Could you?

[Flynn]

Live on £53 a week - as multi-millionaire Iain Duncan Smith claims he could? He's called a petition (https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week) - signed by over 450,000 people calling for him to prove it and live on £53 a week himself - a 'stunt'. This from a man who submitted an expenses claim for a £39 breakfast (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/iain-duncan-smith-claimed-breakfast-1810086).

After rent, that £53 has to cover food, toiletries, clothing, fares, gas, electricity, and some kind of phone.


I don't think I could, and neither do 70% of voters (http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/04/04/53-week-no-way/).

[sids]

We can look out for mass deaths, then.

Shame.

[starfish]

and that is to incluude bedroom tax if you are in a house with extra bedroom but the local councils do not have smaller houses to put you in while we pay for the extra bedrooms in their mansions and extra houses they claim for

[sids]

and that is to incluude bedroom tax if you are in a house with extra bedroom but the local councils do not have smaller houses to put you in while we pay for the extra bedrooms in their mansions and extra houses they claim for

Do all the local councillors live in mansions?

I don't understand the economics of unemployed people paying for other people's mansion bedrooms. Where do the unemployed get the money from?

[starfish]

i am not unemployed so i do pay for peoples extra bedroom what i was getting at was that some people that are on benifits for one reason or other have to pay bedroom tax but can not down size as the councils have no available smaller houses and yes most councillors live in bigger houses than they neednot all but a lot like ian duncan smith his self

[M Swanson]

Live on £53 a week - as multi-millionaire Iain Duncan Smith claims he could? He's called a petition (https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week) - signed by over 450,000 people calling for him to prove it and live on £53 a week himself - a 'stunt'. This from a man who submitted an expenses claim for a £39 breakfast (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/iain-duncan-smith-claimed-breakfast-1810086).

After rent, that £53 has to cover food, toiletries, clothing, fares, gas, electricity, and some kind of phone.


I don't think I could, and neither do 70% of voters (http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/04/04/53-week-no-way/).

Course it's possible Flynn and I'm the living proof, yet not just me! :cool: I wonder how many of nearly 3 MILLION economically inactive signed the petition? I mean, most would, wouldn't they? IDS has nothing to prove to me. I'm just glad that he's in full-time employment and paying megga bucks into the coffers to help provide a liveable wage to those who aren't. After all, something has to be done, before there's not enough workers to bankroll the unemployed and good on him for meeting the problem head-on. Somebody has to clear up the mess left by Labour, surely!

You may like to check out another thread dedicated to this issue ........ you know the one. :D

[Flynn]

Course it's possible Flynn and I'm the living proof, yet not just me! :cool: I wonder how many of nearly 3 MILLION economically inactive signed the petition? I mean, most would, wouldn't they? IDS has nothing to prove to me. I'm just glad that he's in full-time employment and paying megga bucks into the coffers to help provide a liveable wage to those who aren't. After all, something has to be done, before there's not enough workers to bankroll the unemployed and good on him for meeting the problem head-on. Somebody has to clear up the mess left by Labour, surely!

You may like to check out another thread dedicated to this issue ........ you know the one. :D

So you are claiming you can survive on £53 a week after rent? That £53 a week covers your electricity, gas, phone, internet, food, toiletries, bus fares, and clothing?

Interesting you use the term 'economically inactive'. Sounds like spin to me, as that £53 was reference to someone in employment who only had that much left after rent to live on. The 'economically inactive' tend not to have a landline and internet connection so are less likely to be signing online petitions.

As for 'bankrolling the unemployed', only 3% of the UK's welfare bill goes to the unemployed, the great majority of welfare is paid to pensioners. Here are some useful infographics which show the truth of where welfare goes and who claims what: http://www.jointpublicissues.org.uk/truth-and-lies-about-poverty-infographics/

[M Swanson]

Indeed I am, Flynn. Check out "BBC'S The Village," it's all there. :cool: I'm not alone either, there are thousands of others like me who are surviving and grateful to receive our adequate income, thanks. No complaints here! You should try it. The challenge can be most rewarding. :D

Oh! And I think you need to get out more, Flynn. Some of the "economically inactive," (a few of whom I know), are doing amazingly well. Plasma TV's; a pint, ciggies, Sky, even a car. Poor old Bevan must be spinning. You know it's true. :lol:

[Flynn]

Indeed I am, Flynn. Check out "A Fortune Down the Drain," it's all there. :cool: I'm not alone either, there are thousands of others like me who are surviving and grateful to receive our adequate income, thanks. No complaints here! You should try it. The challenge can be most rewarding. :D

Please list your budget.

[M Swanson]

Is that along with my bra size, cat's name and what I had for breakfast? You've got a brass nerve. :roll: My word is my bond and what I choose to declare is already to be found elsewhere. Get a grip, comrade! :lol:

[Flynn]

Oh! And I think you need to get out more, Flynn. Some of the "economically inactive," (a few of whom I know), are doing amazingly well. Plasma TV's; a pint, ciggies, Sky, even a car. Poor old Bevan must be spinning. You know it's true. :lol:

I wondered how long it would be before you parroted the Daily Mail's 'sky, plasma TV, betting shop' lies.

If someone on £71 a week JSA can afford those things, maybe they should take George Osborne's job, because they're budgeting a hell of a lot better than he is.

[Flynn]

Is that along with my bra size, cat's name and what I had for breakfast? You've got a brass nerve. :roll: My word is my bond and what I choose to declare is already to be found elsewhere. Get a grip, comrade! :lol:

Until you list your budget your word is nothing but mealy-mouthed lies.

[M Swanson]

LOL. I can live with that, Flynn. I begin to think you're clueless. Al lives on £53, I believe and is he a meal-mouthed liar because he is also surviving? Along with thousands of others? What claptrap! :lol:

[Flynn]

I tried it, here's mine, at the absolute least I can pay, this is what I would have to pay if I became unemployed tomorrow:

Phone: £7 a week
Internet: £6.50 a week
Gas/Elec: £16.50 a week
Water - sewerage: £11 a week
Toiletries: £10 a week (soap, shampoo, toothpaste, loo roll, washing powder, washing up liquid etc.)
Food: £18.75 a week (all Asda's smart price)

That's £69.75 a week leaving £1.25 spare out of £71 a week JSA. And I haven't even included running my car or a TV licence yet.

So come on, ante-up, list your sub £53 budget. What's the matter? Cowardice? Come on, I'm calling you out, you claimed you can survive for less than £53 a week. Prove it.

[changilass]

Yes I could live on that amount, but I do question why I would need a phone.

A phone certainly would not be on my list of priorities.

[Flynn]

Yes I could live on that amount, but I do question why I would need a phone.

A phone certainly would not be on my list of priorities.

To apply for jobs, keep in touch with the jobcentre etc.

[sids]

I tried it, here's mine, at the absolute least I can pay, this is what I would have to pay if I became unemployed tomorrow:

Phone: £7 a week
Internet: £6.50 a week
Gas/Elec: £16.50 a week
Water - sewerage: £11 a week
Toiletries: £10 a week (soap, shampoo, toothpaste, loo roll, washing powder, washing up liquid etc.)
Food: £18.75 a week (all Asda's smart price)

That's £69.75 a week leaving £1.25 spare out of £71 a week JSA. And I haven't even included running my car or a TV licence yet.

