IDS to live on £53 per week

#3
I had to piss on you parade but mosy students I know live on £50 a week. It's not that hard really is it.

Bennet has his rent paid for him.

David Bennett, who is in his 50s, is given housing benefit to help him with accommodation costs but said he only has £53 to live on after that.
 
M

Mitch500

Guest
#4
You probably could live on that if you are in rent free, social housing, not paying council tax. Seldom are these people on a single benefit. No it wouldn't be the lap of luxury but I for one resent paying a fortune in tax for some idle toad to watch Sky TV, smoke, visit the pub more often than I can afford to and generally sponge off the rest of us. There are jobs out there but often it is beneath the claimants dignity to take it (shelf stacking, Maccie Ds, menial work that most of us have done.)

It's about time benefits were scaled back to be just the safety net they were intended to be. And no I am not unsympathetic to the genuinely needy.

Rant over
 
#5
£53 a Week to cover

Heating
Lighting
Food
Council Tax
Transport Costs

I really dont think we are talking Plasma TV, Sky and every night in the Pub!!!!!!
 
#6
IDS is a resourceful chap, he'd have the wife out on the rob within ten days.
 
#7
£53 a Week to cover

Heating
Lighting
Food
Council Tax
Transport Costs

I really dont think we are talking Plasma TV, Sky and every night in the Pub!!!!!!
So? Why should I subsidise anything other than 'existence'? If they want more than £53 a week, get their idle arses out of the door and get a job. Welfare is there as a safety net, but has become a lifestyle choice. I pay a **** of a lot of tax to keep the workshy at home.
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
#9
£53 a Week to cover

Heating
Lighting
Food
Council Tax
Transport Costs ??????

I really dont think we are talking Plasma TV, Sky and every night in the Pub!!!!!!
Don't those on benefits get free travel to help them get to job interviews?
 
#10
If you listen to the Radio 4 interview I linked, it's 11 mins long, the presenter points out that the poorest people in Britain are often working.
 
#11
If you listen to the Radio 4 interview I linked, it's 11 mins long, the presenter points out that the poorest people in Britain are often working.
Again, though, why should I subsidise their lifestyle if they cannot get a job to earn enough to indulge their selected lifestyle? Why do so many poor people have children that they cannot afford? It isn't a human right to reproduce at someone else's expense. If their human worth is insufficient to fund nights out in the pub, sky TV, XBox etc, then they should cut their coats accordingly. If they wish to, they can become economic migrants to somewhere else.
 
M

Mitch500

Guest
#12
£53 a Week to cover

Heating
Lighting
Food
Council Tax
Transport Costs

I really dont think we are talking Plasma TV, Sky and every night in the Pub!!!!!!
I don't think that claimants have all these outgoings. There are some months I'd be delighted to have 50 quid a week after necessary expenditure. As I said they are rarely in receipt of only a single benefit; which , to my mind, is the root cause of the problem.
 
#13
If you listen to the Radio 4 interview I linked, it's 11 mins long, the presenter points out that the poorest people in Britain are often working.
They all had the same opportunity, that they decided to not take advantage of it is their lookout. Why should I be taxed to the hilt to fund their chosen lifestyle?
 
#14
I know a chap on Welfare , He was made redundant then just 2 weeks before starting a new job was in a horrific Motorcycle accident. He privatly rents a 2 up 2 down terraced house as he had his kids from his marriage stop over. He desperatly wants to work , but in this stage of his recouperation he is physically unable to. His legs are held together by meccanno & he still suffers periods where he just zones out & hasnt a scooby where or what hes doing. He dont smoke , cant really drink because of his meds. He owns no car or bike as his licsense was suspended due to his brain injury. Yes he gets HB & JSA & help with his CT but was refused DLA as his injury was not concidered a bar to employment. Hes no shirker & just gets on with life. He goes to interveiws knowing damn well he,ll get the thanks but no thanks letter , but does genuinly hope he gets work as in his own words he is " climbing the ****ing walls here". I always thought life on welfare was a golden ticket but after speaking to him it has changed my mind. Anyone who thinks its an easy ride is very much mistaken. Yeah there are twats who milk it & they are the ones who grab the attention couretesy of the Daily Mail et all. This new HB law wont really affect him as hes been a tennant to his landlord for over 10 yrs & he has told him not to worry about the cut in HB as he values him as a good tennant. The house is paid for & is just gravy to the landlord these days. Very lucky man as he rekoned it would be a fuckin struggle to find the extra & even to move. YES there is a culture on welfare that needs reigning in but anyone who thinks its cushy would do no harm but to spend an hour with this guy. He told me this afternoon.. he,d even put IDS up if he wants to try it.
 
#15
I don't think that claimants have all these outgoings. There are some months I'd be delighted to have 50 quid a week after necessary expenditure. As I said they are rarely in receipt of only a single benefit; which , to my mind, is the root cause of the problem.
And if you have £53 to cover said expenditure?

Food, electricity/gas bill, water bill?
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#16
if they want to help the proper unemployed then they should look at automatic suspension of repayments to card companies etc..

if I claim and receive JSA it would be enough to cover my credit card bills and nothing else. also housing benefit only works if you don't live in your own house.

if they came up with a package to freeze debt and mortgage repayments and cover council tax for 6 months to a year then its quite easy to live on 53 quid a week for a while although JSA is 71 IIRC.
 
#17
I know a chap on Welfare , He was made redundant then just 2 weeks before starting a new job was in a horrific Motorcycle accident.
Yes, but not a typical example and should not be used to obscure the huge number of people who are able to work, and haven't had an horrific motorcycle accident. I am sure he will struggle, and perhaps his assessment regarding invalidity is unfair - he should appeal. I have no gripe with providing a safety-net for those who find themselves in this situation. What I do object to is being seen by successive Governments as a cash-cow to subsidise the lazy or the useless.

I'd like a better lifestyle than I have now. I would like a better car, and a nicer house. However, I don't earn enough, so I make do with what I have got. Some will say 'yeah, but you've got a car and a house, so it isn't the same thing'. Well, yes it is...having Sky TV, and Xbox, a holiday in Spain, 200 fags a week, nights in the pub etc are none of them 'necessities', they are optional lifestyle choices that some people cannot afford...so they should not expect me to pay for them to have them.
 
#19
So? Why should I subsidise anything other than 'existence'? If they want more than £53 a week, get their idle arses out of the door and get a job. Welfare is there as a safety net, but has become a lifestyle choice. I pay a **** of a lot of tax to keep the workshy at home.
Actually you don't, the Department For Work and Pensions takes about a fifth of the UK budget about GBP 170 billion. The biggest and fastest growing ticket item in this pot by far is pensions, coming up behind that is disability and increasingly benefits aimed at subsidizing employers paying low wages. Job Seekers Allowance is about 3% of this budget, it's one of the lowest rates in europe if you factor in cost of living.

The other big cost is the NHS, a service thats main customers are those in the last six months at life.

The elderly who often cannot support themselves in more than 8 years of their long retirements are the main problem for public spending in the UK. But old folk vastly outnumber the longterm unemployed and vote reliably and there still a popular feeling that they still have a right to these expected entitlements. All this talk about skivers on the bru is just a smokescreen for the political cowardice of all the parties.
 
#20
I agree with only the bare necessaries in life for the unemployed, it should be under the minimum wage per year, but what would happen to the economy, pubs, electrical goods store's, cigarette companies (don't really care about these), sky. If the wasters amongst them suddenly got the sharp shock ?
 

Similar threads

Top