# Top ten lies of the welfare cuts



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

This is the crap we are being told to believe and if the majority of posts regarding the unemployed on this forum is anything to go by then these lies are being believed

1. Benefits are too generous
Really? Could you live on £53 a week as Iain Duncan Smith is claiming he could if he had to? Then imagine handing back 14% of this because the government deems you have a "spare room". Could you find the money to pay towards council tax and still afford to eat at the end of the week?

It might be easy to live on £53 a week if one call meant you could have access to any amount of money, try living on £53 and no hope of getting any more.

2. Benefits are going up
They're not. A 1% "uprating" cap is really a cut. Inflation is at least 2.7% . Essentials like food, fuel and transport are all up by at least that, in many cases far more. Benefits are quickly falling behind the cost of living.

3. Jobs are out there, if people look
Where? Unemployment rose last month and is at 2.5 million, with one million youngsters out of work. When Costa Coffee advertised eight jobs, 1,701 applied.

4. The bedroom tax won't hit army families or foster carers
Yes it will. Perhaps most cruel of all, the tax will not apply to foster families who look after one kid. If you foster siblings, then tough. But these kids are often the hardest to place. Thanks to George Osborne and IDS, their chances just got worse. And even if your son or daughter is in barracks in Afghanistan, then don't expect peace of mind as the government still has to come clean on plans for their bedroom.

5. Social tenants can downsize

Really, where? Councils sold their properties  and Osborne wants them to sell what's left. Housing associations built for families. In Hull, there are 5,500 people told to chase 70 one-bedroom properties.

6. Housing benefit is the problem
In fact it's rental costs. Private rents shot up by an average of £300 last year. No wonder 5 million people need housing benefits, but they don't keep a penny. It all goes to landlords. 

7. Claimants are pulling a fast one
No. Less than 1% of the welfare budget is lost to fraud. But tax avoidance and evasion is estimated to run to £120bn.

8. It's those teenage single mums
An easy target. Yet only 2% of single mums are teenagers. And most single mums, at least 59%, work.

9. We're doing this for the next generation
No you're not. The government's admitted at least 200,000 more children will be pushed deeper into poverty because of the welfare changes.

10. Welfare reforms are just about benefit cuts
Wrong. The attack on our welfare state is hitting a whole range of services  privatising the NHS, winding up legal aid for people in debt and closing SureStart centres and libraries. All this will make life poorer for every community.

We are being told lies about who caused this crisis and lied to about the best way out of it. But I know one thing to be true: this government's polices will make millions of people poorer and more afraid. 

Once this government has broken the backs of the poorest people they will start on the working wage, freezing minimum wage or even decreasing it, next will be people earning a little more and yet the Royals have been given a 5 million pay rise, the people who earn the most have had a tax cut of 5% 

robbing from the poorest to ensure the richest stay the richest...

Yes I stole the ten lies from the Guardian


----------



## hippymama (Jul 26, 2012)

its sad the view some people have of people who are on benefits , my partner just lost his job and so we are on jsa and have been in the past too , the jobs just arnt there at the moment  . he's had several interviews this month but heard nothing back  . 
its not nice having people look down there nose at you , we are young parents too (im 22 and have a 4 year old and a 2 year old , so I was a teenage mum  ) so im used to feeling like a statistic  . 
this government makes me really sad .... they just don't get it


----------



## jess91 (Jun 28, 2011)

Wish people would stop peddling the ridiculous 'bedroom tax' phrase.

*IT'S NOT A TAX!!!*
It is a reduction of the housing benefit that is paid to you, meaning that you will have to contribute towards your rent what is not paid by benefits.

Calling it a tax implies it is an extra charge, and is misleading. Pronably what is making so many people believe it applies to private rents and home owners, which it doesn't.


----------



## gem88 (Jun 2, 2012)

people are very quick to judge those on benefits. 

i claim housing benefit purely because since hubby lost his job if i work too many hours they cut it and i will never earn enough to pay the rent and everything else. until hubbys business takes off or he finds another job that makes up the difference (which ever happens first) im not in this position because i want to be but because we are in a position were it cannot be helped.

i am fully aware that if i gave up work, we would be better off but i refuse to, i will not be given hand outs.


----------



## gem88 (Jun 2, 2012)

jess91 said:


> Wish people would stop peddling the ridiculous 'bedroom tax' phrase.
> 
> *IT'S NOT A TAX!!!*
> It is a reduction of the housing benefit that is paid to you, meaning that you will have to contribute towards your rent what is not paid by benefits.
> ...


isnt it what the government called it in the first place?
but yes i agree its not a 'tax'


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

jess91 said:


> Wish people would stop peddling the ridiculous 'bedroom tax' phrase.
> 
> *IT'S NOT A TAX!!!*
> It is a reduction of the housing benefit that is paid to you, meaning that you will have to contribute towards your rent what is not paid by benefits.
> ...


oh well so long as its a reduction and not a tax then its ok to drive the already poorest people in the country into an even worse state of poverty. Glad you cleared that up, for a minute there i thought what was important was the people who wont be able to afford their homes, or their food, or to cloth themselves or their family, but no, i was mistaken, what is really important is the semantics.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

I haven't had a pay rise for the last four years, no matter what the rate of inflation has been. I still pay my taxes though, so why should I be happy that my taxes gives pay rises to people that don't work, when I don't get one? I still have to pay more for my bills and food and everything else as inflation rises.

Maybe there should a national legal minimum on rises, which will include pay rises and benefit rises, to be in line with inflation rises.

I have to say I am not happy having a pay freeze, in spite of inflation, when people on benefits get a rise no matter what.

And before you ask, yes I have been on benefits, so I know exactly what it is like to live on the amount you are awarded, and I know it is very bloody hard.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I've done it in the past, and as a house owner, will do it again if I need to, why can those with an extra bedroom, not rent it out?


----------



## jess91 (Jun 28, 2011)

gem88 said:


> isnt it what the government called it in the first place?
> but yes i agree its not a 'tax'


No, thats what Labour dubbed it to annoy the Con Dems


----------



## gem88 (Jun 2, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I've done it in the past, and as a house owner, will do it again if I need to, why can those with an extra bedroom, not rent it out?


i have an extra room, i also have a child in the house. along with the benefit cut, where am i meant to find the money to pay for a CRB check on every applicant?
i dont know anyone who needs a room and im certainly not risking my son by allowing some stranger into the house to gain a few extra quid.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

gem88 said:


> i have an extra room, i also have a child in the house. along with the benefit cut, where am i meant to find the money to pay for a CRB check on every applicant?
> i dont know anyone who needs a room and im certainly not risking my son by allowing some stranger into the house to gain a few extra quid.


I didn't know anyone who needed an extra room either, but the fact is there is a shortage of housing, and there are people who have extra rooms that could be used. If you aren't willing to look that's your perogative, but why should taxpayers contribute towards a house that is technically too large for your needs?


----------



## gem88 (Jun 2, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I didn't know anyone who needed an extra room either, but the fact is there is a shortage of housing, and there are people who have extra rooms that could be used. If you aren't willing to look that's your perogative, but why should taxpayers contribute towards a house that is technically too large for your needs?


when we moved in here my father in law moved with us from our previous house to this one. he moved out about 8 weeks ago. so the room has only become extra recently. 
we are willing to move if something comes available but the only places they have offered us are 30 miles away from C's school, our family and my place of work, so not an option. we wanted to join an exchange site but as its not supported by our housing association we have to pay over £10 a month to register and it could be months before we find somewhere.

i pay my taxes, a lot more than i should given my wage, given that some arse who earns hundreds of thousands or more a year can find a loop hole and not pay a penny. so before the 'taxpayers money' is part mine too, so technically my taxes help pay my rent until we can sort ourselves out


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

jave u measured your spare room gem? apparently rooms under 70 sq. ft are classed as boxrooms not bedrooms and cant be charged as if they were bedrooms. Otherwise take the door off and claim its not a seperate room but part of the hallway


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

So renting out the spare room isn't a problem then? Or it is? Or you just haven't had chance to explore the possibilities? 

I pay a fair whack in taxes every month, my job is safety critical which I like to refer to as dodging trains. I deal with dead stuff, [email protected] (literally) on a day to day basis when working, but my wage isn't really what I'd consider remunerate for the work I do. It's good, but the main reason I stick with it is because I'm based as a home worker, and I also have other things on the back burner that I hope will provide a better income. 

So it really pee's me off when people can afford to live on benefits and eat out, or go out every night of the week. I know that's not always the case, but the fact is that there are people out there who live like this and the system is allowing the cheats to win. Maybe these changes aren't the right changes, but the fact is that change has been needed for a very long time to stop people making a mockery out of those who are willing to work and earn a living, contribute towards the system without continually taking back out of it.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

porps said:


> jave u measured your spare room gem? apparently rooms under 70 sq. ft are classed as boxrooms not bedrooms and cant be charged as if they were bedrooms. Otherwise take the door off and claim its not a seperate room but part of the hallway


70 sq foot? My second bedroom is much smaller than that, but I would, as a mortgage holder consider letting it to help towards paying bills, why should it be any different for people receiving benefits? I don't like (generally) sharing my house and my space with people, but needs must, beggars can't be choosers and all that!!


----------



## gem88 (Jun 2, 2012)

porps said:


> jave u measured your spare room gem? apparently rooms under 70 sq. ft are classed as boxrooms not bedrooms and cant be charged as if they were bedrooms. Otherwise take the door off and claim its not a seperate room but part of the hallway


its a 6ft by 6ft room i kid you not! and 1 corner of that (3x3) is lost to a box because the stairs come up under the room.
the only way we got a bed in there to give him a decent floor space for C is by buying a high sleeper and cutting the legs off so 1 side rests on the box.
C has since been moved into the big room when his grandad moved out. a standard single bed will fit in the box room but its a squeeze and leaves naff all floor space.

sleeping lion it IS a problem, do u have kids? if someone you knew didnt need somewhere would you allow a stranger into the house? to sleep in the room next door to your child? you may be willing to take that risk but i'm not. i have already said we've explored the possibilities, we are back on the waiting list to move, we cant do an exchange without paying to join the website which we cant afford. it is difficult with money being tight, but its the price i pay by working and not screwing the system which i would be financially better off doing!!


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> ..the fact is that there are people out there who live like this and the system is allowing the cheats to win. Maybe these changes aren't the right changes, but the fact is that change has been needed for a very long time to stop people making a mockery out of those who are willing to work and earn a living, contribute towards the system without continually taking back out of it.


so rather than allow the 1% of cheats to "win" we should force them (and the other 99% of non cheats most of whom WOULD like to work and ARE willing to contribute despite your obvious scorn for them) to live in poverty. yeah that seems fair!
:skep:


----------



## jess91 (Jun 28, 2011)

porps said:


> jave u measured your spare room gem? apparently rooms under 70 sq. ft are classed as boxrooms not bedrooms and cant be charged as if they were bedrooms. Otherwise take the door off and claim its not a seperate room but part of the hallway


Also complete rubbish. I give up.

This rumour has come from the 1985 Housing Act, and *does not apply to Housing Benefit regulation.*

You can ring up your local council if you like and tell them the room is under 70sq foot, but they can't do anything and you will still have to pay.
If you think the room shouldn't be classed as a bedroom you need to approach your Housing Office or Housing Association and ask them to consider reclassifying it.


----------



## gem88 (Jun 2, 2012)

jess91 said:


> Also complete rubbish. I give up.
> 
> This rumour has come from the 1985 Housing Act, and *does not apply to Housing Benefit regulation.*
> 
> ...


tried that too, was basically told to get stuffed :mad5:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

gem88 said:


> its a 6ft by 6ft room i kid you not! and 1 corner of that (3x3) is lost to a box because the stairs come up under the room.
> the only way we got a bed in there to give him a decent floor space for C is by buying a high sleeper and cutting the legs off so 1 side rests on the box.
> C has since been moved into the big room when his grandad moved out. a standard single bed will fit in the box room but its a squeeze and leaves naff all floor space.
> 
> sleeping lion it IS a problem, do u have kids? if someone you knew didnt need somewhere would you allow a stranger into the house? to sleep in the room next door to your child? you may be willing to take that risk but i'm not. i have already said we've explored the possibilities, we are back on the waiting list to move, we cant do an exchange without paying to join the website which we cant afford. it is difficult with money being tight, but its the price i pay by working and not screwing the system which i would be financially better off doing!!


No, my child died, but if he'd survived, and if I needed to have enough income I would consider renting a room to someone I interviewed and trusted enough. I'd even share a room with my child and give the spare room up to rent.

PS 6x6 is 36ft, unless Porps meant cubic feet


----------



## jess91 (Jun 28, 2011)

gem88 said:


> tried that too, was basically told to get stuffed :mad5:


Unsuprising.
Although, given the expected increase in rent arrears (which FYI makes your housing office/association look bad) you have to wonder if they will start to consider itfor the most desperate cases.
I work in benefits not housing, so I wouldn't know.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

gem88 said:


> its a 6ft by 6ft room i kid you not! and 1 corner of that (3x3) is lost to a box because the stairs come up under the room.
> the only way we got a bed in there to give him a decent floor space for C is by buying a high sleeper and cutting the legs off so 1 side rests on the box.
> C has since been moved into the big room when his grandad moved out. a standard single bed will fit in the box room but its a squeeze and leaves naff all floor space.


i think i was mistaken anyway... theres a lot of stuff going around saying you wont have to pay under 70sq ft but then theres also stuff going around saying thats not true :/

this is kinda interesting though.... 
_
note that Frank Field MP has called on landlords to "brick up the doors to spare bedrooms and, where appropriate, knock down the walls" so that the properties can safely fit the tenants. When does a small boxroom cease to be a bedroom and become a walk-in wardrobe?

*To count as a habitable room under Domestic Building Standards, a bedroom has to have ventilation (either natural ventilation of at least 1/30th floor area, used to be 1/20th, or mechanical or trickle ventilation) and have illumination (a window) of at least 1/15th of the floor area (used to be 1/10th).*

So minor works affecting the window area or ventilation would technically make such a room non-habitable and unable to formally be counted as a habitable bedroom. So is it not more cost-effective for responsible social landlords to develop a cheap minor works programme to help affected tenants? Perhaps linked to a campaign for better minimum housing quality standards? _

it's could be worth measuring your room and disputing it though, especially if your otherwise gonna be in dire straights. 
apparently the part about 70sq. ft rooms can be found in THE HOUSING ACT 1985 SECTION 326.

If it turns out to be useless, you'll have to knock a wall through or get some works done on the window or brick up the doorway, because apparently thats better than anyone having a spare room.


----------



## gem88 (Jun 2, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> No, my child died, but if he'd survived, and if I needed to have enough income I would consider renting a room to someone I interviewed and trusted enough. I'd even share a room with my child and give the spare room up to rent.
> 
> PS 6x6 is 36ft, unless Porps meant cubic feet


im sorry that was an insensitive shot on my part.

my tenancy says we are not allowed to sublet anyway but as i said even if we could i wouldnt. i personally can not take that risk. a lot of that comes from our past, he's had a difficult enough childhood which has only now settled i cannot take that risk.

9 out of 10 cases of abuse in one form or another are from someone the victim knows. my god daughters father allowed his best mates son into his home (before my god daughter was born) 6 months later turned out he was a peado. baby p was killed by his mother, her bf and his lodger.

if it was a long term friend then maybe, but a stranger (which it would more than likely be) not a bloody chance


----------



## IrishEyes (Jun 26, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I've done it in the past, and as a house owner, will do it again if I need to, why can those with an extra bedroom, not rent it out?