So come on, ante-up, list your sub £53 budget. What's the matter? Cowardice? Come on, I'm calling you out, you claimed you can survive for less than £53 a week. Prove it.

I'd like you to save the cost of your Internet connection.

[changilass]

ditch the phone
water rates I think get paid
buy cheeper toiletries
put an extra jumper on and buy a hot water bottle save on gas/electric
Internet is available in the library

saved you enough for a night out already

[Flynn]

I'd like you to save the cost of your Internet connection.

I would need it to job search, and it's an 18 month contract that can't be just ended at any time.

[Alrock]

You need a phone for the internet & now with these benefit changes you need the internet to make a claim & look for work.

[Flynn]

ditch the phone
water rates I think get paid
buy cheeper toiletries
put an extra jumper on and buy a hot water bottle save on gas/electric
Internet is available in the library

saved you enough for a night out already

Water rates do not get paid.
Those were the cheapest toiletries from the 99p shop.
The gas electric is a set monthly payment throughout the year of £66 a month to avoid high winter bills.
The nearest library is eight miles away, so I would have to pay fares every day to use their internet.

Please list YOUR sub-£53 a week budget.

[changilass]

If you become unemployed you would be able to get out of your contract with help from cab, you do not need it to job search as library has free internet access.

[Bobinovich]

Without knowing what I'd have to pay in the way of rates / water were I be unemployed then I don't know. However instant savings would come from cancelling phones (landline & mobile), Sky & broadband, moving to a PAYG mobile with some data for Internet use, turn off heating/wearing more layers when cold, swimming & showering at the local pool, plus either selling the car for something smaller/cheaper to run, or just stop using it so much & get on my bike instead. I understand having a water meter installed also helps. By no means would it be easy, but if you already had a house with the essentials, I think it would be possible, albeit with many major lifestyle changes.

[Flynn]

If you become unemployed you would be able to get out of your contract with help from cab, you do not need it to job search as library has free internet access.

I just told you the nearest library is eight miles away and I would have to pay fares daily to get there and use their internet.

Please list YOUR sub-£53 budget.

[changilass]

You need that many toiletries every single week?
You can get your payments changed if you are using less.

Water is £3 a week and sewerage is £4 and that is in Aberdeen, think you are being over charged.

[changilass]

I just told you the nearest library is eight miles away and I would have to pay fares daily to get there and use teir internet.

Please list YOUR sub-£53 budget.

Get a bike!

[Flynn]

Get a bike!

Please list YOUR sub-£53 a week budget.

[changilass]

Please list YOUR sub-£53 a week budget.

Nah, much more fun pulling yours apart.

Having done it in the past, I know I could do it again if need be.

[Flynn]

Nah, much more fun pulling yours apart.

Having done it in the past, I know I could do it again if need be.

Mine is what I would have to find per week if I became unemployed tomorrow, it would just be covered by JSA of £71 a week. And as I said, I didn't include my car in it, the assumption being I would give up the car. Obviously that needed to be more clearly stated for you as you appear to have missed that.

Also that £53 a week was not in relation to the unemployed, it was in relation to people in employment working a full week and what they had to live on after paying rent.

Funny how all those who reckon they could live on £53 a week refuse to list their sub-£53 budgets.

[changilass]

Hang on a minute, you appear to be changing the boundaries.

One minute, you need internet to look for a job and the next you are in full time employment? Which one is it?

Minimum wage 40 hrs is about £260 per week, paying very little tax, possibly entitled to some housing benefits, maybe working tax credits, what sort of a mansion are they living in that they only have £53 left after paying rent.

[orkneycadian]

I tried it, here's mine,
Phone: £7 a week
Internet: £6.50 a week
Gas/Elec: £16.50 a week
Water - sewerage: £11 a week
Toiletries: £10 a week (soap, shampoo, toothpaste, loo roll, washing powder, washing up liquid etc.)
Food: £18.75 a week (all Asda's smart price)

That's £69.75 a week leaving £1.25 spare out of £71 a week JSA. And I haven't even included running my car or a TV licence yet.

How can you spend so much on phone? If you kep all your calls to evenings, it would cost you no more than £3.06 a week.

http://www.postoffice.co.uk/home-phone

If you had to make so many calls to the job centre to warrant inclusive calls, £4.10 a week.

http://www.postoffice.co.uk/home-phone-with-anytime
(http://www.postoffice.co.uk/home-phone-with-anytime)
With the latter, you could be on the phone to job centres, prospective employers and anyone in the UK, all day, every day. £7 a week seems a bit extravagant, even for someone that is in employment!

And if you combine the first of the 2 with broadband (though as been pointed out, thats a bit of a luxury to have at home when they have it in the library...), you would only be paying £4.94 a week for both, vs the £13.50 you are extravagantly paying. That does of course assume that you are limiting your calls to the evening and weekends, which may not be applicable for job centre and interview calls. But you would need to use up a couple of hours of calls a week in the daytime to burn up the differential.

£10 a week on toiletries? Hells teeth. You must be wasting a terrific amount of them. More than 50% of your food bill? I would be surprised if someone using the right amount of products as listed could sensibly get through more than £1 worth a week. Maybe if your the type of person who scrubs away half a bar of soap in the shower everytime rather than using a cloth or a sponge, or if you flush 15 sheets of bog roll away everytime, then you could waste £10 a week.

As for car and TV. Well, complete luxuries although many are now considering them as "essentials". You don't need a TV licence to listen to radio to be entertained with a wide range of radio stations available on FM and DAB, and you can buy one for £20 from Tesco! And you are more likely to hear of job opportunities on local radio than you ever will on national or even international television stations.

[Flynn]

Hang on a minute, you appear to be changing the boundaries.

One minute, you need internet to look for a job and the next you are in full time employment? Which one is it?

Minimum wage 40 hrs is about £260 per week, paying very little tax, possibly entitled to some housing benefits, maybe working tax credits, what sort of a mansion are they living in that they only have £53 left after paying rent.

Family of four, minimum two to three bed house, rent for one of those around here is almost £800 a month.

[Flynn]

How can you spend so much on phone? If you kep all your calls to evenings, it would cost you no more than £3.06 a week.

http://www.postoffice.co.uk/home-phone

If you had to make so many calls to the job centre to warrant inclusive calls, £4.10 a week.

http://www.postoffice.co.uk/home-phone-with-anytime
(http://www.postoffice.co.uk/home-phone-with-anytime)
With the latter, you could be on the phone to job centres, prospective employers and anyone in the UK, all day, every day. £7 a week seems a bit extravagant, even for someone that is in employment!

And if you combine the first of the 2 with broadband (though as been pointed out, thats a bit of a luxury to have at home when they have it in the library...), you would only be paying £4.94 a week for both, vs the £13.50 you are extravagantly paying. That does of course assume that you are limiting your calls to the evening and weekends, which may not be applicable for job centre and interview calls. But you would need to use up a couple of hours of calls a week in the daytime to burn up the differential.

£10 a week on toiletries? Hells teeth. You must be wasting a terrific amount of them. More than 50% of your food bill? I would be surprised if someone using the right amount of products as listed could sensibly get through more than £1 worth a week. Maybe if your the type of person who scrubs away half a bar of soap in the shower everytime rather than using a cloth or a sponge, or if you flush 15 sheets of bog roll away everytime, then you could waste £10 a week.

