets, simply reducing them to a reasonable level. I still like my idea that a certain amount of benefits should be paid in 'food stamps'. Not physical stamps but into an account with a debit card that you cannot use to buy unnecessary items such as tobacco, alcohol or confectionery and also can't be used to pay for things like Sky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10876 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 No one is talking about taking away buffers or safety nets, simply reducing them to a reasonable level. I still like my idea that a certain amount of benefits should be paid in 'food stamps'. Not physical stamps but into an account with a debit card that you cannot use to buy unnecessary items such as tobacco, alcohol or confectionery and also can't be used to pay for things like Sky. There should also be a breeding license. If you think the sentence is "Can you borrow us a tenner", you're note allowed to breed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Cap child benefits once you bear your third spawn. Any more than that then they'll just have to make do at xmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 But you see the contradiction there. Deserving peoples benefits arent enough....but EVERYONE's benefit should be capped. When I see deserving people struggle on a pittance, I think they should get enough to cover them. I think your muddying the waters here. ( I could be wrong ) It's one thing to say you know people struggling on a pittance, but I would be surprised if you know anyone personally getting £26,000 in benefits and struggling. In my humble opinion, any way you cut it, £26,000 is not a pittance. I'm sure there are people out there who get nowhere near this amount and struggle, but that's a whole different conversation really. so you're saying this is a political vote winning policy that will have little effect....given so few people actually receive 26k. strange to support something like that. No, I was saying you were muddying the waters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I agree on that point - so why doesn't nobody ever mention the people who are doing fine and then find themselves out of work in a recession - as I said how long is it before they count as "scum" and have to give up their benefits? The generations of scroungers is an issue which needs to be addressed but scapegoating everyone isn't the answer. Nobody is saying that anyone has to give up their benefits, simply that a cap of £26,000 seems pretty fair in most cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I'm employed atm. What do I have to do to get this 26k worth of benefits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEADMAN 0 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 i read on a article that the government is trying to force it through despite the loss on the votes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I'll tell you what's more annoying to me: THE BANKERS' BONUS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEADMAN 0 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 yep im annoyed at that to kevin damn disgrace them getten over 1 million or higher when others in society are struggling. excluding the money scroungers of course hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 2 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 NJS is right, high profile extraordinary examples picked out at as evidence of the norm and people fall for it every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now