I don't think very many peole would feel comfortable with the idea of a stranger moving into their home especially so if there are children living at home, I certainly wouldn't have wanted someone moving in when my boy was small. For me it would probably ruin the very definition of home. I can just imagine how many families would be totally changed by having to allow a stranger to share their home. Not a good idea I don't think.


----------



## Pixieandbow (Feb 27, 2013)

It's difficult isn't it though. I'm a single mum with two children and I work full time. I get some help to pay for childcare but other than that I support myself. I started college when my oldest son was four months old and went to uni when he was 18 months old. If I had a pound for every time I heard a single parent say they can't do anything or train to do anything because they have a child I wouldn't need to work anymore!!!

Equally I look after a lot of families who aren't entitled to financial help from the state and having a child is a definite financial decision. Every day I hear people saying they would love another child but they can't afford it. It's a little galling when we also look after families who just have child after child with never a thought because the state will pay them more. Why shouldn't these people have to make decisions about how many children they have in the same way as other families?

I was talking to a nurse once. Her job specifically is to support young families in poverty to try and improve their quality of life. She was visiting a couple who didn't have any money. They had a crisis loan and that had all gone. She had organized for their utility bills to be taken straight out of their benefits, their rent was paid and so was council tax. Any money they had left was disposable income for food etc. the nurse wanted to get to the bottom of why they had no money. The crisis loan had been spent on a new plasma screen tv and they had a full sky package. The nurse went on to explain that out of her wages she had to pay everything, her mortgage, petrol, bills...and after that she had less money to spare than this couple and so she didn't have a full sky package as she couldn't afford it. The man...he told her she should go on benefits. When she asked where he thought his benefits came from he didn't realise it was from taxes people pay!!!

These are the sort people of that have caused the problems for all the ones genuinely in need


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

How to combat the bedroom tax with a tape measure | Hereford Heckler

One  but only one  of the challenges to the bedroom tax is the minimum size of your smallest bedroom.

Many of the smallest rooms in social housing are less than 70 sq/ft and thus a boxroom rather than a bedroom.

A single bedroom has to be 70 sq/ft or 6.5 sq/m to be classed as a full (1.0) bedroom. If it is 9ft x 7ft then it is 63 sq/ft and just 0.9 of a bedroom.

The size standards are found in the 1985 Housing Act section 326 (and see here for an overview http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/publications_store/overcrowding excerpt.pdf ) which ironically deal with overcrowding and set out the 70 sq/ft issue and also the fact that anything under 50 sq/ft (eg 7ft by 7ft) cannot be deemed as a bedroom at all.

If you have a room which is under these requirements then it cannot be classed as a bedroom and you can legally challenge any under-occupancy judgement that says it is a bedroom.

Again, this is only one way to potentially combat the bedroom tax: the State has a shitty habit of closing down any loopholes that spring-up in its face, as evidenced in a recent workfare ruling.


----------



## sskmick (Feb 4, 2008)

Tackling welfare/state benefits should have been done years ago prior to the ressession, when jobs were easier to get hold of.

These cuts are going to affect people who have worked all their lives and find themselves out of a job through no fault of their own.

I don't believe it will encourage people, who are content to live on benefits, to get a job, most don't know there are two 7 o'clocks in a day.

It is part of a lot of tenancy agreements that you cannot sub-let the property or any part thereof. People would need to check their tanancy agreements before renting a room out.


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> The State has a shitty habit of closing down any loopholes that spring-up in its face, as evidenced in a recent workfare ruling.


I hadn't noticed this when it comes to tax avoidance by the big boys.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

porps said:


> oh well so long as its a reduction and not a tax then its ok to drive the already poorest people in the country into an even worse state of poverty. Glad you cleared that up, for a minute there i thought what was important was the people who wont be able to afford their homes, or their food, or to cloth themselves or their family, but no, i was mistaken, what is really important is the semantics.


The poorest people in this country are the ones that go to work on a low wage have young children and dont quite make the criteria for any handouts. In my opinion and experience the ones that can claim and do claim every benefit going are not our poorest.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I've done it in the past, and as a house owner, will do it again if I need to, why can those with an extra bedroom, not rent it out?


My niece is severely disabled and often screams throughout the night - am sure possible tenants will be queuing around the block. 

My sister asked the benefits office why David Cameron said publicy that any one needing around the clock care was exempt, when it clearly wasn't true. Apparently exempt actually means not forced to share a bedroom


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

DoodlesRule said:


> My niece is severely disabled and often screams throughout the night - am sure possible tenants will be queuing around the block.
> 
> My sister asked the benefits office why David Cameron said publicy that any one needing around the clock care was exempt, when it clearly wasn't true. Apparently exempt actually means not forced to share a bedroom


Thats terrible! 

A mate of mine has a box room..they have a 3 bed house and 2 kids a boy and girl and they have to pay aswell. They have been told that it doesnt matter how small the room is they still have to pay.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

I must admit i know very little about this bedroom tax. So how i understand it is, if someone has a house with a spare room which is paid for by the state, they will have to take a cut in their housing benefit or move to a house with the right amount of bedrooms that are needed?


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

haeveymolly said:


> I must admit i know very little about this bedroom tax. So how i understand it is, if someone has a house with a spare room which is paid for by the state, they will have to take a cut in their housing benefit or move to a house with the right amount of bedrooms that are needed?


Thats about it.

In theory sounds good, unfortunately the "right" size properties are difficult to get or just not available. In my sisters case the property needs to be specially adapted with all sorts of equipment for disabled (cost around 35k), unlikely to find one already suitable.

Where she is now was adapted/built specially so she has to stay there for 10 years too :001_rolleyes:. She would happily downsize - changes to council tax rules mean that as well as losing 25% of her housing benefits she is supposed to find £800 for council tax now too rather than the £100 she paid last year.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Thats about it.
> 
> In theory sounds good, unfortunately the "right" size properties are difficult to get or just not available. In my sisters case the property needs to be specially adapted with all sorts of equipment for disabled (cost around 35k), unlikely to find one already suitable.
> 
> Where she is now was adapted/built specially so she has to stay there for 10 years too :001_rolleyes:. She would happily downsize - changes to council tax rules mean that as well as losing 25% of her housing benefits she is supposed to find £800 for council tax now too rather than the £100 she paid last year.


Certainly there should be exemptions made for circumstances like your sisters where the house is specially adapted to the specific needs of a person.

The rest if its a case of the state paying for an extra room thats not needed, why? shouldnt the fact that they have a roof over their heads all paid for be enough? there are a lot of people that have to buy,pay for their houses that would love the luxury of a spare room but funds dont allow.

I would have loved a 4th bedroom at least, but couldnt afford to buy one.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Just thought i'd throw this in..How much, if any coverage did anyone see on the telly over the bedroom tax protests?
The only way i found any was on teletext. But thousands turned out.
Obviously the powers that be, didn't want us to see it.*


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *Just thought i'd throw this in..How much, if any coverage did anyone see on the telly over the bedroom tax protests?
> The only way i found any was on teletext. But thousands turned out.
> Obviously the powers that be, didn't want us to see it.*


Actually i was wondering why there wasnt any real coverage about this too,makes you wonder just how much freedom of speech we really have


----------



## Antony80 (Jan 24, 2013)

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but I struggle to sympathise with those people who claim welfare and are complaining about cuts being made to their benefits. I know some people genuinely need this help due to disabilities, young children, etc but it seems the majority of families claiming benefits do so for an easy, work free life - whether this is due to the way the media sensationalise stories of families claiming £xx,0000 a year for their 12 kids is another story.

I was made redundant from my reasonably paid job 2 1/2 years ago. At the time I had just purchased my first house, I had no savings to fall back on, and money was tight - infact whilst I was employed I had less than the £53 a week mentioned earlier in this thread. So what did I do, did I go cap in hand to the welfare office and claim every penny I could? No, I went out and found work, three part time jobs in fact, and this was in a the middle of a recession when there were 'no jobs'. It might not have been the kind of work I wanted to do, it certainly wasn't what I'd studied for, but it was work which paid (albeit not particulary well, hence why I had three part time jobs)

I was working 75hrs a week to keep my head above water, after my mortgage, council tax, utilities and food had been paid for I was left with £15 a week. No one helped me out. I lived like this for 18 months before I found a job in the same industry as I had been trained in and was able to earn a reasonable salary once again.

I suppose to summarise what I'm trying to say is: There are jobs out there if you actually get off your ar5e and look for one, they might not be the most glamorous jobs in the world but they're jobs none the less.
The majority of people do not need help from the state, if they could be bothered to go and find work they could pay their own way in life. Unfortunatley it seems too many people would rather sit at home watching their friends appear on the Jeremy Kyle Show than go and earn a living.

Unfortunately I can't see it getting better as there are entire estates full of families who have never worked and have no intention to and who actively encourage their offspring to milk the system for all they can. The way of life is just passed from one generation to the next.

Rant over, tin hat on.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Antony80 said:


> I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but I struggle to sympathise with those people who claim welfare and are complaining about cuts being made to their benefits. I know some people genuinely need this help due to disabilities, young children, etc but it seems the majority of families claiming benefits do so for an easy, work free life - whether this is due to the way the media sensationalise stories of families claiming £xx,0000 a year for their 12 kids is another story.
> 
> I was made redundant from my reasonably paid job 2 1/2 years ago. At the time I had just purchased my first house, I had no savings to fall back on, and money was tight - infact whilst I was employed I had less than the £53 a week mentioned earlier in this thread. So what did I do, did I go cap in hand to the welfare office and claim every penny I could? No, I went out and found work, three part time jobs in fact, and this was in a the middle of a recession when there were 'no jobs'. It might not have been the kind of work I wanted to do, it certainly wasn't what I'd studied for, but it was work which paid (albeit not particulary well, hence why I had three part time jobs)
> 
> ...


*The part i have highlighted is not the truth. The amount claiming benefits that shouldn't are small.
This government are wasting tax payers money by hitting the poorest in our society, that is a fact.*


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Antony80 said:


> I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but I struggle to sympathise with those people who claim welfare and are complaining about cuts being made to their benefits. I know some people genuinely need this help due to disabilities, young children, etc but it seems the majority of families claiming benefits do so for an easy, work free life - whether this is due to the way the media sensationalise stories of families claiming £xx,0000 a year for their 12 kids is another story.
> 
> I was made redundant from my reasonably paid job 2 1/2 years ago. At the time I had just purchased my first house, I had no savings to fall back on, and money was tight - infact whilst I was employed I had less than the £53 a week mentioned earlier in this thread. So what did I do, did I go cap in hand to the welfare office and claim every penny I could? No, I went out and found work, three part time jobs in fact, and this was in a the middle of a recession when there were 'no jobs'. It might not have been the kind of work I wanted to do, it certainly wasn't what I'd studied for, but it was work which paid (albeit not particulary well, hence why I had three part time jobs)
> 
> ...


I agree with every word,the ones that get the most from the system are the ones that wont ever work and as you say have been brought up that way. There are jobs out there but not the jobs people necessarily want to do but tough i would be saying and cutting their benefits every time they refused a job.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *The part i have highlighted is not the truth. The amount claiming benefits that shouldn't are small.
> This government are wasting tax payers money by hitting the poorest in our society, that is a fact.*


I dont think theres any that shouldnt, havnt got a job you get the money, simple as......too simple.

Everyone on benefits, that are able to work, should get the minimum ammount that some people work for, but earn just too much for housing benefits and everything that goes with it, so out of that money they have to pay rent,and everything else that goes with standing on your own two feet.they wouldnt know what had hit them.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

The media just highlight extreme cases where they know how to play the system. The 12 children case mentioned - he would live the life of Riley because you can bet your bottom dollar most of the benefits received went on him and very little on the poor kids. Others who seem to have a great time are also most likely on the fiddle, working on the side etc.

I know a few 100% genuine cases and they don't have a spare bean


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> The media just highlight extreme cases where they know how to play the system. The 12 children case mentioned - he would live the life of Riley because you can bet your bottom dollar most of the benefits received went on him and very little on the poor kids. Others who seem to have a great time are also most likely on the fiddle, working on the side etc.
> 
> I know a few 100% genuine cases and they don't have a spare bean


I dont actually quote what i hear in the media because i dont believe it all, when i quote people that have never worked and have no intention of working, that have everything going thats why they have no intention, if they were struggling so much they would get out there and do anything, these people are who i meet everyday. Certainly not the media hype.


----------



## Antony80 (Jan 24, 2013)

JANICE199 said:


> *The part i have highlighted is not the truth. The amount claiming benefits that shouldn't are small.
> This government are wasting tax payers money by hitting the poorest in our society, that is a fact.*


The fact is families _can_ be better off on benefits than they would be if they worked. This, imo, is wrong. Where is the insentive for these people to stand on their own two feet? What message does this send to their children?
What this Goverment are trying to do is to correct this.

Why should my taxes go towards paying for somebody else to sit at home in their free house watching sky tv. The same sky tv that I can't afford.


----------



## negative creep (Dec 20, 2012)

Antony80 said:


> The fact is families _can_ be better off on benefits than they would be if they worked. This, imo, is wrong. Where is the insentive for these people to stand on their own two feet? What message does this send to their children?
> What this Goverment are trying to do is to correct this.
> 
> Why should my taxes go towards paying for somebody else to sit at home in their free house watching sky tv. The same sky tv that I can't afford.


Totally agree. I used to deliver to a lot of council houses and never failed to notice they were bigger and better equipped than mine. Before my parents had me they made sure they had enough money and a home of their own to ensure stability. Now it just seems like people have kids without thinking through the consequences, except to get a home of their own and complain about the "foreigners" coming over and being put on the list instead


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Antony80 said:


> The fact is families _can_ be better off on benefits than they would be if they worked. This, imo, is wrong. Where is the insentive for these people to stand on their own two feet? What message does this send to their children?
> What this Goverment are trying to do is to correct this.
> 
> Why should my taxes go towards paying for somebody else to sit at home in their free house watching sky tv. The same sky tv that I can't afford.


*Please don't fall into this trap. My hubby works, i am retired. I don't ever worry about those that cheat the system, because they are in the minority. 
I worry more about those in power that are robbing the poor.*


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I've done it in the past, and as a house owner, will do it again if I need to, why can those with an extra bedroom, not rent it out?


because i want to be able to relax him my own home not have a stranger wandering around, using my things, watching my TV, sitting on my settee, eating out of my fridge, using my cooker etc

plus i doubt we would find one to suit is IE up till 6am, sleeps till 4pm


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> because i want to be able to relax him my own home not have a stranger wandering around, using my things, watching my TV, sitting on my settee, eating out of my fridge, using my cooker etc
> 
> plus i doubt we would find one to suit is IE up till 6am, sleeps till 4pm


I couldnt do it either if ime honest.


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

jess91 said:


> Wish people would stop peddling the ridiculous 'bedroom tax' phrase.
> 
> *IT'S NOT A TAX!!!*
> It is a reduction of the housing benefit that is paid to you, meaning that you will have to contribute towards your rent what is not paid by benefits.
> ...


Hmmm. I take it that it won`t affect you then? So it doesn`t matter? 
I doubt the people struggling to survive will give a tinkers cuss what it`s called as they are faced with the opyion of finding somewhere else to live or losing some of their income. 
The saddest part about this whole debacle is how the plan to divide and rule has actually worked, and the disabled, the mentally ill and the unemplyed have now become `the enemy`. 
Be careful though - next time they might come for you. 
Thatcher went for single mums and for unions. The targets from Cameron are the sick and the poor. Who will be next?
In your life you may one day be among a target group. Pray you`re not.

_When they came for the communists,
I remained silent; I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews, I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out._


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I've done it in the past, and as a house owner, will do it again if I need to, why can those with an extra bedroom, not rent it out?