As for car and TV. Well, complete luxuries although many are now considering them as "essentials". You don't need a TV licence to listen to radio to be entertained with a wide range of radio stations available on FM and DAB, and you can buy one for £20 from Tesco! And you are more likely to hear of job opportunities on local radio than you ever will on national or even international television stations.

As I said, I didn't include car or TV licence, you did read that bit didn't you? I can currently afford my phone and internet, why should I live like I can't? I tried to live on £53 a week and couldn't.

Please list YOUR sub-£53 weekly budget.

I know you won't because like all who claim they can you will refuse.

[Flynn]

Hang on a minute, you appear to be changing the boundaries.

One minute, you need internet to look for a job and the next you are in full time employment? Which one is it?

Minimum wage 40 hrs is about £260 per week, paying very little tax, possibly entitled to some housing benefits, maybe working tax credits, what sort of a mansion are they living in that they only have £53 left after paying rent.

Please list YOUR sub-£53 a week budget.

[equusdriving]

Family of four, minimum two to three bed house, rent for one of those around here is almost £800 a month.

You obviously dont live in Caithness Then!

[John Little]

The real question is why anyone should have to?

The UK has a debt which is 70% of its annual GNP but if we are cutting costs to service it and pay it off there is no need at all in a nation which calls itself civilised to say that it necessary for any of its citizens to live in what is grinding poverty.

The Rowntree Trust sets out that a living wage is £7.45 an hour. Let's be clear - that is what you need to be earning, minimum, if you are to live decently in our society,

http://www.jrf.org.uk/media-centre/living-wage

If you calculate benefits payable on the average working week in the UK which is 42.7 hours;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16082186

then you would be paying over £300 a week.


Even if you wanted to create incentive to go and work and paid half minimum rate - say 20 hours a week that is still £149 a week.

Now we say that people should scrimp, save and scrounge in order to live on £53 a week whilst giving tax breaks to high earners and bonuses to people who already earn quite enough to allow banks to fail.

Rather we should hang our heads in shame.


Over a hundred years ago Leonard Hobhouse and John Hobson stated that it should be the function of government to set laws so that a man, by the sweat of his brow, could earn enough to support himself and his family in decency; an idea reinforced by Seebohm Rowntree in a study on poverty. During the war William Beveridge identified poverty as one of the great evil giants to be slain in order to build a better nation.

Have we really not learned since then?

Some of the stuff on here sounds like it came from Sarah Palin.

[Alrock]

I didn't include my car in it, the assumption being I would give up the car.

The problem with giving up the car in a rural community like Caithness is that it would further hamper your chances of finding employment due to the lack of decent public transport to get to a job in the first place.

[M Swanson]

Right-ho, Flynn! This is a revised list to let you know how much better off, like me, you could be:-

Phone: £0
Internet: £0. Although you have enough money left over to have both for £5 a week.
Gas/Elec: £10.00 a week.
Water - sewerage: £5 a week
Toiletries: £1. 50 a week (soap, shampoo, toothpaste, loo roll, washing powder, washing up liquid etc.)
Food: £18.75 a week (all Asda's smart price)

That's £35.25 a week leaving £35.25 spare out of £71 a week JSA. And I haven't even included running my car or a TV licence yet. And nor you shouldn't Flynn. It's not for the taxpayer to subsidise such luxuries. They're fleeced enough already. :cool:

So come on, ante-up, list your sub £53 budget. What's the matter? Cowardice? Come on, I'm calling you out, you claimed you can survive for less than £53 a week. Prove it. How childish Flynn. This is not the Wild West, but I must confess there's as many bandits around! :lol:


Nah, much more fun pulling yours apart.

Having done it in the past, I know I could do it again if need be.

Precisely Changi. Seeing as I've just proved that Flynn can live on £53, so can you, me and thousands of others.

I do believe that you have what it takes to live within your means. Good for you.


Hang on a minute, you appear to be changing the boundaries.

One minute, you need internet to look for a job and the next you are in full time employment? Which one is it?

Minimum wage 40 hrs is about £260 per week, paying very little tax, possibly entitled to some housing benefits, maybe working tax credits, what sort of a mansion are they living in that they only have £53 left after paying rent.

Yes, changing the boundaries is what Flynn does best and clinging to a question that has already been answered, (but not to his liking,) to deflect the superior argument.

[Flynn]

Precisely Changi. Seeing as I've just proved that Flynn can live on £53, so can you, me and thousands of others.

I do believe that you have what it takes to live within your means. Good for you.



Yes, changing the boundaries is what Flynn does best and clinging to a question that has already been answered, (but not to his liking,) to deflect the superior argument.

You haven't proved anything. Still waiting for you to post your sub-£53 budget. A REAL WORLD budget, as I did.

I based the £66 a month electricity and gas on what my son has to pay on a single bedroom flat to cover him for the year with British Gas.

The water and sewerage are also what he has to pay, water company £13.56 fortnightly, sewerage company £16.43 monthly.

Phone and internet are essential for his job, he requires an email account that must be accessible at all times, he requires a phone for his employer to contact him.

The food bill is the bare minimum he can get by on, if he skips a couple of meals or eats with us on a Sunday.


Seems to me the one living in cloud cuckoo land is you.

[M Swanson]

Just to make my position crystal clear. I survive on £50 a week, as do thousands of others. I do not expect anyone to work hard to provide me with the luxuries in life and I am more than grateful for what I receive. How can it be fair, that workers can struggle more to pay the bills, whilst benefit recipients have an easier time? Is there abuse of benefits? Yes, definitely? Should something be done to address this? Yes, definitely. Does the world owe me a living? No, definitely not. I'm not one bit interested in the socialist claptrap, spouted by those who refuse to stick to the problem under discussion, even those who I get the feeling do not believe they could possibly be wrong about anything. I'm heartened that there are others on this thread who are prepared to look at the truths and realities of benefits. Left to the Lords and Lofties, we'd all be in a much worse position, imo. Who has, more than anyone, brought about this Welfare dependency culture? I'm sure those who truly care about improving things, will readily answer that one. Rant over. :cool:

[Flynn]

Some of the stuff on here sounds like it came from Sarah Palin.

Indeed, but on this forum she's known as M Swanson.

[starfish]

its ol to liveon £53 for a short while but what if your child comes home from school with a letter where they want money for some thing or they shoes need replacing or your cooker goes wrong ect what then we all have unexpected times when we need a bit extra , i do agree we need phones ect for looking for work as we live in a place where its cheaper than going in on the bus to the library a couple of times a week with the fares being £4.80 return

[John Little]

Yeees... Ayn Rand ain't in it. Hobson and Hobhouse were Liberals, Rowntree a Quaker and Beveridge a Christian. Not a "Socialist" among them. Just people who wanted a humane and better society. You do not have to be Socialist to want that.

[M Swanson]

Indeed, but on this forum she's known as M Swanson.

LOL. Personally, I'd have much preferred, that if Little John was referring to me, he had likened me to Margaret Hilda. :lol:

[John Little]

Ah now we have another 'wit' who turns my name round. Just like Pirate Lassie. I may die laughing.