I dont want a stranger under my roof thanks

do you?....

if a claimant rented a room out they would get the lodgers rent towards their rent then have it counted as income, and lose even more

anyway, subletting is against HA rules


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

them who have to lose some HB will have to cut back on beer, ****, whaccy baccy and the sky package


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Colliebarmy said:


> them who have to lose some HB will have to cut back on beer, ****, whaccy baccy and the sky package


we dont smoke or drink, never had 'whaccy baccy' and dont have sky

so many assumptions in this post


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> we dont smoke or drink, never had 'whaccy baccy' and dont have sky
> 
> so many assumptions in this post


you still dont know when im fishing do you...

have you lost any HB?

I was looking at someones paperwork and they were getting £68/week HB for rent, the LA said they would lose 14%...(£9.52?), in fact they lost £12 ...


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Colliebarmy said:


> you still dont know when im fishing do you...
> 
> have you lost any HB?
> 
> I was looking at someones paperwork and they were getting £68/week HB for rent, the LA said they would lose 14%...(£9.52?), in fact they lost £12 ...


yeah we are losing just over 11 quid

and no i dont, guess i have a lot to learn lol


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2013)

Changes said:


> This is the crap we are being told to believe and if the majority of posts regarding the unemployed on this forum is anything to go by then these lies are being believed
> 
> 1. Benefits are too generous
> Really? Could you live on £53 a week as Iain Duncan Smith is claiming he could if he had to? Then imagine handing back 14% of this because the government deems you have a "spare room". Could you find the money to pay towards council tax and still afford to eat at the end of the week?
> ...





> 5. Social tenants can downsize
> 
> Really, where? Councils sold their properties - and Osborne wants them to sell what's left. Housing associations built for families. In Hull, there are 5,500 people told to chase 70 one-bedroom properties.


 Don't forget the councils and Housing associations across the country have said alot of families can't downsize as they simply don't have any one bedroom or two bedroom properties to offer as the ones they do have are occupied.


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

1% are cheating the system  that may or may not be true BUT those willing to sit a live within the system "legally" is MUCH higher so they can't be having that rough a ride . I don't doubt it is very hard for some mainly single people, those with just one child or carers but something had to happen as the system has paid a couple of generations to pop kids out on benefit. 

This bedroom benefit cut is wrong though.


----------



## Polimba (Nov 23, 2009)

Pointermum said:


> 1% are cheating the system  that may or may not be true BUT those willing to sit a live within the system "legally" is MUCH higher so they can't be having that rough a ride . I don't doubt it is very hard for some mainly single people, those with just one child or carers but something had to happen as the system has paid a couple of generations to pop kids out on benefit.
> 
> This bedroom benefit cut is wrong though.


I was listening to something interesting the other day on R4 I didn't catch it all but basically they were saying successive governments have seen a problem and introduced a benefit to deal with it. So we have now ended up with a system where cumulative benefits make it not worthwhile to work for some people.

Most people aren't cheating but the system makes it hard to get out of that trap. A family member is having her first foray into the benefit system. She was going for an interview for a job at £26k which she said he didn't want because she's better off on benefits. So we are not talking anything to do with minimum wage, that an average salary job. I' m still really shocked by that


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

the person whose paperwork i was looking at is a good example, no kids, he works S/E part time

his HA 2 bed property costs £97.50 per week, he claims WTC (£75/wk) and gets (or did get) £68/wk rent benefit (and £700/yr CT benefit)

he could get a job taking home about £225/wk but would have to pay all his rent himself and lose his WTC, he would have to do 40 hours a week instead of 20

you cant blame him for not trying harder can you


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2013)

Bah, its makes me cross. I am a shop worker. I can barely get 25 hours a week, I cannot afford to rent and I cannot afford to move out of my mothers.
They make it bloody hard for people now don't they.
Being under 25 I don't seem to mean all that much to our government.
And don't get me started on the older generations who tell us constantly that us young people don't know hard work, that we are lazy. We get degrees and we cannot get jobs, we are still branded as lazy or that we were silly to go ti uni in the first place. We don't get degree's and we are seen as stupid or we didn't try hard enough at school.
I don't earn enough to pay 'proper' taxes, but I help mum with her council tax and with her rent and bills. 

I am proud that I have a job, many my age are unable too. But this current goverment and those who are left to clean it up afterward are really effing it up for the future generations. 

Sorry, that was a bit off-topic. I'll get off the soapbox now.


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

Polimba said:


> I was listening to something interesting the other day on R4 I didn't catch it all but basically they were saying successive governments have seen a problem and introduced a benefit to deal with it. So we have now ended up with a system where cumulative benefits make it not worthwhile to work for some people.
> 
> Most people aren't cheating but the system makes it hard to get out of that trap. A family member is having her first foray into the benefit system. She was going for an interview for a job at £26k which she said he didn't want because she's better off on benefits. So we are not talking anything to do with minimum wage, that an average salary job. I' m still really shocked by that


It is not worthwhile to work as the cost of living is so high and minimum wage does not pay all the bills, surely it would be more cost effective to put money back into the economy, raise minimum wage, make working a viable option, increase employment, Austria has 6% of its population living below the poverty line, they have one of the highest minimum wages and have 5.4% unemployment

UK have 16% of people living below the poverty line 20% youth unemployment and 7.7% adult unemployment

Let's have a wonder

If minimum wage gets frozen and the cost of living rises and the majority of people in work are on minimum wage, they will only just about afford to pay for the essentials such as food, electric, gas, water, rent, mortgage, transport to and from work, this leaves nothing left to spend on non essentials, so spending decreases, more companies go out of business, more people unemployed, more stress on the tax payer wages frozen, cost of living increases... etc, spiral of bankrupt economy,

don't be fooled into thinking that this isn't the plan


----------



## jess91 (Jun 28, 2011)

ClaireandDaisy said:


> Hmmm. I take it that it won`t affect you then? So it doesn`t matter?
> I doubt the people struggling to survive will give a tinkers cuss what it`s called as they are faced with the opyion of finding somewhere else to live or losing some of their income.
> The saddest part about this whole debacle is how the plan to divide and rule has actually worked, and the disabled, the mentally ill and the unemplyed have now become `the enemy`.
> Be careful though - next time they might come for you.
> ...


Hmm. That was fairly presumptive of you wasn't?
Feel better now? 

The reason for my post is that I work in benefits, and spend half my day explaining this to people that are being fed all of these internet rumours and believe them. The lies going around are insane. In fact Janice posted one a few weeks back saying dining rooms are going to be 'taxed' too. It is complete rubbish and it causes further un-necessary stress to already pushed to the limit people. I am astounded by the number of people still believing this 'box room' thing. Its not true, you will still have to pay. People think private rents and homeowners are affected. They aren't.

Instead of believing everything you read on the internet ring up your LA and ask how you will be affected and what you can do if you think you should be exempt.


----------



## Polimba (Nov 23, 2009)

Changes said:


> It is not worthwhile to work as the cost of living is so high and minimum wage does not pay all the bills, surely it would be more cost effective to put money back into the economy, raise minimum wage, make working a viable option, increase employment, Austria has 6% of its population living below the poverty line, they have one of the highest minimum wages and have 5.4% unemployment
> 
> UK have 16% of people living below the poverty line 20% youth unemployment and 7.7% adult unemployment
> 
> ...


I totally get what you are saying, but £26k a year is not minimum wage, that was my point. What hope is there when you are better off on benefits than earning that salary? I keep thinking she must have got it wrong 

Btw I know not everyone is entitled to that, it's the cumulative effect in certain situations.


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

Polimba said:


> I totally get what you are saying, but £26k a year is not minimum wage, that was my point. What hope is there when you are better off on benefits than earning that salary? I keep thinking she must have got it wrong
> 
> Btw I know not everyone is entitled to that, it's the cumulative effect in certain situations.


26K Is a fabrication, let's break that down

A single person under 25 is entitled to £56.25

£2925 a year

A single person under 25 living in a flat is entitled to £71 housing benefit

£3692 a year

£6617 total so far per year

£1045 council tax (claimant still has to pay 20% of this in my area)

£7662 a year in benefits

I keep hearing how much money people are claiming and it is not the real picture at all

£147 a week from this the rent will need paying and council tax

- £71

= £76 left now take away 20% council tax

- £4

= £72

Remove money for electric, gas, water rates,

£20 a week based on the cheapest quotes I can find

£52 a week

Take away

£8 (in this area the cost of the bus to sign on)

that leaves £44

Take away job searching money, phone calls and bus rides, printing off a cv, getting to the local library to go onto the internet

What is left to feed yourself, you might just be able to do it but not with fresh healthy food so the £26k is just a red herring to make you think that the unemployed are sitting pretty and you are doing all the hard work to pay for their lazy asses... *sigh

I was at the local job club today, in that area there were 7 jobs,

Head Chef
Warden
Risk Assessor
Home Manager x 2
Domestic

there were a few jobs out of the area (16 miles) but paying the transport costs in the first month while waiting for wages might be really difficult, one of the biggest employers in this town had gone out of business.

The jobs were applied for so we shall see...

One lad got a job, he has to camp by the place as it is in the middle of no where, it is closed due to the recent bad weather, this lad was told he is not entitled to sign on as he isn't technically unemployed... WTF

Wake up to the crap you are being told to believe, go and talk to people in your area, go and help out 

do something wonderful...


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Edwina Curry was on local radio the other morning saying there were 500+ jobs in York,she was reading them out,and ALL were executive jobs at high wages, no good for most people, 
In my local paper there were 4 jobs in last week, and again mostly exec,
Another thing which i dont think has been thought through is when these children who have to share a room are a bit older, the family are going to have to move again to a bigger house with more bedrooms,all expense,where does the money come from for all these moves
Where i live even the HA staff have been in the paper dressed in jumpers not agreeing with the so called bedroom tax, there are very few smaller properties here for anyone to downsize to, 
Also i agree with the person who would not have a stranger in her house when she has a young child, and where would their money come from to pay rent, most likely be on benefits themselves, but HA tenants cant take lodgers anyway,


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

LurcherOwner said:


> Bah, its makes me cross. I am a shop worker. I can barely get 25 hours a week, I cannot afford to rent and I cannot afford to move out of my mothers.
> They make it bloody hard for people now don't they.
> Being under 25 I don't seem to mean all that much to our government.
> And don't get me started on the older generations who tell us constantly that us young people don't know hard work, that we are lazy. We get degrees and we cannot get jobs, we are still branded as lazy or that we were silly to go ti uni in the first place. We don't get degree's and we are seen as stupid or we didn't try hard enough at school.
> ...


I did one of these benefit calculators, out of interest, a while ago. Turns out that if the above was true, but in addition, I had a kid, I'd have more money than we knew what to do with!


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

Megan345 said:


> I did one of these benefit calculators, out of interest, a while ago. Turns out that if the above was true, but in addition, I had a kid, I'd have more money than we knew what to do with!


Seriously, write the evidence make sure you list everything that has to be paid out too

*sigh


----------



## Polimba (Nov 23, 2009)

Changes said:


> 26K Is a fabrication, let's break that down
> 
> A single person under 25 is entitled to £56.25
> 
> ...


She's not under 25 and she has one child still at school, so those figures probably are different. One child is just about to go to Uni so maybe some of her reasons are do to with extra funding he would get?

This scenario is not a made up one to prove a point about people sitting pretty on benefits, in fact your figures above for single young people are probably the people struggling most This is someone in my family who I can see no reason for her to say she'd be better off not taking the £26k job. She's not someone who has never had a job, through circumstances this is the first time she's had to claim.

What I was originally saying is the system has a cumulative effect on some people. Young single people are probably the worst off because they just great the basic and also their job opportunities are less.

We have a number of houses on our street owned by one landlord who rents to those on HB. The rent would be similar to our mortgage which we don't find easy with two people earning over average salary. That raises the bar a lot higher than minimum wage for them to be able to work and live in similar housing. I'm not blaming the individuals but I can see how people in certain circumstances get trapped in the system.


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

The real reason that this country is in crisis is...

Government support for the banks - through the bailout UK taxpayers have given up to £500bn to the banks in the form of bailout and guarantee schemes.

This money has gone, £500 billion pounds of our money gone!!

The total spending in this country amounted to, for everything...

£694 billion 

of this

£166.98 billion was given to the Department of working pensions

of this money

£4.9 billion was spent on Job seekers allowance

The biggest proportion of the DWP budget is spent on pensions

£74.22 billion this is the reason that the government keep raising the age of pension entitlement, many people will die before receiving theirs...


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Changes said:


> The real reason that this country is in crisis is...
> 
> Government support for the banks - through the bailout UK taxpayers have given up to £500bn to the banks in the form of bailout and guarantee schemes.
> 
> ...


you forgot foreign aid and child benefit being paid to EU migrants for kids not even in this country


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Changes said:


> This is the crap we are being told to believe and if the majority of posts regarding the unemployed on this forum is anything to go by then these lies are being believed
> 
> 1. Benefits are too generous
> Really? Could you live on £53 a week as Iain Duncan Smith is claiming he could if he had to? Then imagine handing back 14% of this because the government deems you have a "spare room". Could you find the money to pay towards council tax and still afford to eat at the end of the week?
> ...


Haven't read the thread cos I have to go out this morning, but just wanted to say exellent post - and I'm looking forward to reading the thread when I get back!

ETA - wanted to give you rep for this but I have to spread it about a bit first!


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Stop worrying

Labour will be able to correct all the bad things as soon as they win the next election


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Colliebarmy said:


> them who have to lose some HB will have to cut back on beer, ****, whaccy baccy and the sky package


I think you were actually joking but my sis doesn't drink (one bacardi breezer would last her all night, says her teeth go numb and ears go hot lol so she is very cheap to take out ), severe asthma so both **** and the whaccy baccy a bit of a no no, can't afford Sky!



Pointermum said:


> 1% are cheating the system  that may or may not be true BUT those willing to sit a live within the system "legally" is MUCH higher so they can't be having that rough a ride . I don't doubt it is very hard for some mainly single people, those with just one child or carers but something had to happen as the system has paid a couple of generations to pop kids out on benefit.
> This bedroom benefit cut is wrong though.


It would be much more acceptable if all these changes meant those in genuine hardship (which the system was originally aimed for) actually benefited but they don't in fact they seem hardest hit


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Its also perverse that if you are on HB and rent a room to a stranger at (say) £50/week you lose £35 of your benefits too, but rent to a relative and you have to send the lodgers payslips in and then THEY could have to pay YOUR rent......

this does not encourage subletting (which is against tenancy rules) but does encourage fiddling...

the system is its own worst enemy


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> I think you were actually joking but my sis doesn't drink (one bacardi breezer would last her all night,


I like your sister, 1 drink and home....lol


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Pointermum said:


> 1% are cheating the system  that may or may not be true BUT those willing to sit a live within the system "legally" is MUCH higher so they can't be having that rough a ride . I don't doubt it is very hard for some mainly single people, those with just one child or carers but something had to happen as the system has paid a couple of generations to pop kids out on benefit.


This is the one thing ignored by those complaining which annoys those who do work. I don't know how many people are old enough to remember the series Bread and the visits to the benefit office to claim for everything they could. There are plenty of people out there who do know how to play the system and I don't see these being posted as a statistic.

Unfortunately it's those people who genuinely need the help, who have lost jobs, those who never expected to need help who suffer the most. They don't know all the benefits they can claim and can't get the necessary help/information to do so.

We never hear of any complaints unless it's "we are going to get less money". Doesn't this also give an indication of why some people may get the impression it's simply a complaint about the money level of individuals rather than the need for a balanced system to support those who really need supporting? I've heard the comment it's all media perception about benefit amounts and scavengers. It's not uncommon though for those who work to see those on benefits who seem to have more disposable income than they do. Some of this is perception, the need to budget in certain areas, base standard of living etc but not all. The saying, the grass is greener on the other side applies.