[Flynn]

LOL. Personally, I'd have much preferred, that if Little John was referring to me, he had likened me to Margaret Hilda. :lol:


She did this country huge wrong, but one thing she wasn't was stupid. No, you are definitely the forum's Sarah Palin.

[orkneycadian]

I know you won't because like all who claim they can you will refuse.

If you insist.... If I were jobseeking....

Phone: £4.10 per week - All inclusive calls so I can let my fingers do the walking, limiting my need to travel
Internet: £0 - 8 miles to library will take me less than an hour on the push bike each way
Gas/Elec: £6.00 a week. (amazing how little you could use without a plasma TV and Sky box burning it up, just a few low energy lights, a radio and an electric cooker to boil tatties and make rabbit stew or fish pie with)
Firewood £0 per week - Recovered from civic amenity site and other places where it costs money for the original "polluters" to dump it, hauliers yards, etc
Peats £0 per week - I am assuming we are not considering the cost of our own labour in these comparisons
Water - sewerage: £3 a week
Budget cost for septic tank emptying, based on careful use of toiletries and cleaners - £300 per reactive empty per 10 years = £0.57 per week
Toiletries: £1 a week (soap, shampoo, toothpaste, loo roll, washing powder, washing up liquid etc.)
Food: £18.75 a week (all Asda's smart price) - will keep this in, even though a lot of food would come from much cheaper sources, i.e. rabbits (2p per air rifle pellet, .22 rifle would become too much of a luxury to feed rounds into...), fishing, growing tatties, etc.
Vehicle maintenance and running costs - £1 a week to cover tyres, brakes etc for the pushbike, hand barrow etc.

Total = £34.42

[M Swanson]

LOL. My apologies John Little. I rarely read your stuff and wrote the name in error. Anyway, so pleased you have a sense of humour, but I'm sure you're too young to die. :cool:

[M Swanson]

She did this country huge wrong, but one thing she wasn't was stupid. No, you are definitely the forum's Sarah Palin.

:lol: She's still regularly voted the most popular PM of all time. :cool: Though you may refer to me by any name you choose .... I answer to anything. :lol:

[Flynn]

:lol: She's still regularly voted the most popular PM of all time.

But not by Brits.

[Flynn]

If you insist.... If I were jobseeking....

Phone: £4.10 per week - All inclusive calls so I can let my fingers do the walking, limiting my need to travel
Internet: £0 - 8 miles to library will take me less than an hour on the push bike each way
Gas/Elec: £6.00 a week. (amazing how little you could use without a plasma TV and Sky box burning it up, just a few low energy lights, a radio and an electric cooker to boil tatties and make rabbit stew or fish pie with)
Firewood £0 per week - Recovered from civic amenity site and other places where it costs money for the original "polluters" to dump it, hauliers yards, etc
Peats £0 per week - I am assuming we are not considering the cost of our own labour in these comparisons
Water - sewerage: £3 a week
Budget cost for septic tank emptying, based on careful use of toiletries and cleaners - £300 per reactive empty per 10 years = £0.57 per week
Toiletries: £1 a week (soap, shampoo, toothpaste, loo roll, washing powder, washing up liquid etc.)
Food: £18.75 a week (all Asda's smart price) - will keep this in, even though a lot of food would come from much cheaper sources, i.e. rabbits (2p per air rifle pellet, .22 rifle would become too much of a luxury to feed rounds into...), fishing, growing tatties, etc.
Vehicle maintenance and running costs - £1 a week to cover tyres, brakes etc for the pushbike, hand barrow etc.

Total = £34.42

I can just see all those low paid workers in city tower blocks lighting fires in their living rooms… oh wait, they can't because they don't have fireplaces or chimneys. And I'm sure their neighbours downstairs will be quite willing to let them whack a hole in their ceiling and put in a septic tank… I can see them all going out on their housing estates hunting rabbits… or dropping a line down the nearest manhole hoping to hook a salmon…


Iain Duncan Smith ws talking nationally, not just about crofters in the far north.

[Bobinovich]

I can just see all those low paid workers in city tower blocks lighting fires in their living rooms… oh wait, they can't because they don't have fireplaces or chimneys. And I'm sure their neighbours downstairs will be quite willing to let them whack a hole in their ceiling and put in a septic tank… I can see them all going out on their housing estates hunting rabbits… or dropping a line down the nearest manhole hoping to hook a salmon…


Iain Duncan Smith ws talking nationally, not just about crofters in the far north.

It's impossible to give a one-fits-all budget - you state you are 8 miles from a library which is far further than someone in a city, or even me in a town. Each situation will have their own responses to a £53/week budget...

[sids]

I can just see all those low paid workers in city tower blocks lighting fires in their living rooms… oh wait, they can't because they don't have fireplaces or chimneys. And I'm sure their neighbours downstairs will be quite willing to let them whack a hole in their ceiling and put in a septic tank… I can see them all going out on their housing estates hunting rabbits… or dropping a line down the nearest manhole hoping to hook a salmon…


Iain Duncan Smith ws talking nationally, not just about crofters in the far north.

You asked for people to compile their £53 budget. Somebody could be bothered humouring you by compiling it and you're still bloody moaning!

[Flynn]

Just to make my position crystal clear. I survive on £50 a week, as do thousands of others. I do not expect anyone to work hard to provide me with the luxuries in life and I am more than grateful for what I receive. How can it be fair, that workers can struggle more to pay the bills, whilst benefit recipients have an easier time? Is there abuse of benefits? Yes, definitely? Should something be done to address this? Yes, definitely. Does the world owe me a living? No, definitely not. I'm not one bit interested in the socialist claptrap, spouted by those who refuse to stick to the problem under discussion, even those who I get the feeling do not believe they could possibly be wrong about anything. I'm heartened that there are others on this thread who are prepared to look at the truths and realities of benefits. Left to the Lords and Lofties, we'd all be in a much worse position, imo. Who has, more than anyone, brought about this Welfare dependency culture? I'm sure those who truly care about improving things, will readily answer that one. Rant over. :cool:

If you draw a state pension then you are a benefit recipient.

[orkneycadian]

I can just see all those low paid workers in city tower blocks lighting fires in their living rooms… oh wait, they can't because they don't have fireplaces or chimneys. And I'm sure their neighbours downstairs will be quite willing to let them whack a hole in their ceiling and put in a septic tank… I can see them all going out on their housing estates hunting rabbits… or dropping a line down the nearest manhole hoping to hook a salmon…


Iain Duncan Smith ws talking nationally, not just about crofters in the far north.

Well add them back in if you like. £6.04 a week covers both water and sewerage for a Band B property (here in Orkney), so is £3.04 more. M Swanson has a figure of £10 a week for electric and gas, so we'll add an extra £4 in for that in lieu of burning peats and firewood. And I left your original ASDA number in that you reckon you can live off without additionals, so we'll keep that the same.

New total = £41.47

As I learn I am now a city dwelling jobseeker, then I won't be so far to the library for my Internet, or the shops for my chicken supremes. So the running costs on my vehicles will come down a bit - Lets say by 50p a week.

Final new total = £40.97 - No bonfires in the livingroom, raw sewage in the flat below or salmon escaping from manholes. Still less than £53 I think, with a comfortable margin in hand.

[orkneycadian]

Sorry, cocked that up - Forgot to take out the 57p a week budget cost for the septic tank emptying, now I am back on mains sewerage.