How do we get a balanced system, supporting those who really need support but encouraging those who can work to do so? I personally don't think there is an easy answer but it's one which people, both those on welfare and those who work need to push for generally, not simply "this policy means I get X less".


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

LurcherOwner said:


> But this current goverment and those who are left to clean it up afterward are really effing it up for the future generations.


You can't simply blame the current goverment.. they are cleaning up the mess from the previous one, who tried to clean up the mess from the one before that etc etc. Politics is all about public perception, not about actually doing what is necessary, especially if it means they'll lose votes. Do you think labour politicians are likely to actually need benefit support at some point of their lives?


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

porps said:


> jave u measured your spare room gem? apparently rooms under 70 sq. ft are classed as boxrooms not bedrooms and cant be charged as if they were bedrooms. Otherwise take the door off and claim its not a seperate room but part of the hallway


CLEVER......???I am sure that I am not the only one who now feels a little justified in our opinions !


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

northnsouth said:


> CLEVER......???I am sure that I am not the only one who now feels a little justified in our opinions !


Exactly, i thought that when i read that quote too
and "statistics say" only a small percentage are actually cheating, rubbish.

Imagine how restrained i had to be when i heard....." give us 20 quid and ile get ya more than that",(this wasnt said to me) but i was there, these are the ones that know every trick in the book, professionals!!!! after all theyve had a lifetime of training they ought to be.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Just read something interesting on the Philpott case, the money they were getting was actually made up of child benefit and working tax credits - he sent the two women out to work so it wasn't job seekers etc.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

northnsouth said:


> We have a neighbour ... and she will openly say to people,(when accused of any wrong doing), it may not seem right but it is not illegal. She has worked the system for years... But is that really just her fault if the loop holes are there ??


No its not, its there for the taking if your clever enough to work the system, know where those loopholes are, just a shame they havnt more self respect really.

Then theres those out there that these people make feel bad, because there are some genuine cases that use the system for what it was already set up for, shame for them.

The best one liner is, "so what this is how i was brought up":mad5: what do they want us to say, "oh well thats ok then, carry on, just like ile carry on going to work to pay for what your childhood did":mad5:


----------



## Polimba (Nov 23, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Just read something interesting on the Philpott case, the money they were getting was actually made up of child benefit and working tax credits - he sent the two women out to work so it wasn't job seekers etc.


I know his is an extreme case but from what I've read they've calculated the household income was equivalent to someone earning £100k a year.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Polimba said:


> I know his is an extreme case but from what I've read they've calculated the household income was equivalent to someone earning £100k a year.


Not as extreme as you might think, sadly.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

> Re: Top ten lies of the welfare cuts
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by porps View Post
> jave u measured your spare room gem? apparently rooms under 70 sq. ft are classed as boxrooms not bedrooms and cant be charged as if they were bedrooms. Otherwise take the door off and claim its not a seperate room but part of the hallway
> CLEVER......???I am sure that I am not the only one who now feels a little justified in our opinions !


Im afraid the square footage of a room no longer applies as it once did


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Polimba said:


> I know his is an extreme case but from what I've read they've calculated the household income was equivalent to someone earning £100k a year.


wouldnt be enough for me to have 3 wives and 14 kids.....no wonder his hairs fell out

hes addicted to sex, well wait till hes in the prison showers and drops his soap, he may not be so keen then


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Colliebarmy said:


> Im afraid the square footage of a room no longer applies as it once did


Good does this mean they might be getting wise to these people then?


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

colliebarmy said:


> wouldnt be enough for me to have 3 wives and 14 kids.....no wonder his hairs fell out
> 
> hes addicted to sex, well wait till hes in the prison showers and drops his soap, he may not be so keen then


:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d REPPED!!!!!!


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

haeveymolly said:


> Good does this mean they might be getting wise to these people then?


"These people" are folk who have a spare bedroom, now thats hardly a crime is it?


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

haeveymolly said:


> :d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d REPPED!!!!!!


nasty st st st st stutter u have


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Colliebarmy said:


> "These people" are folk who have a spare bedroom, now thats hardly a crime is it?


No but hopefully it now doesnt apply the sq footage because they have got wise to idead of removing doors ect.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Colliebarmy said:


> nasty st st st st stutter u have


Ha Ha, the laughing faces didnt show!!!!!!


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

There`s a very good article here, with a few examples of `these people`. I`d be grateful if you could read it?

Why April will be the cruellest month in the age of austerity

if you can`t be a**ed to go to the link, here`s an excerpt _

In a recent letter to George Osborne calling for all disabled families to be spared from the cut, the heads of seven charities, including Carers UK, Mencap and Macmillan Cancer support, cited one typical case.

Jean and Carl live in a two bedroom house. Carl has suffered from serious health complications for years and is now unable to work as a result of a series of operations and treatment. Jean juggles caring for her husband with a job at a local supermarket. They are unable to share a room because Carl's condition causes very disrupted sleep and if they share Jean cannot sleep. Her shifts at work mean she frequently has to be up at 4am and she would simply be unable to do this if she could not get a good night's sleep. They fear they will not be able to make up the shortfall in their Housing Benefit and if forced to downsize Jean is worried about her ability to do her job if she is unable to sleep properly (names changed to preserve anonymity).
_


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

haeveymolly said:


> No but hopefully it now doesnt apply the sq footage because they have got wise to idead of removing doors ect.


I doubt it ever did, I can see planning apps for conversions to 1 room chapels, mosques, libraries, study's and aviaries though....


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

ClaireandDaisy said:


> There`s a very good article here, with a few examples of `these people`. I`d be grateful if you could read it?
> 
> Why April will be the cruellest month in the age of austerity
> 
> ...


It makes for very grim reading but the system has been out of control for many years and something had to be done..... i do feel they have gone too far though. I would allow for one spare room, anything over that i would reduce the housing benefit. The council tax benefit cut i don't see how that is fair at all , as that helps lots of low earners who are working but still struggle  I do agree with the cap on benefits at 26k , as in the past they have paid you to have children getting a extra £50 odd a week per child , like my sister who has 5 all while being on benefit . It was always too child heavy on what it paid out , it doesn't cost 5 times more in electric , TV licence, gas to heat the house, water rates so why get *X *amount more for each of them


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Pointermum said:


> It makes for very grim reading but the system has been out of control for many years and something had to be done..... i do feel they have gone too far though. I would allow for one spare room, anything over that i would reduce the housing benefit. The council tax benefit cut i don't see how that is fair at all , as that helps lots of low earners who are working but still struggle  I do agree with the cap on benefits at 26k , as in the past they have paid you to have children getting a extra £50 odd a week per child , like my sister who has 5 all while being on benefit . It was always too child heavy on what it paid out , it doesn't cost 5 times more in electric , TV licence, gas to heat the house, water rates so why get *X *amount more for each of them


and child benefit should be capped at 3.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Polimba said:


> I know his is an extreme case but from what I've read they've calculated the household income was equivalent to someone earning £100k a year.


Thats what is so very wrong with a system that basically rewards vile creatures like him to have numerous children they don't care a jot for.

This is from the Daily Mail so no idea how accurate it is:

Child benefit

Philpott: £20.30 a week for eldest son, £13.40 for the other ten. Yearly total: £8,023.60p

Working tax credits

Mairead: Up to £20,560 a year for her six children

Lisa Willis: Up to £17,870 for her five children

Estimated earnings from their cleaning jobs: £14,000

Yearly total: £38,430

Housing benefit

Philpott: £150 a week

Yearly total: £7,800

ESTIMATED GRAND TOTAL: £68,000

This is the approximate take-home pay of someone earning £100,000

So the reason to have so many children is clearly evident I think - cash cow springs to mind


----------



## Antony80 (Jan 24, 2013)

Colliebarmy said:


> "These people" are folk who have a spare bedroom, now thats hardly a crime is it?


Not a crime, no. But still a luxury, and luxuries should be paid for.

I had to a shell out more for my two bed property than I would have done for a one bed property just so I could have a spare room. And I continue to pay for this luxury every month due to my house being in a higher council tax band than a one bed would be.

Why should I have to pay for this luxury whilst others think they're above it. How about we scrap the bedroom tax and then give Council Tax rebates to all those who've been paying for the privilege of having a spare room their whole lives


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

Changes said:


> The real reason that this country is in crisis is...
> 
> *Government support for the banks - through the bailout UK taxpayers have given up to £500bn to the banks in the form of bailout and guarantee schemes.
> 
> ...


Didn't anyone read this??

The government bailed out the banks by 500 BILLION Pounds, of your money, because the banks put our money into insecure investments then what happened right is that the people who are in charge of the banks paid themselves bonuses to top 7 Billion pounds...

Do you know the difference between a million and a billion

it would take just less than 12 days to consume a million seconds

it would take 11574.1 days to consume a billion seconds

You are all (sorry not all, you guys know who you are that this doesn't apply to) so obsessed with how much money is being spent on unemployed people that you can't actually see what is going on.

I know someone will come along any minute to say but I know someone on benefit they have sky tv and smoke and drink and I give up...


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

This might be interesting to those affected by the bedroom tax

Helen Goodman, MP for Bishop Auckland

I was so shocked when I read what my constituents wrote to me about the implications for them of the bedroom tax, and about how little they would have left to live on, that I decided during the week of the recent recess to see if I could survive on £18 a week, which is what they will be left with to buy their food after 1 April. That figure of £18 is entirely based on the experiences of my constituents, in particular women on employment and support allowance who are about the same age as me, but who had to stop working owing to chronic health conditions, perhaps after 20 years of working life. Out of their £71.70, they have to find £10 for electricity, £20 for heatinggas or coal£6 for water rates, £4 for bus fares in the case of those who live in villages and have to get to the main town, and £10 for the bedroom tax, which left them with £23 for weekly living expenses.

That £23 has to cover more than food, of course. We did a calculation, and set aside £5 for all the non-food things everyone has to buysoap, washing powder, washing-up liquid, toothpaste, loo paperplus a small amount in order to save £50 a year for clothes or a pair of trainers, or in case the iron breaks. That leaves £18.

I therefore took up the challenge of trying to live on £18, and I want to tell Members what it is like. It is extremely unpleasant. I had porridge for breakfast every morning, as I usually do, but I make my porridge with milk; now I was making it with water. I had to eat the same food over and over and over again. Single people are hit particularly hard, because cheap food comes in big packs. I made a stew at the beginning of the week, and I ate the same food four nights a week. I had pasta twice a week. I had baked potatoes. I had eggs on six occasions. It was completely impossible to have meat or fish; that was out of the question. It was also impossible to have five portions of fruit and vegetables a week.

I therefore also have a message for the Under-Secretary of State for Health, Anna Soubry, who is responsible for public health. She was criticising people on low incomes for obesity. Of course people on low incomes are more likely to have that problem; they have to fill up on toast and biscuits.

I found myself waking up in the middle of the night absolutely ravenous, having to make cups of tea and eat biscuits. I had a headache for five days in that week, and I was completely lethargic and exhausted by 4 pm. Some people are on jobseekers allowance and are looking for a job. Looking for a job is a job in itself; it takes time and energy. The people whom DWP Ministers want to do workfare are being expected to work 30 hours a week, yet they are not going to have enough to eat properly.

Most shocking of all was the fact that come Sunday I ran out of foodthere was literally nothing left to eat that night. If Ministers are happy with the notion that 660,000 of our fellow citizens are literally not going to have enough to eat by the end of the week, all I can say is that I pity them because they have no pity and no conception of what they are going to do to the people in our constituencies who will be faced with this bedroom tax.

The Minister has been very free and easy in talking about all these wonderful alternatives, such as the fact that people can move. In my constituency more than 1,000 people will be affected by the bedroom tax, but there are fewer than 100 smaller properties to which they could move. In my constituency, it is not possible for all these people to increase the number of hours they work, as seven people are chasing every job; people are in part-time work because they cannot get full-time work. Government Members have shown their complete ignorance of the benefits system by saying, You just have to work a couple of hours a week on the minimum wage. Of course that is not true, because these people would get then into the tapers and the disregards, and their benefits would be cut or they might find themselves paying tax. The numbers simply do not add up.

Of course some individuals or couples have properties that are larger than they need, but the so-called under-occupancy is in one part of the country and the overcrowding is in another. It simply is not credible to suggest that all the large, over-occupying families in London will move up to Durham, particularly given that the unemployment rate there is more than 9%. What would they be moving to? What would they be moving for?

I made a video diary of my week, so I got a lot of feedback from people affected by this policy. Interestingly, they said, Yes, this is the reality of our lives. We are not able to survive properly now and things are going to get worse to the tune of £10 a week from 1 April. In 2006, I did the same experiment under the previous Labour Government, living on benefits to see what life was like for young people on the lowest rate of income support. I found that difficult, but there was enough money to get through the whole week. I wish to point out to the Minister that we have reached a new low, because the £21 that people had in 2006 is equivalent to £28 now, and that should be compared with the £18 with which people are going to be expected to feed themselves.

The Minister has made much, too, of the discretionary housing benefits, which many hon. Members have questioned. In County Durham, £5 million of income will be taken out of peoples pockets and out of the local economy. The size of the discretionary fund is half a million pounds, so once again there is a huge gap between actual need and the resources being given to people to deal with it.

Many hon. Members have pointed out the unfairness of the policy for people who are disabled and need to sleep separately, be they adults or children; people who have children in the Army; foster carers; and separated parents. This policy is a fundamental attack on the poorest people in this country. People are going to lose between £500 and £1,000 over the course of next year, through no fault of their own.

*But the really disgusting thing is that on the same day that the bedroom tax is being introduced millionaires are being given a tax cut that will be worth £1,000not over the year as a whole, but every single week.*


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Changes - won't let me rep you again but it was such a sad but true read. £10, £15 a week may not be much if you have it to spare but if you don't what are they supposed to do.

My sister says she is no longer going to worry about it anymore as its pointless - she doesn't have the £20 for the HB reduction nor the £800 a year for the changes to council tax payments so reckons they will just have to send her to prison for non-payment. One way of getting a bit of respite care and it will cost circa £200,000 to provide the round the clock care for her daughter


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Changes - won't let me rep you again but it was such a sad but true read. £10, £15 a week may not be much if you have it to spare but if you don't what are they supposed to do.
> 
> My sister says she is no longer going to worry about it anymore as its pointless - she doesn't have the £20 for the HB reduction nor the £800 a year for the changes to council tax payments so reckons they will just have to send her to prison for non-payment. One way of getting a bit of respite care and it will cost circa £200,000 to provide the round the clock care for her daughter


This is the reason I keep ranting on about it, I am so sorry that this is happening :/

it is so unjust xx


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Antony80 said:


> Not a crime, no. But still a luxury, and luxuries should be paid for.
> 
> I had to a shell out more for my two bed property than I would have done for a one bed property just so I could have a spare room. And I continue to pay for this luxury every month due to my house being in a higher council tax band than a one bed would be.
> 
> Why should I have to pay for this luxury whilst others think they're above it. How about we scrap the bedroom tax and then give Council Tax rebates to all those who've been paying for the privilege of having a spare room their whole lives


But tenants in welfare housing with a spare/epmty bedroom dont have the luxury of moving, you CHOSE a 2 bed property, 1 bedroom welfare housing is the most rare, and I doubt you are paying towards anyones luxury


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

cant wait for the next election, Labour will NOT reverse these new benefit rules, mark my words well


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Folks...

what council tax band are you in, what property and how much is your CT?


Band B
2 bed bungalow
£1100 a year


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Colliebarmy said:


> Folks...
> 
> what council tax band are you in, what property and how much is your CT?
> 
> ...


Band C
3 bed detached
£1301.51

Though because my son has moved into his own place now I can apply for a discount for sole occupancy. It was originally classified as a Band D (would be £1464.20) but I appealed as that was same as two others in our cul de sac and they had 4 bedrooms.

Ethically, should I get a discount for under used bedrooms if other people are being penalised for under used rooms


----------



## LolaBoo (May 31, 2011)

We are in Band (A)
Now we did get full council Tax but under the new rules we now have to pay a certain amount of council tax 
Full amount of council tax for our 1 bedroom flat is £896.88, we pay now towards that £224.22 a yr over 10 monthly payments works out at one payment of £26.22 and the rest £22, i actually dont mind paying that yes it hits us hard on benefits but we use the services so i believe we should pay


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Band B i think (2 bed flat)
- I pay £1157 a year


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Changes said:


> Didn't anyone read this??
> 
> The government bailed out the banks by 500 BILLION Pounds, of your money, because the banks put our money into insecure investments then what happened right is that the people who are in charge of the banks paid themselves bonuses to top 7 Billion pounds...
> 
> ...


So does it mean then because of all that we shouldnt disagree with the benefit scroungers,about all the money thats taken by these people that have chosen being on benefits as a lifestyle.?


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

benefits should be paid out in vouchers, redeemable at government backed warehouses/shops only

anyone caught trading the goods should lose all benefits


or the claimant instead of vouchers could have a cash card topped up with benefits only accepted in the same outlets

theres little stigma attached to claiming benefits, maybe there should be, like the kids having to have state-funded school meals....

I hear HA's are crapping themselves as not only are many tenants going to get less HB but that same HB will now ONLY be paid to tenants....


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Colliebarmy said:


> But tenants in welfare housing with a spare/epmty bedroom dont have the luxury of moving, you CHOSE a 2 bed property, 1 bedroom welfare housing is the most rare, and I doubt you are paying towards anyones luxury


No but they have the luxury of a spare room, i would have loved a house at one time with an extra room, not just to have a spare room but to have made life more comfortable, but we couldnt have afforded a 4/5 bed house. So rather than moaning about losing what will it be £20? ish just accept it move on just like the rest of us have to do.

The disabled yes i feel for if they have specially adapted homes.


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> So does it mean then because of all that we shouldnt disagree with the benefit scroungers,about all the money thats taken by these people that have chosen being on benefits as a lifestyle.?


Only you are accountable for what you think, feel and do, x


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Changes said:


> Only you are accountable for what you think, feel and do, x


That didnt answer my question, because of the bankers ect,ect costing the country x amount should we keep quite and ignore everything else thats screwing us over.?


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> That didnt answer my question, because of the bankers ect,ect costing the country x amount should we keep quite and ignore everything else thats screwing us over.?


What you think is nothing to do with me. Whether you keep quiet is nothing to do with me either.

I am not sure why you are asking my opinion on whether you keep quiet, ah you said what *we* keep quiet, I have no idea who *we* is... Do you mean we as in The Royal We or we as in people who think like you? Well you can tell them to drop me a line and I will tell them the same as I have told you

You are accountable for what *you* think, feel, say and do. This includes whether you keep quiet or not


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Changes said:


> What you think is nothing to do with me. Whether you keep quiet is nothing to do with me either.
> 
> I am not sure why you are asking my opinion on whether you keep quiet, ah you said what *we* keep quiet, I have no idea who *we* is... Do you mean we as in The Royal We or we as in people who think like you? Well you can tell them to drop me a line and I will tell them the same as I have told you
> 
> You are accountable for what *you* think, feel, say and do. This includes whether you keep quiet or not


"we" as in all us that are objecting to the scroungers using the benefit system as a career choice. Choose how you skirt about, just because bankers ect have screwed the country doesnt mean to "we" cant have our say about these people. So actually quoting all the facts and figures doesnt make any difference whats so ever.


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> "we" as in all us that are objecting to the scroungers using the benefit system as a career choice. Choose how you skirt about, just because bankers ect have screwed the country doesnt mean to "we" cant have our say about these people. So actually quoting all the facts and figures doesnt make any difference whats so ever.


I know, how rude of me to publish some true facts and figures

"We" can get a much better education by reading the Daily Mail and watching Jeremy Kyle


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Changes said:


> I know, how rude of me to publish some true facts and figures
> 
> "We" can get a much better education by reading the Daily Mail and watching Jeremy Kyle


Your not been rude at all publish true facts and figures all you want and i agree with them if they are true but...........
I dont read a paper neither do i watch jeremy kyle,.......... if you thinking ime quoting or making a judgment on hear say think again, for 1 thats not my style and 2 i making judgment on what i see and deal with every working day.


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> I dont read a paper neither do i watch jeremy kyle,.......... if you thinking ime quoting or making a judgment on hear say think again, for 1 thats not my style and 2 i making judgment on what i see and deal with every working day.


I am replying to the questions that you have directed at me, that does not represent a judgement of your judgement...


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Changes said:


> I know, how rude of me to publish some true facts and figures


We can also ignore other facts and figures and obvious truths like what would have happened if the banking sector hadn't been bailed out. Would those on benefit have been unaffected? Do we have to like it, no. Should we put pressure on so we aren't as vulnerable as a society, definitely.

As it stands those complaining seem to be like whining kids shouting it's not fair.. Life isn't. We do need to ensure help is given to those who really need it. As you know all the facts and figures.. how many people on benefit actually get more than someone working full time say at a place like McDonalds? What differences are there in long term security, say pension amounts etc? Provide a balanced viewpoint and I would imagine more people would be more willing to listen, especially when they see, not take media's word for it, people on benefit living seemingly more comfortably than they are working full time.

Finally.. what is the solution. How do you get a fairer system in a capitalistic, global society when the "rich" who drive the economy in a lot of areas can easily simply go somewhere else. Gérard Depardieu's French Tax Evasion Trend May Continue with Country's "Richest Man" and Nicolas Sarkozy | Vanity Fair springs to mind. You may say, good riddance but if they are the ones who create and maintain a lot of jobs...


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Just playing catch-up with this thread - not read it all yet but wanted to comment so far in case I forget what I wanted to say before I get to the end!



gem88 said:


> when we moved in here my father in law moved with us from our previous house to this one. he moved out about 8 weeks ago. so the room has only become extra recently.
> we are willing to move if something comes available but the only places they have offered us are 30 miles away from C's school, our family and my place of work, so not an option. we wanted to join an exchange site but as its not supported by our housing association we have to pay over £10 a month to register and it could be months before we find somewhere.
> 
> i pay my taxes, a lot more than i should given my wage, given that some arse who earns hundreds of thousands or more a year can find a loop hole and not pay a penny. so before the 'taxpayers money' is part mine too, so technically my taxes help pay my rent until we can sort ourselves out


I think your post outlines some things that a lot of people who are worried about their taxes going to pay benefits don't realise:

a) Most benefit claimants are not the huge Sky-TV owning, holidaying abroad and never working scroungers people think they are. Most benefit claimants are like yourself - people who, through no fault of their own, are down on their luck and need a helping hand until they sort themselves out and get back into work.

b) Benefit claimants like yourself also pay taxes - or have paid taxes for many years before they were made redundant or whatever - they are not just taking from the system.

c) I cannot understand WHY some people STILL don't seem to have realised that the poorest members of our society are paying off the country's debt whilst the richer members of our society are EACH being given aound 25K OF TAXPAYERS' MONEY a year by their taxes being lowered. This government and their cronies must be laughing all the way to their respective banks - we squabble amongst ourselves instead of fighting the real injustice, and all the while they are getting richer and richer.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I've done it in the past, and as a house owner, will do it again if I need to, why can those with an extra bedroom, not rent it out?


A lot of rental agreements and also a lot of mortgage agreements preclude renting out a room, so this may not be an option. But for those whose agreements do allow it, how fair is it that they have to take a stranger into their home in order to make ends meet, when the rich are being given such a huge tax relief?



Pixieandbow said:


> If I had a pound for every time I heard a single parent say they can't do anything or train to do anything because they have a child I wouldn't need to work anymore!!!
> 
> It's a little galling when we also look after families who just have child after child with never a thought because the state will pay them more. Why shouldn't these people have to make decisions about how many children they have in the same way as other families?
> 
> ...


Wouldn't it be much better if, instead of spending all that taxpayers' money on lowering taxes for the rich, the government spent it instead on investigating and stopping cases like these? Then there would be more to go to those who really needed the help.

Right - back o the thread - there may be more!


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> c) I cannot understand WHY some people STILL don't seem to have realised that the poorest members of our society are paying off the country's debt whilst the richer members of our society are* EACH being given aound 25K OF TAXPAYERS' MONEY a year by their taxes being lowered*. This government and their cronies must be laughing all the way to their respective banks - we squabble amongst ourselves instead of fighting the real injustice, and all the while they are getting richer and richer.


Being given money are they  NO they just aren't going to be paying as much of the money THEY EARN in tax....... they do pay tax you know and a significant amount.

You would tax the rich out of the country and then see where it lands the UK !


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> I cannot understand WHY some people STILL don't seem to have realised that the poorest members of our society are paying off the country's debt


Since when does being given money equate to paying that amount? They are being given something which in a lot of countries they wouldn't have access to even as a minimal safety net.



> whilst the richer members of our society are EACH being given aound 25K OF TAXPAYERS' MONEY a year by their taxes being lowered.


Obviously my understanding and experience of tax is way off. They earn money, government takes it away. Less is now being taken away. How on earth does this equate to being given taxpayers money? Guess you feel if someone is rich they should simply give up all their money? The definition of if they actually earn the money is a matter of opinion and one which we could actually, in some cases agree on, however it's not automatically the taxpayer's money nor should it be assumed to be so. Bad enough in Cyprus pensioners having their safety net simply removed as the government wanted some extra cash.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Changes said:


> This is the crap we are being told to believe and if the majority of posts regarding the unemployed on this forum is anything to go by then these lies are being believed
> 
> 1. Benefits are too generous
> Really? Could you live on £53 a week as Iain Duncan Smith is claiming he could if he had to? Then imagine handing back 14% of this because the government deems you have a "spare room". Could you find the money to pay towards council tax and still afford to eat at the end of the week?
> ...


1. Yes benifits are too high if you have 5 plus children!
2. pass
3. Yes they are! 
4. Don't foster carers get around £300 a week per child? 
Sorry mel, but if they are living in social housing and getting this sort of money then they should pay!
5. TRUE! unless the council can offer a downsize then you should be exempt from the bedroom tax.
6. Housing benifit is a problem because its a vicious circle.
7. Both apply and need addressing.
8. pass
9. pass
10. WE AGREE AND ITS WRONG


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

Just been shown this on facebook



> Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
> If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...
> 
> The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
> ...


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Finally.. what is the solution. How do you get a fairer system in a capitalistic, global society when the "rich" who drive the economy in a lot of areas can easily simply go somewhere else. ...





Pointermum said:


> Being given money are they  NO they just aren't going to be paying as much of the money THEY EARN in tax....... they do pay tax you know and a significant amount.
> 
> You would tax the rich out of the country and then see where it lands the UK !


That may have been true in the past. Now the global situation is such that they would be very hard put to find any other country where they would be better off than they are in this country.

Rich people who threaten to take their wealth away from the country if they don't get their own way are no more than terrorists. They may not be threatening the people of the country with rifles and bombs, but threatening them and their lives they are. We have a policy of not bowing down to terrorists in this country - unless they are economic terrorists, that is. Then we go all mushy and give them loads of money just to persuade them to stay. Imagine the outcry if we gave Al Qadea money to stop them terrorising us - the country would be in uproar.



Goblin said:


> Since when does being given money equate to paying that amount? They are being given something which in a lot of countries they wouldn't have access to even as a minimal safety net.


What happens in other countries is immaterial. In THIS country we have a welfare state that looks after the genuinely needy, and now the genuinely needy are having their money taken away from them because (according to the government) we have to recoup the country's debt and we don't have enough taxes in the kitty to do this and make sure the genuinely needy are looked after. Pity they don't apply the same criteria to those who could afford to help repay the debt by increasing their tax contributions instead of lessening their tax contributions.



Goblin said:


> Obviously my understanding and experience of tax is way off. They earn money, government takes it away. Less is now being taken away. How on earth does this equate to being given taxpayers money?


If the governemnt are taking less money away from the rich, guess who has to make up the deficit? The rest of the taxpayers. That money could have been used for numerous things - researching and funding a fair welfare system, for one. But instead, the rich are being made even richer.



Goblin said:


> Guess you feel if someone is rich they should simply give up all their money?


As usual, when you try to guess you are way off the mark. I don't think anyone should give up all their money. I'm a firm believer of the maxim "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".



Pointermum said:


> Just been shown this on facebook


Very amusing - but not really a true representation of what is happening in this country at the moment.

If it were a true representation, it would have the four poorest men being made to pay towards their drinks rather than still getting them for free.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

OMG!
you lost me


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

haeveymolly said:


> "we" as in all us that are objecting to the scroungers using the benefit system as a career choice. Choose how you skirt about, just because bankers ect have screwed the country doesnt mean to "we" cant have our say about these people. So actually quoting all the facts and figures doesnt make any difference whats so ever.


Agree...........


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

Originally Posted by haeveymolly 


> "we" as in all us that are objecting to the scroungers using the benefit system as a career choice. Choose how you skirt about, just because bankers ect have screwed the country doesnt mean to "we" cant have our say about these people. So actually quoting all the facts and figures doesnt make any difference whats so ever.


How does me quoting facts and figures stop you having your say?

Originally Posted by DT


> Agree...........


Agree with what? That my facts and figures stop someone from having their say... Or that my facts and figures doesnt (sic) make any difference what so ever!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> That may have been true in the past. Now the global situation is such that they would be very hard put to find any other country where they would be better off than they are in this country.


Lots of countries have a higher standard of living than the UK. If you are rich that standard of living is easier to reach. Not everything is financially measurable.



> Rich people who threaten to take their wealth away from the country if they don't get their own way are no more than terrorists.


If you want to go that route what about the rabble rousing poor minority. Shall we label them terrorists as well. Logic is the same.. your argument consists of don't like it call them something negative.



> What happens in other countries is immaterial. In THIS country we have a welfare state that looks after the genuinely needy, and now the genuinely needy are having their money taken away from them because (according to the government) we have to recoup the country's debt and we don't have enough taxes in the kitty to do this and make sure the genuinely needy are looked after. Pity they don't apply the same criteria to those who could afford to help repay the debt by increasing their tax contributions instead of lessening their tax contributions.


Nothing you are saying is new.. According to you the poor have a right to take whatever other people earn... I disagree.

Father-in-law started after WWII with nothing. By working hard, 80hr weeks, suffering heart problems by the age of 45 due to stress and overwork, he continued to work hard to support his family and leave them something (of course government also took a chunk out of that when he died). Why should he, or others now like him bother, if, as you insist it's his responsibility to simply pay for others who don't work?



> If the governemnt are taking less money away from the rich, guess who has to make up the deficit? The rest of the taxpayers. That money could have been used for numerous things - researching and funding a fair welfare system, for one. But instead, the rich are being made even richer.


Love to know where the myth of a fair welfare system comes from... supporting only those who are "genuinely needy". Probably the same place where everyone has a satisfying job and everyone is equal. Trouble is people aren't equal, there are always "exceptions", everybody is an individual. No blanket welfare system will be fair to everyone.



> As usual, when you try to guess you are way off the mark. I don't think anyone should give up all their money. I'm a firm believer of the maxim "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".