£40.40

[John Little]

The correct figure should be £193 a week.

No more.

No less.

http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/MIS-2012

Should benefits be capped?

Yes.

Should work pay more than benefits?

Yes.

Should we ignore expert opinion like the Rowntree Trust?....

[John Little]

Underneath where it says £193 I invite you to press the "2" button which is very illustrative.

May I also point out that the Rowntree Foundation is not Socialist but is a Quaker endowment?

They are internationally respected for their work.

[Flynn]

Underneath where it says £193 I invite you to press the "2" button which is very illustrative.

May I also point out that the Rowntree Foundation is not Socialist but is a Quaker endowment?

They are internationally respected for their work.

Sadly M Swanson and her ilk only believe the Daily Hate and The Sun.

[Flynn]

For those capable of understanding them, there are some informative infographics here: http://www.jointpublicissues.org.uk/truth-and-lies-about-poverty-infographics/

[John Little]

Baptists, Methodists and United Reform Church eh? Left wing Commie Pinko bigots the lot of 'em! :)

[Bobinovich]

The correct figure should be £193 a week.

No more.

No less.

http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/MIS-2012

Should benefits be capped?

Yes.

Should work pay more than benefits?

Yes.

Should we ignore expert opinion like the Rowntree Trust?....

Yes in a perfect world we'd all have a living wage, but who's gonna pay for that John?

[Flynn]

http://i1353.photobucket.com/albums/q672/Forumstufftoo/Forum bits/who-gets_zps4bddeb2b.jpg

http://i1353.photobucket.com/albums/q672/Forumstufftoo/Forum bits/fiddle_zpsf02cc74e.jpg

http://i1353.photobucket.com/albums/q672/Forumstufftoo/Forum bits/fraud2_zps3cbdd26d.jpg

[John Little]

Yes in a perfect world we'd all have a living wage, but who's gonna pay for that John?

Drop in the ocean Bob.

A small switch in the focus of our taxation system would do it.

You could probably fund the whole thing with a windfall tax on bank bonuses. Or just stop forgiving corporations large amounts of tax.

Or if the banks paid back what the tax payer gave to keep them afloat instead of doling it out to their own employees...

There's no shortage of actual cash in the country.

Want me to quote Lloyd George's Limehouse speech again?...

"There are ten millions in this country enduring year after year the torture of living while lacking a sufficiency of the bare necessities of life.... Shame on rich Britain that she should tolerate so much poverty among her people. There is plenty of wealth in this country. What is wanted is a fairer distribution."

No socialist that.

And what he said in 1910 is still true.

Have we really not learned anything?

[golach]

http://i1353.photobucket.com/albums/q672/Forumstufftoo/Forum bits/who-gets_zps4bddeb2b.jpg


I am a pensioner, I get no benefits!!! I paid my taxes and NI all my working life from the age of 15 to 65, I am only getting what I am entitled too!!!! MY State Pension is not a benefit, its my entitlement I worked for and paid into the system for 50 years.

[Flynn]

I am a pensioner, I get no benefits!!! I paid my taxes and NI all my working life from the age of 15 to 65, I am only getting what I am entitled too!!!! MY State Pension is not a benefit, its my entitlement I worked for and paid into the system for 50 years.


Like it or not the state pension is a benefit, just like every other benefit.

[golach]

Like it or not the state pension is a benefit, just like every other benefit.

Maybe in your eyes, but I worked and paid into the system for 50 years, I doubt you can say the same, I was in full employment 95% of that time also

[John Little]

You are both right.

The NI fund is contributory and you pay into it so are entitled to it.

However it is not a fund so comes out of the same pot of money as 'benefits' because the money has to be found to pay it.

If it were a fund then it would not counted as a benefit - but the government spends our cash and guarantees us a pension from our entitlement.

[Bobinovich]

Have we really not learned anything?

Without a doubt the corrupt corporations and rich have not - they own/are responsible for the vast majority of the money in this country but do you see them offering to share it out? No. You're right that there are plenty of ways to fund it, but until those in power (the vast majority of whom are millionaires themselves) admit that the status quo isn't fair and agree to take a hit, along with all the others, then it won't change. It just won't happen..."Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men" Lord Acton, 1887

[John Little]

Without a doubt the corrupt corporations and rich have not - they own/are responsible for the vast majority of the money in this country but do you see them offering to share it out? No. You're right that there are plenty of ways to fund it, but until those in power (the vast majority of whom are millionaires themselves) admit that the status quo isn't fair and agree to take a hit, along with all the others, then it won't change. It just won't happen..."Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men" Lord Acton, 1887I agree again. 100 per cent. Which is why change must come through Parliament. If they determine levels of tax that are fair, then they can transform society as was done in 1911 and 1945-6

[Alrock]

....MY State Pension is not a benefit, its my entitlement.....

So... are you calling the Government liars when they class it as a benefit?
Should all the figures bandied about on the cost of benefits be recalculated?
Should all these benefit changes be put on hold whilst this is done so that decisions can be made based on the real facts?

[squidge]

Whatever you call Pension it is paid out of the Welfare Budget. It is an entitlement. You pay in, you get out. Actually like Contribution based Jobseekers Allowance or Employment Support Allowance which is paid for six months provided you have paid enough contributions and are looking for work or providing medical evidence of incapacity

[secrets in symmetry]

Hmm, this thread suggests that the English are trying to outdo the Scots in the drive towards poverty and mediocrity. I wouldn't bother, you will never beat the vast majority of us in that race lol!

[Flynn]

Maybe in your eyes, but I worked and paid into the system for 50 years, I doubt you can say the same, I was in full employment 95% of that time also

I have been working and paying tax and NI since 1977. If I lost my job I would be entitled to benefits because I have paid tax and NI. If I became unable to work through ill health I would be entitled to benefits because I have paid tax and NI. If I needed tax credits or housing benefit or child benefit I would be entitled because I have paid tax and NI. When I reach pensionable age I will be entitled to the state pension, because I have paid tax and NI.

They are ALL benefits, paid for through the same means.

State pension is a welfare benefit. Get used to it.

If you really object to the realisation that YOU just like millions of others, are benefitting from welfare, then give up your state pension and get a private pension.

Read the article at the following link, and look at the table on where most of the welfare budget goes, it goes to pensioners:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/06/welfare-britain-facts-myths

[secrets in symmetry]

Read the article at the following link, and look at the table on where most of the welfare budget goes, it goes to pensioners:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/06/welfare-britain-facts-mythsThanks for elucidating this issue Flynn. I must admit to not having known the percentages - even roughly.

No wonder recent governments have been attempting to move everyone to occupational pension schemes - that we pay for during our working lives.

[M Swanson]

Maybe in your eyes, but I worked and paid into the system for 50 years, I doubt you can say the same, I was in full employment 95% of that time also

I can see exactly where you're coming from Golach and Flynn's in the undergrowth, nitpicking again. It's what he does when he loses any argument. :lol: Like you, I've worked most of my life and paid my dues. It's what most of our generation did. Unlike today, when we have, according to the ONS figures, 1.1 MILLION people who have never been employed. These are the recipients of welfare benefits, by definition and are quite different to the likes of us, imo. There's no comparison to my way of thinking and that won't change because somebody else disagrees. Just the usual chuff, I'm afraid.