Glad you cleared that up. Personally I believe nobody has a right to steal from someone else simply as they feel more "needy".

I do believe people have a responsibility to support those who need support but the welfare system doesn't simply support those and hasn't for as long as I can remember. I mentioned the series Bread in another post. That started in 1986. It was funny when you saw the benefit office as you knew people exploiting the system was a fact.

I wonder if anyone has worked out how welfare spending is actually spread out? Wouldn't be a shock to see a small minority getting far more than average. Almost like the rich getting more than average in the larger society. Strangely, I never heard cries to stop them getting richer and raise the welfare average.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Lots of countries have a higher standard of living than the UK. If you are rich that standard of living is easier to reach. Not everything is financially measurable.


Still doesn't mean they will accept our economic terrorists though!



Goblin said:


> f you want to go that route what about the rabble rousing poor minority. Shall we label them terrorists as well. Logic is the same.. your argument consists of don't like it call them something negative.


My argument consists of nothing of the sort. You and pointersmum have argued that we have to allow the rich to get richer otherwise they will take their wealth away and this will adversely affect the lives and welfare of many, and may even bring about the downfall of the country. Therefore anyone who threatens to do so is holding the country to ransom -and that is no different from the way a terrorist acts. The minority who protest against the disbanding of the welfare state - call them a rabble if you want to be disdainful - are merely protesters. They are not threatening the country and its people.



Goblin said:


> Nothing you are saying is new. According to you the poor have a right to take whatever other people earn... I disagree.


You have a right to disagree. Some people are selfish and don't see why anything they do should benefit anyone other than themselves. Some people care about others. Thankfully, I am one of the latter.



Goblin said:


> Father-in-law started after WWII with nothing. By working hard, 80hr weeks, suffering heart problems by the age of 45 due to stress and overwork, he continued to work hard to support his family and leave them something (of course government also took a chunk out of that when he died). Why should he, or others now like him bother, if, as you insist it's his responsibility to simply pay for others who don't work?


No, it his responsibility as a human being to take care of other human beings who are UNABLE to work. Big difference.

I've worked since I was 16 - paid my way through university - never had a penny off the welfare state - never had children - now work 13 hr shifts for the NHS for peanuts (wage frozen since the election and could be earning twice as much in the private sector but choose to work where people who can't pay need treatment) - you see, some of us actually live what we believe.



Goblin said:


> Glad you cleared that up. Personally I believe nobody has a right to steal from someone else simply as they feel more "needy".





Goblin said:


> I do believe people have a responsibility to support those who need support


Given your statement above, I dread to think what form that "support" might take in your eyes - perhaps a few years in prison for daring to "steal" the taxes of the workerss to pay for a wheelchair? 



Goblin said:


> I mentioned the series Bread in another post. That started in 1986. It was funny when you saw the benefit office as you knew people exploiting the system was a fact.


Erm - that was a comedy series, not a documentary! Ever heard of poetic license? No wonder your views are so skewed if you think a comedy series is real life - seriously, you need to get out more! The *facts *are that less than 1% of all claimants are not genuine, the rest are.


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

Goblin said:


> I wonder if anyone has worked out how welfare spending is actually spread out? Wouldn't be a shock to see a small minority getting far more than average. Almost like the rich getting more than average in the larger society. Strangely, I never heard cries to stop them getting richer and raise the welfare average.


DWP total budget

166.98 Billion

State Pension 74.22 Billion

Housing Benefit 16.9 Billion

Disability Living Allowance 12.57 Billion

Pension Credit 08.11 Billion

Income Support 06.92 Billion

Rent Rebate 05.45 Billion

Attendance Allowance 05.34 Billion

Incapacity Benefit 04.94 Billion

Job Seekers Allowance 04.91 Billion

Council Tax Benefit 04.83 Billion

Employment Support Allowance 03.58 Billion

Statutory Sick Pay +Maternity Pay 02.55 Billion

Social Fund 02.37 Billion

Carers Allowance 01.73 Billion

Financial Ass Scheme 01.24 Billion

seems like the pensioners (quite rightly) get the lions share of DWP's budget, shame the government is raising the age of retirement, almost every year now, so that most working people will not live long enough to enjoy theirs...


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Still doesn't mean they will accept our economic terrorists though!
> 
> My argument consists of nothing of the sort. You and pointersmum have argued that we have to allow the rich to get richer otherwise they will take their wealth away and this will adversely affect the lives and welfare of many, and may even bring about the downfall of the country. Therefore anyone who threatens to do so is holding the country to ransom -and that is no different from the way a terrorist acts. The minority who protest against the disbanding of the welfare state - call them a rabble if you want to be disdainful - are merely protesters. They are not threatening the country and its people.
> 
> ...


well you said it !!!!!!!!!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Pointermum said:


> well you said it !!!!!!!!!


Whoops - typing error! 

Tired because all of these long NHS shifts :lol:

Going back to alter it now


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Changes said:


> DWP total budget
> 
> 166.98 Billion
> 
> ...


Sorry if im not as bright as you guys! BUT the state pension you gonna do nothing about! but the council tax beniifit seem s high (can i have some please?) and also the DLA apart from that not of those figures seem excessive to me!
BUT does anyone know the amount of child alowance goning to the eastern europeaon counties per month for children not living here?? anyon?

its 19 million a month!


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

Well Spellweaver you must know a lot more nicer genuine people than me, 95% of the people who i know on benefit are young (well was) mothers who got pregnant knowing they would get a house and be looked after ..............i don't call them genuine claimants, i would call them scroungers , yet under government stats they would not !


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Pointermum said:


> Well Spellweaver you must know a lot more nicer genuine people than me, 95% of the people who i know on benefit are young (well was) mothers who got pregnant knowing they would get a house and be looked after ..............i don't call them genuine claimants, i would call them scroungers , yet under government stats they would not !


I'll agree on that one!

from the moment they enter fifth form thats their choosen career"


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Pointermum said:


> Well Spellweaver you must know a lot more nicer genuine people than me, 95% of the people who i know on benefit are young (well was) mothers who got pregnant knowing they would get a house and be looked after ..............i don't call them genuine claimants, i would call them scroungers , yet under government stats they would not !


Well, working in the area I do, about 95% of the people I know on benefit are people who have a mental illness or a learning disability - genuine cases one and all.


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

DT said:


> Sorry if im not as bright as you guys! BUT the state pension you gonna do nothing about! but the council tax beniifit seem s high (can i have some please?) and also the DLA apart from that not of those figures seem excessive to me!
> BUT does anyone know the amount of child alowance goning to the eastern europeaon counties per month for children not living here?? anyon?
> 
> its 19 million a month!


What did I write about the pensions?

The government are doing something about the pensions, they are increasing the age of entitlement, this means that a lot of people will die before they ever see a penny of their pension. Because this isn't a direct cut in pensions, so it can't be seen as an attack on those that have paid into via NI contributions no one is doing or saying anything about this.

The families from Eastern European families that are being paid child benefit have a parent that is living, working and paying tax here. That is quite an important piece of information missing from your post Sue.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Changes said:


> What did I write about the pensions?
> 
> The government are doing something about the pensions, they are increasing the age of entitlement, this means that a lot of people will die before they ever see a penny of their pension. Because this isn't a direct cut in pensions, so it can't be seen as an attack on those that have paid into via NI contributions.
> 
> The families from Eastern European families that are being paid child benefit have a parent that are living, working and paying tax here. That is quite an important piece of information missing from your post Sue.


Do you think I am disagreeing with you mel? because strangely am not!

Apart from the following that is!
And yes! correct the familes from the eastern europeon countries do have a parent working here! but they may only have been here a few months to qualify and thats not one child that could be numerous, and also they could be entitle to tax credit too, are you sayting they are putting more into the system then they are taking out? now what exactly am I missing mel?


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Well, working in the area I do, about 95% of the people I know on benefit are people who have a mental illness or a learning disability - genuine cases one and all.


thats me covered on two counts then


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

My God, what has this country come to? People arguing that it's ok for people to just have kids without any means to bring them up? 

Wow, I wish I had no morals and to be honest, this may offend those with conditions, but I wish I weren't able to function normally, it seems I'm peanlised for doing so!!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DT said:


> Sorry if im not as bright as you guys! BUT the state pension you gonna do nothing about! but the council tax beniifit seem s high (can i have some please?) and also the DLA apart from that not of those figures seem excessive to me!
> BUT does anyone know the amount of child alowance goning to the eastern europeaon counties per month for children not living here?? anyon?
> 
> its 19 million a month!


What worries me more is that if THAT bill is 19 million a month, how much is the whole child benefit bill for this country?

Do you have any figures, Mel?

Child benefit is paid to every parent in this country for every child uner 16, irrespective of wealth or status. Now this is an area where I think some cuts could and should be made. If ever a benefit needed means testing, this one does.


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> My God, what has this country come to? People arguing that it's ok for people to just have kids without any means to bring them up?


Who is arguing this point?


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Changes said:


> Who is arguing this point?


those of us who have to contribute maybe!


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> What worries me more is that if THAT bill is 19 million a month, how much is the whole child benefit bill for this country?
> 
> Do you have any figures, Mel?
> 
> Child benefit is paid to every parent in this country for every child uner 16, irrespective of wealth or status. Now this is an area where I think some cuts could and should be made. If ever a benefit needed means testing, this one does.


I will get the figures  there are already plans to stop child benefit being paid to families who earn more than £50k a year


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> My God, what has this country come to? People arguing that it's ok for people to just have kids without any means to bring them up?





DT said:


> those of us who have to contribute maybe!


So what you are saying is that "those of us who have to contribute" are arguing that it is ok for people to just have kids without any means to bring them up?

I think sleeping_lion has read a thread where people are arguing that it is ok for people to just have kids without any means to bring them up... I was asking who had said this or implied this, because I have been here for most of the evening and haven't seen a post that has even remotely made such a suggestion...


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> What worries me more is that if THAT bill is 19 million a month, how much is the whole child benefit bill for this country?
> 
> Do you have any figures, Mel?
> 
> Child benefit is paid to every parent in this country for every child uner 16, irrespective of wealth or status. Now this is an area where I think some cuts could and should be made. If ever a benefit needed means testing, this one does.





Changes said:


> I will get the figures  there are already plans to stop child benefit being paid to families who earn more than £50k a year


Where have you two been this came in in January


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Changes said:


> So what you are saying is that "those of us who have to contribute" are arguing that it is ok for people to just have kids without any means to bring them up?
> 
> I think sleeping_lion has read a thread where people are arguing that it is ok for people to just have kids without any means to bring them up... I was asking who had said this or implied this, because I have been here for most of the evening and haven't seen a post that has even remotely made such a suggestion...


No its not OK for peopleto just have kids and expect others to pay.
Think Ive lost it somehow if you have understood me to say otherwise!


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Changes said:


> I will get the figures  there are already plans to stop child benefit being paid to families who earn more than £50k a year


is this families whereby they have a joint income of 50k mel?
personally I think that CB should be abolished and put back onto the tax allowance as it was in the seventies


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Pointermum said:


> Where have you two been this came in in January


hang on!think this may be another proposal that changes referring to


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I've brought this up before, I remember being up on a hoist working on a bridge, seeing a couple of young girls coming the path under the bridge so asked the hoist operator to stop where I was. The conversation of the girls, I really liked that bungalow we just passed, I'd like to live somewhere like that one day. Well I'm going to get pregnant so I can get a house.

And that is not the only instance I've heard this argument, or do you want to deny it happens?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Pointermum said:


> Where have you two been this came in in January


If you mean the ridiculous system where a family with one wage earner can earn 49K before the child benefit is cut, but a family with two wage earners can earn 99K before the child benefit is cut, I don't call that means testing.

Seriously - a family earning 99K is eligible for benefits - now that IS a total waste of taxpayers' money. Why aren't people up in arms about that, rather than begrudging their hard earned taxes going to keep the roof over the head of some poor soul with no money?


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Well!
seeing as we have your attention!
HERE COMES THE BIGGEST LIE OF ALL
DAVID CAROMON HAS SAID HE WILL MAKE IT THAT EUROPEANS HAVE TO WAIT 2 YEARS FOR COUNCIL HOUSING, FOR A PERIOD BEFORE THEY CAN GET NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES AND SO IT GOES ON!
He cant legally do that as per EU ruling he needs 26 signatures to back him!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DT said:


> No its not OK for peopleto just have kids and expect others to pay.


But doesn't every family in the country who earns less than 49K? (or 99K with two wage earners) They all have child benefit - just because it's a socially aceptable benefit _at the present time_ (!) doesn't mean the fairies pay it - it comes from the taxpayer like every other benefit.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

And the biggest DREAM because thats all it is , is the referendum! because under the cons that will NEVER happen!
VOTE UKIP


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> But doesn't every family in the country who earns less than 49K? (or 99K with two wage earners) They all have child benefit - just because it's a socially aceptable benefit _at the present time_ (!) doesn't mean the fairies pay it - it comes from the taxpayer like every other benefit.


And where did that system of paying for their income come from?


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I've brought this up before, I remember being up on a hoist working on a bridge, seeing a couple of young girls coming the path under the bridge so asked the hoist operator to stop where I was. The conversation of the girls, I really liked that bungalow we just passed, I'd like to live somewhere like that one day. Well I'm going to get pregnant so I can get a house.
> 
> And that is not the only instance I've heard this argument, or do you want to deny it happens?


Just because you heard a conversation doesn't mean it came true :/


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Changes said:


> Just because you heard a conversation doesn't mean it came true :/


But it has, and it did! but whether it will continue to do so is anyones guess!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Changes said:


> Just because you heard a conversation doesn't mean it came true :/


Nah, because there's no girls out there, who get pregnant because they want housing benefit.

Good grief, I thought I lived in Narnia!!


----------



## broccoli (Jul 1, 2011)

Colliebarmy said:


> theres little stigma attached to claiming benefits, maybe there should be, like the kids having to have state-funded school meals...



schools are working very very hard to remove that stigma - its not the childs fault 
- and the 'youre so poor...' insults in school are horrific


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> And where did that system of paying for their income come from?


Well, if you go back to its very roots, the Family Allowance Act was introduced in Aug 1946 by the Labour Party - historically the only allowance paid directly to the mother so that the father did not have any control over it.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Changes said:


> Just because you heard a conversation doesn't mean it came true :/


So are you saying this has never happened Mel?


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Well, if you go back to its very roots, the Family Allowance Act was introduced in Aug 1946 by the Labour Party - historically the only allowance paid directly to the mother so that the father did not have any control over it.


but even then then still got the extra tax allowance


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

DT said:


> And the biggest DREAM because thats all it is , is the referendum! because under the cons that will NEVER happen!
> VOTE UKIP


The UKIP might say they aren't racist but take a good look at their immigration policy, one other country that took up the same ideals and closed its doors

North Korea...


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Nah, because there's no girls out there, who get pregnant because they want housing benefit.
> 
> Good grief, I thought I lived in Narnia!!


CAn you foward me a list of estate agents please
It sounds a nice place to live


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Changes said:


> The UKIP might say they aren't racist but take a good look at their immigration policy, one other country that took up the same ideals and closed its doors
> 
> North Korea...


Why exactly are UKIP racist mel?


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Changes said:


> The UKIP might say they aren't racist but take a good look at their immigration policy, one other country that took up the same ideals and closed its doors
> 
> North Korea...


No comparrision!


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

DT said:


> Why exactly are UKIP racist mel?


Read my post... Stop asking questions that have no relevance to anything I have posted!!!


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Changes said:


> Read my post... Stop asking questions that have no relevance to anything I have posted!!!


OK, so the thread has moved on, are we not allowed to ;spread out' so to speak!
perhaps you ought to rewrite the rules mel when it comes to debating!
cos sure as hell I think you have a set of your own!


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

DT said:


> OK, so the thread has moved on, are we not allowed to ;spread out' so to speak!
> perhaps you ought to rewrite the rules mel when it comes to debating!
> cos sure as hell I think you have a set of your own!


ah well,  as always it is really good debating with you Sue

Night lovely x x


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Changes said:


> ah well,  as always it is really good debating with you Sue
> 
> Night lovely x x


You too Mel xxx and I sincerley mean this xx


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Still doesn't mean they will accept our economic terrorists though!


If I thought you had personally seen the effects of terrorism I'd not feel offended that you use the the word terrorist so casually. I saw the effect it had on a policeman who had to attend Kings Cross on 7 July 2005 bombing attending a wedding with him on the following day. I also narrowly missed the Victoria station bombing in the early 90's. I'll ignore comparing people who may move to those who bombed the twin towers etc.

People don't have to threaten and I haven't heard them doing so. Maybe you'd prefer not to keep what you earn and be restricted in where you are able to move to. However facts speak louder than words. London used to have the title of world's finance capital. The Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) estimates that by 2015, London will have dropped to third. Bonuses within the city have already dropped substantially. £4.4bn in 2012 whereas it was 11.56bn in 2008. A major drop yet this was a major tax income source as well. If you look at the fact other locations around the world still pay higher bonuses, people will move. What's the effect... One economist estimated that government revenues from the City in the 2012 financial year was likely to be about £40bn compared with £70bn which it received in 2007/08. Changes posted some useful figures.. how much would that £30bn pay for... That's just for the financial square mile in London, including corporation tax, stamp duty and other city based taxes. It's not simply personal tax and demonstrates the potential ripple effect. Then you also have to consider other "rich people" not involved in this square mile. Let's pick an easy target.. what about movie stars, musicians etc? Yes let's push those people away, close down studios as films etc are made elsewhere. I wonder how much that would lose the government directly. We'll ignore the tourist angle, Braveheart for instance or Highlander couldn't have served as an advert for Scotland at all could it. Just like Lord of the Rings didn't boost New Zealand tourism.

I've never received financial bonuses and do consider the numbers involved ridiculous. However I recognize we live in a global economy. You cannot expect to take things away and retain people expecting them and their business to stay simply to be patriotic when standard of living is better elsewhere.



> Therefore anyone who threatens to do so is holding the country to ransom -and that is no different from the way a terrorist acts. The minority who protest against the disbanding of the welfare state - call them a rabble if you want to be disdainful - are merely protesters. They are not threatening the country and its people.


Once again you say people have threatened. Nobody is holding anybody to ransom that I know of. Some people are simply aware of reality. Maybe you feel we should simply prevent people from moving and restrict money transfers out of the country. You could argue that these protestors damage the image of the UK. You could also argue that they will vote with their hearts not with their heads and the next election. It's strange, I've never seen any politician from any party actually living on benefit.



> Erm - that was a comedy series, not a documentary! Ever heard of poetic license? No wonder your views are so skewed if you think a comedy series is real life - seriously, you need to get out more! The *facts *are that less than 1% of all claimants are not genuine, the rest are.


Once again you show your lack of ability to read and digest.. I said it was effective as people recognized the situation which made it more effective. As for it being comedy, you probably aren't aware just how unique British comedies are. The Full Monty is another excellent example which I do not see any other country being able to make with it's dark realism wrapped up in comedy. It's core story is incredibly sad.

Once again, People aren't complaining about those who genuinely need help. These people frequently, unfortunately, don't know how to use the system effectively and aren't informed. The older gentleman who's the breadwinner, made redundant and tries to support the family on just his benefit as one example. Personally I have never claimed benefits, despite being made redundant twice and admit I wouldn't have a clue where to start. I also doubt if I would be given information how to extract everything possible from the system. There are those who do know however and do play the system. These will not show up in your 1% but have an effective income in excess of some of those who work full time. How do you justify this?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

broccoli said:


> schools are working very very hard to remove that stigma - its not the childs fault
> - and the 'youre so poor...' insults in school are horrific


Agree 100% with this. When we were young, we'd go without rather than claim it. Not that I seem to remember school dinners being great. No cafeteria style when I was at school.

I also think school uniforms should be compulsory for the same reason despite the initial outlay necessary. Seem to remember financial aid was available to help purchase it, but not sure where it came from. Subject possibly for another thread.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I've brought this up before, I remember being up on a hoist working on a bridge, seeing a couple of young girls coming the path under the bridge so asked the hoist operator to stop where I was. The conversation of the girls, I really liked that bungalow we just passed, I'd like to live somewhere like that one day. Well I'm going to get pregnant so I can get a house.
> 
> And that is not the only instance I've heard this argument, or do you want to deny it happens?





Changes said:


> Just because you heard a conversation doesn't mean it came true :/


Its still widely believed but it certainly isn't true in my area - one of my nieces got pregnant very young, she was 15 he was 27 so can see who was to blame there  She had to wait 7 years for a council house.

In any event where does the fault lie, some daft young girl or the actual system that effectively says the more children you have the more money we will throw at you in bucket loads :001_unsure:


----------



## hippymama (Jul 26, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> Its still widely believed but it certainly isn't true in my area - one of my nieces got pregnant very young, she was 15 he was 27 so can see who was to blame there  She had to wait 7 years for a council house.
> 
> In any event where does the fault lie, some daft young girl or the actual system that effectively says the more children you have the more money we will throw at you in bucket loads :001_unsure:


I had my son at 17 with my partner who was 19 and we were homeless and they wouldn't find us anywhere to live , we ended up finding a private rent flat just in time but no its definatly not a case of getting pregnant gets you a house .... and I really don't understand how having a child can be a way to make money  any benefits we got were used to look after our child


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

do different areas have different rules? i know of someone who is 5 mths pregnant who has just moved into a private rented and getting £600 per month paid towards rent and no council tax to pay.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

hippymama said:


> I had my son at 17 with my partner who was 19 and we were homeless and they wouldn't find us anywhere to live , we ended up finding a private rent flat just in time but no its definatly not a case of getting pregnant gets you a house .... and I really don't understand how having a child can be a way to make money  any benefits we got were used to look after our child


That is more the reality but unfortunately everyone seems to believe you will have received more money than anyone who works. I know someone with a 4year old child she was in a private rental, her bloke got arrested and sent to prison (she was unaware of what he had been up to, dealing apparently). Landlord evicted her and child - actually admitted she was a good tenant and really wanted to rent to a family member so using it as an excuse. The housing officer actually said "and what exactly is it you expect us to do for you"


----------



## sharloid (Apr 15, 2012)

I don't think that the majority of benefit claimers are scroungers, but you have to admit that there are some people who get stupid amounts of money given to them. It seems that it is possible for a minority of people on benefits to claim more money than they'd get if they were working and that's just not fair.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> If I thought you had personally seen the effects of terrorism I'd not feel offended that you use the the word terrorist so casually.


How unutterably patronising of you to suppose that I use the word casually, or that I could not possibly have seen the effects of terrorism. A work colleague's (who was also a good friend) son died at King's Cross. I was there with her when the news broke, when she was frantic to try to get in touch, when she received the bad news, when she and the rest of her family tried to piece their life together afterwards. I've seen the effects - and the after-effects (ie how it affects the whole family) first hand. This is real life, not "I saw how it affected a policeman at a wedding" or "I saw it on a comedy program on TV". Stuff that into your patronising theories.

As for the rest of your post- I am too offended by this part of it to even read the rest of your - presumably - equally patronising rubbish.

It's about time you stopped assuming things about me and started responding to what I write rather than what you make up in your in your mind.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

dexter said:


> do different areas have different rules? i know of someone who is 5 mths pregnant who has just moved into a private rented and getting £600 per month paid towards rent and no council tax to pay.


In the old days, when I lived in a seaside resort, it used to be if they couldn't find accomodation, they would put you in a hotel and pay the bill. Several hotels never took any real guests. Not sure how it works now.



Spellweaver said:


> How unutterably patronising of you to suppose that I use the word casually, or that I could not possibly have seen the effects of terrorism.


So why use the word so casually? Having seen the impact you should appreciate terrorism contains the word "terror" for a reason having seen the effect. How does it equate to people exercising their legal right to move about freely? Justify your reasoning for applying such a label.

Oh wait you you tried. Just because people try to influence others they are terrorists because they can prevent what they earn being taken away from them. Oh wait, they can try to influence the government. How is this any different from the government giving incentives to open a new factory, boosting jobs and a local economy? According to your definition this is submitting to terrorism. Interesting.


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

What can I say 

This thread is still open, usually my threads get locked on page 5 

WIN!!!


----------



## mollydog07 (May 26, 2012)

Having been in a position of claiming benefits and working.i can assure anyone i personally never had it easy....on the benefits i had approx £30 a week for food and all other outgoings(fuel was deducted at source) most people on benefits dont live the high life but struggle,my money paid on a monday ran out friday,my children would ask for 10p(it was the 80,s) for the never ending ice cream van,it broke my heart to say no.ids and gideon need to re-enter earth,deluded,insensitive.ignorant men.


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

Interesting

Last Monday, 660,000 people in the UK will be charged a bedroom tax, on the same day hundreds of millionaires working in Britain's banks will save an average of almost £54,000 because the top rate of tax was cut this weekend

The changes mean that 643 bankers, each earning more than £1m, get a combined tax cut worth at least £34.6m..

While the Bedroom tax new policy means tenants who get housing benefit will have their rent allowance cut by an average of £16 a week if they are deemed to have a spare bedroom that is not in use.

There have been reported across the board that there are too few one and two-bedroom properties available for rent, this will mean thousands of people who already struggle to get by will have to find a way to make up the shortfall  or end up in arrears and face being forced from their homes.

However

While the average family, not just the unemployed but also people on a low wage, will be £891 worse off this year because of tax and benefit changes 13,000 millionaires get a tax cut

The government is clawing back £9,24000 in bedroom tax and is giving £34.6m to the richest people in this country, if we have £34.6 million to give to the bankers, who lost £500 billion (nearly the same as our National Budget) why do they need to take £9,24000 from the poorest people, 

just so we are clear it isn't just people that are not working that claim housing benefit...


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Changes said:


> Interesting
> 
> Last Monday, 660,000 people in the UK will be charged a bedroom tax, on the same day hundreds of millionaires working in Britain's banks will save an average of almost £54,000 because the top rate of tax was cut this weekend
> 
> ...


Because they can?

And they can because they not only have the support of the richest people in the country, but also the support of those who are not so rich but are so worried about the fact that their hard earned taxes just might be going to fund someone who does not work that they are blinded to the bigger picture.

No surprise about the support of the richest (after all, they're the ones getting richer) - but I still for he life of me can't understand how the less rich can be so blinkered that they focus on "must stop people getting benefits" and yet let a scheme where the rich put even less into the coffers go by unremarked.

The country is in dire straits - shouldn't those with the wealth be contributing more taxes, not less?


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Because they can?
> 
> And they can because they not only have the support of the richest people in the country, but also the support of those who are not so rich but are so worried about the fact that their hard earned taxes just might be going to fund someone who does not work that they are blinded to the bigger picture.
> 
> ...


I can't rep you again, yet x

The less rich are blinkered because the national papers are owned by the very people that benefit from the tax cuts, if you wanted to get away with something so damning to so many, how would you do it... Oh yes lets write stories blaming the poorest for the state of the economy lets call those people "scroungers who claim benefits" lets make people who live in social housing and have an extra bedroom sound like they live in luxury at the expense of YOU the tax payers, lets make those stories sensational, lets make it so that these stories generate a hatred for the poorest people and that will get everyone talking,

Then while the less rich are focusing on hating the poorest people we the rich can do what we like, pay ourselves massive bonuses, steal pension fund money, lose 500 Billion to dodgy investment have two homes and pay less tax...


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Changes said:


> I can't rep you again, yet x
> 
> The less rich are blinkered because the national papers are owned by the very people that benefit from the tax cuts, if you wanted to get away with something so damning to so many, how would you do it... Oh yes lets write stories blaming the poorest for the state of the economy lets call those people "scroungers who claim benefits" lets make people who live in social housing and have an extra bedroom sound like they live in luxury at the expense of YOU the tax payers, lets make those stories sensational, lets make it so that these stories generate a hatred for the poorest people and that will get everyone talking,
> 
> Then while the less rich are focusing on hating the poorest people we the rich can do what we like, pay ourselves massive bonuses, steal pension fund money, lose 500 Billion to dodgy investment have two homes and pay less tax...


Absolutely spot on. And the funniest thing is that whilst the less rich are focusing on hating the poorest, they do not realise just how they are being manipulated into doing so - or it would be funny if it did not have such dire consequences. Perhaps I should alter that to "the saddest thing".


----------



## noogsy (Aug 20, 2009)

I think we should all fight to save the benifits system 
Because it does look after the people who need help.
I also think there should be a time limit of claiming


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

It was set up to help people in need, i havnt got a problem with that at all, but i would be thinking when 2/3 generations, able bodied have claimed all their lives...................that something isnt right.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Because they can?
> 
> And they can because they not only have the support of the richest people in the country, but also the support of those who are not so rich but are so worried about the fact that their hard earned taxes just might be going to fund someone who does not work that they are blinded to the bigger picture.


Yet the current government actually taxes these "rich people" more than they were taxed by labor, even when they reduce the amount to 45p down from 50p Of course this isn't mentioned by the bluster from the labour party fanatics of course. Too busy jumping on the propaganda bandwagon. Its also useful to ignore the very fact that it's not just standard tax. Many people towards the lower end of the pay scale are going to be better off due to income tax changes but don't see that entering the discussion either. It's just the rich vs poor, those who already give vs those who take.



> The country is in dire straits - shouldn't those with the wealth be contributing more taxes, not less?


Put your money where your mouth is. Why don't you give up 50% of your wages. I'm sure many of those saying tax the "rich" are richer than some in welfare. Doesn't this make them "rich" themselves.

Slight change in direction... Interesting article in the mail, despite it's reputation...
The Great Welfare Myth: The chattering classes are peddling a poisonous myth - that the poor cannot survive without the soul- deadening embrace of welfarism | Mail Online


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Slight change in direction... Interesting article in the mail, despite it's reputation...
> The Great Welfare Myth: The chattering classes are peddling a poisonous myth - that the poor cannot survive without the soul- deadening embrace of welfarism | Mail Online


Of course Paul Darce on his £37,000 salary will publish stories like that,

I am sure that the poorest people are welcoming the cuts to their benefits, because that will give them the motivation they need to find a full time position

These are the positions in my local area that are being advertised

Jobs in Llanrwst | Llanrwst Vacancies | JobsWales

Within 10 miles, there were a few 20 miles from the town, that would mean £6 bus fare there and back = £12 a day (no return tickets here) saver ticket is £9

Weekly calculation based on full time employment on minimum wage
£45 travel 
£95 Rent
£35 Utilities
£19 Council Tax

Minimum wage (for a person under 21

£4.98

£199 for 40 hours

That leaves £10 a week for food

I forgot to mention that Paul Darce's salary of £37,000 was also calculated weekly
his annual salary is £1,75 million


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

So, just because someone else publishes stories written by someone else it's false? Doesn't he also publish stories such as 'Axe the bedroom tax!': Thousands of protesters join demonstrations against cut in benefits | Mail Online or do these not count either? Do you want a paper to publish just the stories that match what you want them to?