[M Swanson]

Yes in a perfect world we'd all have a living wage, but who's gonna pay for that John?

Well, my bet is, it won't be the super rich, who may be required to pay a hefty increase in taxes. We already have an advanced warning of where that road leads, with the socialist French government who have already driven hundreds of it's rich out of the country. Many of these have arrived in Britain and caused a mini boom in house prices for high end properties. I know this firsthand. The think tank, Concorde has issued a statement in which they claim this migration has lost France a million jobs already. Of course, Mr Depardieu has already become a Russian citizen and taken his fortune with him. Mr Putin's Deputy PM has predicted "a mass migration of wealthy Europeans to Russia," because of much lower taxation. For one reason, or another, many rich folks from Greece, Spain and Italy have left their countries and look at the mess they've left behind. Let's hope the benefits well doesn't run dry. It's as well our government, has taken positive action when it's most needed. It could very well prove popular with many of us. :cool:

[golach]

I have been working and paying tax and NI since 1977. If I lost my job I would be entitled to benefits because I have paid tax and NI. If I became unable to work through ill health I would be entitled to benefits because I have paid tax and NI. If I needed tax credits or housing benefit or child benefit I would be entitled because I have paid tax and NI. When I reach pensionable age I will be entitled to the state pension, because I have paid tax and NI.

They are ALL benefits, paid for through the same means.

State pension is a welfare benefit. Get used to it.

If you really object to the realisation that YOU just like millions of others, are benefitting from welfare, then give up your state pension and get a private pension.

Read the article at the following link, and look at the table on where most of the welfare budget goes, it goes to pensioners:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/06/welfare-britain-facts-myths

Do you have a problem with that?? I dont!! I have a problem with those who have never worked and are bleeding the country dry

[squidge]

Where do you get 1.1 million from M Swanson?

[Phill]

YAWN!

I've not even read this thread but I bet its based on Daily Wail statistics
No doubt punctuated by what peoples rights and entitlements are, subjected to their opinions.

Funny how the facts seem to change, depending which way you want to argue.

[ducati]

I agree again. 100 per cent. Which is why change must come through Parliament. If they determine levels of tax that are fair, then they can transform society as was done in 1911 and 1945-6

We tax high earners 45% and even reasonable earners 40% and lesser earners 25%. Then we take 30% of all this money and all other tax income from corporations, capital gains, inheritence etc and pay 30% of all this in benefits (all). I would have to assume that is more than fair. What needs to be done is the benefit system should be adjusted to target those with the most need.

On another point, we (on this thread) are assuming that the minute we lose our employment, we immediately have to live on JSA. If we have no forthought then maybe we do. If you have no assets and no savings. Seems to me that the rainy day message may have been missed by a generation. (the one that thinks the world owes them a living). As to the £193 per week to stay out of poverty.....I can't begin to express my amazement!:eek:

[Alrock]

What needs to be done is the benefit system should be adjusted to target those with the most need.

I'll agree with that... Should be based on need as opposed to what is becoming the prevalent rhetoric now of the most deserving, irrespective of their needs....


As to the £193 per week to stay out of poverty.....I can't begin to express my amazement!:eek:

Gotta admit, that even surprised me...

[Flynn]

Do you have a problem with that?? I dont!! I have a problem with those who have never worked and are bleeding the country dry

It's the elderly who are bleeding the country dry. Just take a look at the infographics I posted, or read the article. Unemployment benefits make up just 3% of the entire welfare budget. The rest goes to pensioners, the disabled, the ill, and the low paid in employment.


You should have got a private pension instead of expecting to sponge off the taxpayer in your old age.


Here it is again. The big yellow arc is old age benefits:

http://i1353.photobucket.com/albums/q672/Forumstufftoo/Forum%20bits/who-gets_zps4bddeb2b.jpg


And here's the link to the article again:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/06/welfare-britain-facts-myths


And here's the table from that article showing which benefits cost the taxpayer the most and how much they have increased over the last couple of years:

http://i1353.photobucket.com/albums/q672/Forumstufftoo/Forum%20bits/GU-2-001_zpsa04e2e32.jpg


What proportion of the welfare bill goes on benefits to the unemployed? And how has this changed?

It's rising – but we've seen such movements before. At 13% between 2009-10 and 2011-12, the proportion of gross domestic product devoted to benefits is at an all-time high, but this is not the result of a long-term upward trend. Levels in the 1990s to 2008-09 fluctuated between 10% and 12%. The recession resulted in a substantial increase and the overall level has not fallen since. This mirrors the recession in the early 1990s, when the proportion of GDP spent on benefits increased by slightly more at around 3 percentage points.
Between 2001/02 and 2011/12, spending on "social protection" benefits – help given to those in need or at risk of hardship – increased from £156bn to £210bn. This £54bn growth was after inflation, a rate of 34%. At an increase of £24bn, pensioner incomes made up the largest share of the change, around nine-tenths of the growth, reflecting their size within the budget. Housing benefits spending grew at the fastest rate, 62%, because of increases in the number of claimants and the average cost of the benefit. Claimant numbers rose from 3.8 million in 2002 to 5 million in 2012, while average weekly benefit increased from £52 to £87.

[John Little]

£193 a week?

Ah well you know these daft pinko lefty Quakers - according to them the Paupers should be living in the lap of luxury.

Bring back the Workhouse!

And the birch!

It were much better when I were a lad!

Eeee bah gum!

[John Little]

Duke - you said this:

"We tax high earners 45% and even reasonable earners 40% and lesser earners 25%. Then we take 30% of all this money and all other tax income from corporations, capital gains, inheritence etc and pay 30% of all this in benefits (all). I would have to assume that is more than fair. What needs to be done is the benefit system should be adjusted to target those with the most need."

There is a great difference between saying it and doing it. You see at the one end you are taxing people with a lot of money. They do not have to choose between food and heat. On the other end you condemn thousands to living beneath the poverty line.

It was Seebohm Rowntree who coined that phrase back in 1899 and the Poverty Line identified by the Joseph Rowntree Trust is usually regarded as definitive.

You raise that top rate of tax a per cent or two and they are hardly going to notice - and we will still be one of the safest, nicest, and most creditworthy countries in the world for them to live in. They'd also have a nice warm rosy glow inside from knowing that their work has raised thousands of their fellow citizens from out of poverty. One nation Conservatives know this too.

If you polarise a society into rich and poor with a great gap and desperate hungry masses barely scraping by, then you do not create the safe conditions needed for Capitalism to flourish. You create a dangerous situation where exist social resentment, high crime levels and civil unrest.

There is a balance to achieve - and it is not apparent in these reforms.

[ducati]

Duke - you said this:

"We tax high earners 45% and even reasonable earners 40% and lesser earners 25%. Then we take 30% of all this money and all other tax income from corporations, capital gains, inheritence etc and pay 30% of all this in benefits (all). I would have to assume that is more than fair. What needs to be done is the benefit system should be adjusted to target those with the most need."

There is a great difference between saying it and doing it. You see at the one end you are taxing people with a lot of money. They do not have to choose between food and heat. On the other end you condemn thousands to living beneath the poverty line.

It was Seebohm Rowntree who coined that phrase back in 1899 and the Poverty Line identified by the Joseph Rowntree Trust is usually regarded as definitive.