I don't know anything about Llanrwst however when looking at slightly further you would surely look for jobs above the minimum wage and take travel into consideration. Seems like common sense to me. For the last job I had in the UK I used to travel around 100 miles by car of which quite a bit was on the M25. Many people in Kent travel from Faversham to London by train and a lot of their pay goes to travel so they can work. Train fares go up every year, pay rises at the moment are frequently frozen. Commuting for a suitable job is frequently necessary and yes public transport is a major pain but moving is always another option, especially if young without family dependents. Easy no, scary yes but possible. Getting a job however, even if it's difficult at first can lead to the ability to get a car and open up more possibilities. I started with a job earning a grand total of 4K a year in the 1980's. When I left that that company several years later I was earning three times that. Not every company allows for that sort of advancement but it's always a case of using the opportunities available.

For some it's not possible due to illness for example. I totally agree the "welfare state" needs to be able to help them. Those who can help themselves however should do so rather than simply complain as they have limited their own options.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Changes said:


> I can't rep you again, yet x
> 
> The less rich are blinkered because the national papers are owned by the very people that benefit from the tax cuts, if you wanted to get away with something so damning to so many, how would you do it... Oh yes lets write stories blaming the poorest for the state of the economy lets call those people "scroungers who claim benefits" lets make people who live in social housing and have an extra bedroom sound like they live in luxury at the expense of YOU the tax payers, lets make those stories sensational, lets make it so that these stories generate a hatred for the poorest people and that will get everyone talking,
> 
> Then while the less rich are focusing on hating the poorest people we the rich can do what we like, pay ourselves massive bonuses, steal pension fund money, lose 500 Billion to dodgy investment have two homes and pay less tax...


hit the nail on the head.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

I have to say I am fed up with hearing people saying 'the "less rich" are blinkered, the "less rich" believe everything written in the papers, and now they think every benefit claimant is a scrounger'.

Who exactly are the "less rich"?

I am less rich than some people, and more rich than others, which I imagine applies to most people.

I think most people are happy we have a benefits system. A system in place to help vulnerable members of our society. A system that is there to help when people fall on hard times, and a system that is there to make sure you have a roof over your head and food in your stomach.

IMO, what most people object to, is the people that make the benefit system a career choice. The ones that never have any intention of working. The ones that churn out child after child, because they know they dont have to be financially responsible for them. The ones that expect other people to pay for their wellbeing. The ones like the Philpotts.

Bedroom tax. 

1st Scenario: A career choice benefit claimant was awarded a 6 bedroomed house as they had so many children. The children have now left home, and this same claimant still has their 6 bedroom house. Now they are claiming DLA for depression or whatever - there will be some reason why they don't think they should have to work.

Its those people that should pay a 'bedroom tax'.

2nd Scenario: LA tennant. Has a two bedroom house. Now retired, and entitled to HB. Child is in the military. On paper, has a spare bedroom - except when the child fighting for our country is home on leave.

Those people shouldn't pay a bedroom tax.

They are obviously two very simplistic examples. There will be a million other examples in between.

What I am trying to say is, the majority of people aren't stupid. We don't believe all the crap in the newspapers, we do realise that they only print the very extreme cases and try to make us think that all benefit claimants are of the Philpotts ilk.

What most people object to, is the Philpotts of this country, taking the p!ss out of the people that work to give them what they have been given.

No-one wants to see people that really need help, not receive that help, or be penalised.

Obviously this is just my opinion


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Tories will always look after the rich, its what they have always done. Makes me laugh when lower paid folk say they vote Tory because they don't like the opposition leader - just shows they don't understand the various parties and what they stand for. If you're in the lower wage bracket then voting Tory is madness as well as very misguided. 

Lowering taxes for the rich creates a deficit which has to be found elsewhere, take it from the poorest members of our society with bedroom tax and benefit capping - yep that sounds about right! 
I wrote to my Tory MP saying how distasteful this was, I asked him who would pay removal fees for those on benefits who would now have to down grade, who would replace carpets and curtains which would have to be bought in order for the families forced to move to live in decent surroundings. Who would take on the family dog/s if they couldn't take them. Who would pay their bedroom tax while the Council/housing association found them another home, which could take months. Who would pick up the pieces of families put under extreme stress caused by these changes. Who caused this shortfall in housing when in just one year 250,000 people have been allowed to settle here from europe alone. Who allowed Mr Asylum seeker to claim benefits from three houses - one of which he actually owned. Who isnt doing their job properly to allow this to happen - not once but on numerous occasions. Who actually thought this idea of social cleansing would benefit the electorate that voted them in. 
I got a reply from the House of Commons, none of those questions were answered, he just went on about it being fair that children should share a bedroom and make it easier for others to find housing and seemed to feel 'proud' that these changes would not affect pensioners - too bloody right it shouldn't affect pensioners, they are vulnerable just the same as children are but it's going to affect them!

We now have food banks in the UK - how bloody shameful is that? Food banks are what we help to supply third world countries with and here we are in civilised, prosperous Western Europe with food banks for our poor - utterly utterly disgraceful, while the very MP's who are to blame claim thousands of pounds from our taxes in order to have a second home, alongside their milloinaires mansion so as they can be near the House of Commons! Stuffing their greedy fat faces with foie gras while children are having to go to 'breakfast clubs' because their parents can't afford to feed them properly. 

This government is creating a prejudice against benefit claimants which is so very wrong when the majority are genuine, worked all their lives and made redundant in areas where there is no work or incapacitated and medically unfit to work the long hours required in order to actually afford to live. Not only is all of the above an insult to our people but now benefit claimants could possibly be potentional murderers/arsonists because of one fathers revolting actions! Ten families in the UK have large families supported by benefits (Left Foot Forward - Sky News) its not the norm for people like Phillpot to be claiming benefits and anyone who thinks its a great life either has never been on benefits or are believing the propaganda spouted by these misleading representatives of our Country. My friend who gets incapacity benefit got a rise the other week - she got £2 a fortnight - £2!!! Not even enough to run her gas for one day but she could by two loaves of bread and spread that over the two weeks if she's frugal! An insult to say the least!

As for the riches tax being higher than when under Labour - its called inflation and we ALL pay more as the years go by BUT the lower paid don't get the bonus' the higher paid get, they don't get the lifestyle the higher paid get and hey don't get to decide how much pay rise they will give themselves - unlike our wonderful MP's - the thieving b*stards that they are!!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Put your money where your mouth is. Why don't you give up 50% of your wages.


In effect I'm already doing this. Because of my beliefs I work for the NHS for less than half of the wage I could get in the private sector (and have done so since 1974) - and with not even a cost of living rise for five years to boot. As I've said to you already on this thread, some of us live according to our beliefs. We are not all keyboard warriors who live in an airy-fairy land where we naively believe TV comedy shows and the Daily Wail tell it how it really is.


----------



## Skandi (May 4, 2012)

I don't see why people who are living off the state should get extra space for free, but equally those who have it due to no fault of their own, i.e that was the property they were given shouldn't have to pay extra for it BUT they should have to move into a smaller property as soon as it becomes avaliable.

I have lived on benifits before myself for 2 years, it's not much fun but tbh it's not impossible what was stupid was that I couldn't take a job becasue I would have lost my counciltax/housing benifit etc which would have made me worse off than before! 

And I have no sympathy for people who say there are no jobs in your area, well commute or move, simple, becasue if there are no jobs where you are now, in all likelyhood there will NEVER be any jobs there. now I know that moving is expencive especialy if you have to find a deposit. However living on the dole because you can't be bothered to try different things should be a hanging offence.

Peolple on disability, supporting children or on other permanent benifits are slightly different, there I think every case should be looked at seperatly, I know that in my home village there are only 6 council properties and all have 3 beds. I would not want to move a disabled person from their family but equally I do not see why they need 3 beds, I would probably make them share, after all I have had to share all my adult life as an entire house is too expencive! 


However I do believe that this argument is not so much a cause as a symptom of a larger problem, and that is the housing market being (even after Years of dropping way to high) I have not noticed rents coming down at all certainly not in Aberdeen where a 1bed flat will cost you more than minimum wage JUST to rent. of course you can share, and everyone I know does, becasue there's simply no choice, a living room is a luxury never mind a spare bed room.

People are also not prepared to change what they have always done, if a bus ticket to go 10 miles is £12 a day (which I can believe) then get a free bike and use that. 0 cost per day and unless that bus goes bloody faster than the ones I am used to it won't even take much longer, I have only used a bike to get to a job 5 miles away myself but my uncle used one right up to his retirement to get to one 12miles away! yes you get soaked on occasion but that's what a change of clothes is for. 

The thing about work is that it leads to better work/more pay whether that internal training/promotion or just a good referance, dole leads nowhere.

and you know what a last parting shot to annoy the FK out of some of you, I've just moved to Denmark, my OH is on permanent disability allowance, which when converted into £ works out at £1118 a month after tax plus a £181 rent allowance (his rent is 454 though) 
However everyone pays huge taxes nearly 50% to pay for such expenditure. so be carefull what you wish for!


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

Goblin said:


> So, just because someone else publishes stories written by someone else it's false?


Really, that doesn't sound like a question to me, even though you have punctuated it with a question mark...

My post didn't say anything about his stories being false, I said



> *Of course Paul Darce on his £37,000 salary will publish stories like that,*






Goblin said:


> Doesn't he also publish stories such as 'Axe the bedroom tax!': Thousands of protesters join demonstrations against cut in benefits | Mail Online or do these not count either?





> Do you want a paper to publish just the stories that match what you want them to?


Why are you asking me what I want from a National News Paper? I have no control over the stories they print



> I don't know anything about Llanrwst


This is an excellent point



> however when looking at slightly further you would surely look for jobs above the minimum wage and take travel into consideration.


Llanrwst - unemployed 3,006 85 5.4%
Part/unskilled 809 35.3%

809 people in my area do not have the training or qualifications to get a job for more than minimum wage

Retraining means college, but they are not allowed to do more than 15 hours a week or their JSA will be stopped, a full time course might pay EMA, this is only for the youngest 16 -18 and is £35 a week



> Seems like common sense to me. For the last job I had in the UK I used to travel around 100 miles by car of which quite a bit was on the M25. Many people in Kent travel from Faversham to London by train and a lot of their pay goes to travel so they can work. Train fares go up every year, pay rises at the moment are frequently frozen. Commuting for a suitable job is frequently necessary and yes public transport is a major pain but moving is always another option, especially if young without family dependents. Easy no, scary yes but possible. Getting a job however, even if it's difficult at first can lead to the ability to get a car and open up more possibilities. I started with a job earning a grand total of 4K a year in the 1980's. When I left that that company several years later I was earning three times that. Not every company allows for that sort of advancement but it's always a case of using the opportunities available.
> 
> For some it's not possible due to illness for example. I totally agree the "welfare state" needs to be able to help them. Those who can help themselves however should do so rather than simply complain as they have limited their own options.


The people in my area have to pay £9 out of their JSA to get a bus so that they can sign on, the Job Centre was closed down here...

Did I mention Paul Darce is paid £37,000 a week salary?


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

Skandi said:


> I don't see why people who are living off the state should get extra space for free, but equally those who have it due to no fault of their own, i.e that was the property they were given shouldn't have to pay extra for it BUT they should have to move into a smaller property as soon as it becomes avaliable.
> 
> I have lived on benifits before myself for 2 years, it's not much fun but tbh it's not impossible what was stupid was that I couldn't take a job becasue I would have lost my counciltax/housing benifit etc which would have made me worse off than before!
> 
> ...


Nothing you have, ever, said has annoyed me...


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Llanrwst - unemployed 3,006 85 5.4%
Part/unskilled 809 35.3%

theres only the aluminium plant and crawley transport......and a few tea rooms

oh, and there was the runway sweeper factory long time ago


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

Colliebarmy said:


> Llanrwst - unemployed 3,006 85 5.4%
> Part/unskilled 809 35.3%
> 
> theres only the aluminium plant and crawley transport......and a few tea rooms
> ...


Do you mean the Aluminium factory in Dolgarog that closed in late 2007, and was demolished in 2009?


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

Another thread seems to have been started because no one has had the chance to deal with this until now. I will reopen this one but please debate this without the resort to personal remarks if you don't happen to agree on the subject.


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

lymorelynn said:


> Another thread seems to have been started because no one has had the chance to deal with this until now. I will reopen this one but please debate this without the resort to personal remarks if you don't happen to agree on the subject.


Thank you


----------



## Rottsmum (Aug 26, 2011)

I haven't read the whole thread - I can't be bothered with the whining TBH but personally I welcome the "bedroom tax" with open arms. Something needs to be done and i'm sick to death of the "right for life" to a council property type attitude. 

There are millions of families through no fault of their own crammed into shitty one room bedsits while someone else sits alone in a 3 bed house. The welfare system has been abused for decades. It should be there at the point of need for people but it's not - due to the thousands who think it's their right to sit in a house that's way too big for their needs and i'm not talking about immigrants here, it's the good old British 

And before you all jump up and flame me ( not that I care if you do) I have been in that position. I have been homeless, I have been a single parent with a baby who had not a hope of getting a council property without going down the louse ridden bedsit route so I rented privately, a place that was far smaller than my needs because that was WHAT THEY WOULD PAY FOR! I had help from housing benefit initially and even then they didn't cover the whole rent, I had to get a job to make up the shortfall. If it's that way in the private sector, why shouldn't it be in the social housing sector?? 

I am happy to say that the benefits scenario lasted 4 months and I have worked ever since, I now own my home, but the point being is social housing is just that - it doesn't belong to you, it is not your home and if it is under occupied then it should be reallocated to somebody who really needs it. Don't really get why people don't understand this??? 

Private sector tenants have to pay extra if they choose to rent a house that is bigger than their needs and they claim HB - whether or not they are on benefits, so I really don't see why it should be different for people in social housing.


----------



## MaryBellll (Apr 8, 2013)

Colliebarmy said:


> them who have to lose some HB will have to cut back on beer, ****, whaccy baccy and the sky package


Not everyone on benefits can afford all of the above. 

I am a single adult living alone (no children), and at the moment unemployed so on JSA. I am on £71 per week,THAT IS IT! My rent was paid in full, but now due to the Bedroom tax I have to pay £14.75 per week to my rent, as I have a spare box room.

Now.... I already struggle to pay my electric, gas, council tax (water and sewage), TV Licence, Home contents, phone/interenet (need this to find jobs, or I would cut it) bill, oh and of course FOOD. Also my cat's food and litter.

I do not smoke, drink, or have Sky TV!!!! I could not afford it.

Those who think all people on benefits are well off, you need to stop reading sensationalist headlines, and educate yourself on the FACTS!

I pray I get a job soon, because the bedroom tax of £14.75 per week is my food money, after paying all my bills. I am going to have to starve, or lose the roof over my head. That is the stark reality for most unemployed people in the UK.


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

When the cuts were announced in Parliament the members of the Conservative and Liberal Democrats cheered and laughed 

This is a snippet from a report in The Guardian 

Guardian "They cheered, they guffawed, they mocked. Picture the scene, and don't forget it as the next two and a half years of Cameron's Britain drag on: a smug pack of over-paid Tory MPs  some worth millions  sniggering as they prepared to slash the incomes of Britain's already struggling poor. Labour's Lisa Nandy and Ian Mearns pleaded with them in the Chamber, vainly, to stop laughing. Not since 1931 has a Government attempted to deliberately, consciously reduce the incomes of the poor. Oh, the hilarity."

Make no mistake the cuts are happening because the Bankers lost billions on the stock exchange doing dodgy deals, we bailed them out to the tune of 500 billion, the tax payer (that is us) are paying that money back, this means we are now in debt, who is paying back the debt - we are, the people responsible for losing the money they were punished with a 25 million pound pension and a bit of a fine...


----------