You raise that top rate of tax a per cent or two and they are hardly going to notice - and we will still be one of the safest, nicest, and most creditworthy countries in the world for them to live in. They'd also have a nice warm rosy glow inside from knowing that their work has raised thousands of their fellow citizens from out of poverty. One nation Conservatives know this too.

If you polarise a society into rich and poor with a great gap and desperate hungry masses barely scraping by, then you do not create the safe conditions needed for Capitalism to flourish. You create a dangerous situation where exist social resentment, high crime levels and civil unrest.

There is a balance to achieve - and it is not apparent in these reforms.

So what is the correct balance? Do we tax the very wealthy at 60% or 90% that has been tried, didn't work, took our toys elsewear kinda thing.

No, we need a change of culture back to (not very long ago, I'm not a Victorian) when people generally took reponsibility for their own lives.

[John Little]

So what is the correct balance? Do we tax the very wealthy at 60% or 90% that has been tried, didn't work, took our toys elsewear kinda thing.No, we need a change of culture back to (not very long ago, I'm not a Victorian) when people generally took reponsibility for their own lives.

Duke that is a myth and funnily enough one exploded by Seebohm Rowntree himself in his study of the Urban Poor. You are in fact saying what was said by the Tory Right in 1899 (though funnily enough not the Tory left).

When Rowntree published his book it demonstrated beyond all doubt that there was a vast underclass existing which went from generation to generation which was quite unable to help themselves.

Self help is a fine theory - but if your circumstances are such that you cannot work or cannot get a job, then you may become trapped.

I am not saying that benefits should not be reformed - in fact the system needed overhauling because if for no other reason than it was bewildering. But that underclass still exists and may expand.

193 jobs were available in a new branch of Tescos that opened near me recently and over 1200 people went for them.

Tax the rich slightly more in order to create a more balanced and harmonious society: I am not saying tax them out of the country but let it be fair; and look at priorities too.

We really do not need Afghanistan do we?

[M Swanson]

Where do you get 1.1 million from M Swanson?

Like you, I've read many different figures for those who have never worked, Squidge. This is why I chose to state the lowest, given by the ONS. It represents only those who are able-bodied and excludes the disabled, students, etc. Of course, if we were to include these categories then the figure rises to 9 million.

[M Swanson]

YAWN!

I've not even read this thread but I bet its based on Daily Wail statistics
No doubt punctuated by what peoples rights and entitlements are, subjected to their opinions.

Funny how the facts seem to change, depending which way you want to argue.

What's this Phil? You haven't "even read this thread," but you're yawning and betting it's based on the Daily Mail? Of course, the DM has been mentioned by Flynn, but nobody picked up on it, because it wasn't relevant. :D

Actually, it's a pity you haven't read the thread, because I think it's one of the more interesting ones and I, for one, would have appreciated your input. :cool:

[M Swanson]

So what is the correct balance? Do we tax the very wealthy at 60% or 90% that has been tried, didn't work, took our toys elsewear kinda thing.

No, we need a change of culture back to (not very long ago, I'm not a Victorian) when people generally took responsibility for their own lives.

Well said Ducati and I believe you're right, of course. Heavily taxing the rich has been tried many times and ............. failed! It's just the usual socialist ploy to penalise those they would trade places with tomorrow, whilst increasing benefits to the idlers, making welfare dependency even more attractive to the workshy. And that's the way forward?

We need to encourage folks, as you rightly say, to take responsibility for their own lives. It's not rocket science! Those who can work, should. Opting for a life on benefits should not be an option, much less one rewarded by an income of £192. Why on earth would someone choose to work to finance those who choose not to? Already, the measures this government has taken has resulted in thousands being forced into employment. Quite right too, imo.

[John Little]

Hmmm. Since a rousing chorus of massed male voices singing "die fahnen hoch" keeps intruding into my head and distracting me from my day, I am forced to arraign myself under Godwin's Law and exclude myself from further discussion here.

Sometimes it is best to run away screaming in fear.

[Thumper]

My goodness what great ideas and opinions! I have been on both sides of the fence,and sadly I am at the moment unemployed,my house is all electric,I asked a local company to help me get my bills down,they came out and sat here in padded coats showing me their thermometer that said danger risk of hypothermia! That's the way I have to live,and sadly my kids too because I simply do not have enough money to pay everything! Yes I have Internet,because the school expects my child to be able to use a computer for homework and projects,I don't have a printer as the ink is too expensive,so when my child needs something printed we email it to someone else to do.i could go on and on about unfair systems but what's the point? Yet again most on here think everyone who is out of work is a scrounger,well I can assure you I am not! I work damn hard at voluntary work,get the same money as the person who lives next door to the dip but have to pay my way to get down to ign on,and then sit their listening to the bone idol getting their benefits thrown at them,while I am made to feel like a pariah!people need to stop judging and start thinking about what would happen if they lost their job!x

[Flynn]

How many people have never worked, the facts: http://fullfact.org/factchecks/never_worked_millions-28762

[squidge]

Thanks Flynn. M Swanson I asked because I could only find the 4 million figure.

[rob murray]

My goodness what great ideas and opinions! I have been on both sides of the fence,and sadly I am at the moment unemployed,my house is all electric,I asked a local company to help me get my bills down,they came out and sat here in padded coats showing me their thermometer that said danger risk of hypothermia! That's the way I have to live,and sadly my kids too because I simply do not have enough money to pay everything! Yes I have Internet,because the school expects my child to be able to use a computer for homework and projects,I don't have a printer as the ink is too expensive,so when my child needs something printed we email it to someone else to do.i could go on and on about unfair systems but what's the point? Yet again most on here think everyone who is out of work is a scrounger,well I can assure you I am not! I work damn hard at voluntary work,get the same money as the person who lives next door to the dip but have to pay my way to get down to ign on,and then sit their listening to the bone idol getting their benefits thrown at them,while I am made to feel like a pariah!people need to stop judging and start thinking about what would happen if they lost their job!x

You raise a serious issue : the difference between the deserving and undeserving poor..this has been with us for centuries : now, as off this week end, however, we have absolute clarity...everyone is un deserving, period. if your poor or in reduced circumstances tough, get a job, what has Osbourne, Cameron and Duncan Smith been preaching for ages....work being preferable to benefits....fine...if there is work...if theres none then Im afraid all benefit recipients are tarred with the same brush...you are undeserving sroungers. Thats it in a nut shell, and judging by the posts on this post seems like a lot of people agree...but not me though !!

[ducati]

Duke that is a myth and funnily enough one exploded by Seebohm Rowntree himself in his study of the Urban Poor. You are in fact saying what was said by the Tory Right in 1899 (though funnily enough not the Tory left).

When Rowntree published his book it demonstrated beyond all doubt that there was a vast underclass existing which went from generation to generation which was quite unable to help themselves.

Self help is a fine theory - but if your circumstances are such that you cannot work or cannot get a job, then you may become trapped.

I am not saying that benefits should not be reformed - in fact the system needed overhauling because if for no other reason than it was bewildering. But that underclass still exists and may expand.

193 jobs were available in a new branch of Tescos that opened near me recently and over 1200 people went for them.

Tax the rich slightly more in order to create a more balanced and harmonious society: I am not saying tax them out of the country but let it be fair; and look at priorities too.

We really do not need Afghanistan do we?

I'm getting a bit sick and tired of being told I JUST LISTEN TO PROPOGANDA. Don't tell me it is a myth when I have personal and relevant experience. :mad:

[rob murray]

I'm getting a bit sick and tired of being told I JUST LISTEN TO PROPOGANDA. Don't tell me it is a myth when I have personal and relevant experience. :mad:

Personal an realtive experience .....Are you inferring that you'd loads a dosh snatched away and squandered by lefty do gooders, Im interested ?

[ducati]

Personal an realtive experience .....Are you inferring that you'd loads a dosh snatched away and squandered by lefty do gooders, Im interested ?

If you are interested, read the bliddy thread then you would know which bit I was responding to.

[rob murray]

If you are interested, read the bliddy thread then you would know which bit I was responding to.

Sorry for being thick is this the thread.... So what is the correct balance? Do we tax the very wealthy at 60% or 90% that has been tried, didn't work, took our toys elsewear kinda thing.

No, we need a change of culture back to (not very long ago, I'm not a Victorian) when people generally took reponsibility for their own lives.

ie TOOK OUT TOYS ELSEWHERE ???

[Thumper]

Yip a lot of people look down on others for being out of work,I don't choose to be unemployed! My last job was great,but I had an accident at work which was their fault,they wanted me to accept responsibility and I refused,so they chose not to renew my contract! So I would still have a job if I said I was to blame for there mis management! I can't understand why anyone would think that anyone would chose to live hand to mouth,it's the hardest thing I have ever done and makes me feel worthless,I don't need others telling me to just get a job,there aren't many about! Last week yet again there were two jobs at the job centre x

[ducati]

Sorry for being thick is this the thread.... So what is the correct balance? Do we tax the very wealthy at 60% or 90% that has been tried, didn't work, took our toys elsewear kinda thing.

No, we need a change of culture back to (not very long ago, I'm not a Victorian) when people generally took reponsibility for their own lives.

ie TOOK OUT TOYS ELSEWHERE ??? Yes. What relevance does your response have? Not that I care in fact don't bother.

[rob murray]

Yes. What relevance does your response have? Not that I care in fact don't bother.

We both seem to suffer interpretation problems then..not that I care either

[John Little]

I'm getting a bit sick and tired of being told I JUST LISTEN TO PROPOGANDA. Don't tell me it is a myth when I have personal and relevant experience. :mad:

My dear Duke - why so aerated? We all listen to Propaganda. Every single one of us.

That's how we form our views of the world.


You think that there was an age when people took responsibility for their own lives. When was that then?

You may have personal and relevant experience of living among people who did take responsibility for their own lives, but to imply that it was a general thing amongst the whole of society is a bit misleading. I have read far too much of my own propaganda (Social History) to think otherwise.

There was a time when, generally speaking, community spirit was stronger and people were more self-reliant, but that was in a framework of a more rural society where people helped each other to be self-reliant.

But taking responsibility implies choice. With insufficient cash to live on, you have no choice. You simply have to take what you can get.

Now I know fine that you have a strong sense of community; If you had someone in your neighbourhood who was in trouble, then you would help them; without stint.

And that, essentially, is what this is about.

The present government stints. And there really is no need for it.

[rob murray]

My dear Duke - why so aerated? We all listen to Propaganda. Every single one of us.

That's how we form our views of the world.


You think that there was an age when people took responsibility for their own lives. When was that then?

You may have personal and relevant experience of living among people who did take responsibility for their own lives, but to imply that it was a general thing amongst the whole of society is a bit misleading. I have read far too much of my own propaganda (Social History) to think otherwise.

There was a time when, generally speaking, community spirit was stronger and people were more self-reliant, but that was in a framework of a more rural society where people helped each other to be self-reliant.

But taking responsibility implies choice. With insufficient cash to live on, you have no choice. You simply have to take what you can get.

Now I know fine that you have a strong sense of community; If you had someone in your neighbourhood who was in trouble, then you would help them; without stint.

And that, essentially, is what this is about.

The present government stints. And there really is no need for it.
well that's my story and i'm sticking to that. So let's have another drink and let's talk about the blues. Blues is about dignity, it's about self-respect, and no matter what they take away from you - that's yours for keeps. I remember how it was, how every medium - T.V. and papers and radio and all those people were saying: 'you're on the scrap-heap, you're useless', and I remember how easy it was to start believing that. I remember how you'd hear people take it for granted that it was true - just 'cause someone with an ounce of power said so. And that's a problem now, too many oddballs, too many pocketbook psychologists and would-be philosophers with an axe to grind. But there's a solution, it's not easy, but it's a matter of coming to terms in your heart with situation you're in, a matter of choosing how things go for you and not having things forced upon you. There are plenty of forces against you, forcing you against your will, your ideals - you've got to hope for the best, and that's the best you can hope for - you've got to hope against hope... I remember something Sal Paradise said, he said: 'the city intellectuals of the world are debauched from the full body blood-of-the-land and are just rootless fools'. So listen, when the smile, the condescending pat-on-the-back comes and says: 'we're sorry, but you're nothing, you've got nothing for us and we've got nothing for you', you say: 'No', and say it loud: "NO!", and remember, people who talk about revolution and a class-struggle without referring explicitly to everyday life, without understanding what is subversive about love, and what is positive in the refusal and constraint...since people have a corpse in their mouth..."

[secrets in symmetry]

My dear Duke - why so aerated?Perhaps it's because his heroine left him today....

[ducati]

Perhaps it's because his heroine left him today....

Yes I am very sad. Perhaps it is a reflection of the procession of nondescript grey men we have had as our leaders since, that she is remembered with such passion. And it seems blamed for er... everything.

[ducati]

well that's my story and i'm sticking to that. So let's have another drink and let's talk about the blues. Blues is about dignity, it's about self-respect, and no matter what they take away from you - that's yours for keeps. I remember how it was, how every medium - T.V. and papers and radio and all those people were saying: 'you're on the scrap-heap, you're useless', and I remember how easy it was to start believing that. I remember how you'd hear people take it for granted that it was true - just 'cause someone with an ounce of power said so. And that's a problem now, too many oddballs, too many pocketbook psychologists and would-be philosophers with an axe to grind. But there's a solution, it's not easy, but it's a matter of coming to terms in your heart with situation you're in, a matter of choosing how things go for you and not having things forced upon you. There are plenty of forces against you, forcing you against your will, your ideals - you've got to hope for the best, and that's the best you can hope for - you've got to hope against hope... I remember something Sal Paradise said, he said: 'the city intellectuals of the world are debauched from the full body blood-of-the-land and are just rootless fools'. So listen, when the smile, the condescending pat-on-the-back comes and says: 'we're sorry, but you're nothing, you've got nothing for us and we've got nothing for you', you say: 'No', and say it loud: "NO!", and remember, people who talk about revolution and a class-struggle without referring explicitly to everyday life, without understanding what is subversive about love, and what is positive in the refusal and constraint...since people have a corpse in their mouth..."

Have you gone completely crackers? :lol:

[secrets in symmetry]

Yes I am very sad. Perhaps it is a reflection of the procession of nondescript grey men we have had as our leaders since, that she is remembered with such passion. And it seems blamed for er... everything.I wouldn't expect anything else from you.

[ducati]

I wouldn't expect anything else from you.

Thank you :D