16 Jan 12, 9:33 AM
Amante_Velora
UK(SW), 22 mths
 |
Muzzlehatch wrote:
littlenic wrote:
Muzzlehatch wrote:
| @nastybstd's 'token' solution could perhaps be improved by issuing a smart debit card, that would not be valid for luxuries such as cigatettes or tobacco. |
Or biscuits, of course. Never forget the biscuits.
(Seriously: who decides what is and isn't a luxury?)
Food and water, shelter and clothing are necessities. Virtually everything else could be considered a luxury.
Anyone who smokes (for example) and then has to choose between heating and food...
|
Benefit does not provide for clothing. Clothing is one of your luxuries. Balancing what is given in benefits to buy food and pay for utilities has to be done carefully, even more so in cold weather. As I've said before, if I choose to relieve the boredom by scraping together enough to buy something extra, whatever that may be, is my choice. I am not a scrounger, I'm simply on JSA which is paid every 2 weeks: £135. I used to earn more than that in one day.
|
|
|
***Disclaimer: I accept no liability for the content of this post, or for the consequences of any misconstruction taken on the basis of the information provided, unless that information is subsequently confirmed in writing. Please do not ask for credit as a punch in the mouth will often offend***
|
16 Jan 12, 10:02 AM
Muzzlehatch
UK(TN), 7 yrs
 |
Amante_Velora wrote:
Benefit does not provide for clothing. Clothing is one of your luxuries. Balancing what is given in benefits to buy food and pay for utilities has to be done carefully, even more so in cold weather. As I've said before, if I choose to relieve the boredom by scraping together enough to buy something extra, whatever that may be, is my choice. I am not a scrounger, I'm simply on JSA which is paid every 2 weeks: £135. I used to earn more than that in one day.
|
Clothing doesn't have to come with designer labels!
Since leaving the city where I was a Foreign Exchange dealer, I've had many jobs. Motorcycle courier, steel erector, site fabricator, building labourer, foundry labourer, worked in a sweage farm, sometimes away from home all week. I went out and got an HGV 1, tramped round Europe, worked for many agencies. Thats just some of them. Some have been very well paid, some minimum wage.
There's no such thing as a job for life (unless you're the offspring of the boss). I've always found that looking for work, is much easier if you are already in work.
Because I've done that, I'm now in a position where I get nothing from the benefit system . 135 quid for sitting on my hands. yes please, now where can I get that?
Owner of The Croppery Dungeon and Breakfast. Organises The St Leonards munch.
|
16 Jan 12, 10:45 AM
Amante_Velora
UK(SW), 22 mths
|
I know clothing doesn't have to come with designer labels. What a ridiculous thing to say.
If you have savings, or another source of income, (eg if you own property and someone pays you rent) when you sign on, you only get your stamp paid, you're expected to live off your savings. That's absolutely fine - until your savings run out, then you have to live on £67.50 per week. See previous posts about how far £67.50 stretches.
Muzzlehatch wrote:
Amante_Velora wrote:
Benefit does not provide for clothing. Clothing is one of your luxuries. Balancing what is given in benefits to buy food and pay for utilities has to be done carefully, even more so in cold weather. As I've said before, if I choose to relieve the boredom by scraping together enough to buy something extra, whatever that may be, is my choice. I am not a scrounger, I'm simply on JSA which is paid every 2 weeks: £135. I used to earn more than that in one day.
|
Clothing doesn't have to come with designer labels!
Since leaving the city where I was a Foreign Exchange dealer, I've had many jobs. Motorcycle courier, steel erector, site fabricator, building labourer, foundry labourer, worked in a sweage farm, sometimes away from home all week. I went out and got an HGV 1, tramped round Europe, worked for many agencies. Thats just some of them. Some have been very well paid, some minimum wage.
There's no such thing as a job for life (unless you're the offspring of the boss). I've always found that looking for work, is much easier if you are already in work.
Because I've done that, I'm now in a position where I get nothing from the benefit system . 135 quid for sitting on my hands. yes please, now where can I get that?
|
***Disclaimer: I accept no liability for the content of this post, or for the consequences of any misconstruction taken on the basis of the information provided, unless that information is subsequently confirmed in writing. Please do not ask for credit as a punch in the mouth will often offend***
|
16 Jan 12, 10:55 AM
Muzzlehatch
UK(TN), 7 yrs
|
Amante_Velora wrote:
I know clothing doesn't have to come with designer labels. What a ridiculous thing to say.
|
Why is it ridiculous? Just an example of people today having materialistic aspirations, which they consider reasonable.
When they have got themselves into debt with a lifestyle they can no longer maintain. Why should the benefit system help them with that when they lose a job?
Is that fair on those who pay tax to keep them?
Owner of The Croppery Dungeon and Breakfast. Organises The St Leonards munch.
Edited 16 Jan 12, 12:04 PM by Muzzlehatch
|
16 Jan 12, 11:58 AM
emark
UK, 9 yrs |
AnEnglishMaster wrote:
emark wrote:
Except that wasn't your point in any of your previous posts to this or the last thread. I don't think anyone disagrees that benefit trap situations are a bad thing, and should be avoided.
|
But it was - your comment suggests you inferred what I did not imply. |
Your previous posts show you making claims of 200 unemployed families allegedly receiving over £61,000. Just because I agree that benefit traps are a bad thing, doesn't mean I agree that it's as bad as you claim.
@Muzzlehatch - you'd actually rather do nothing even if it means only getting £67.50 a week? Also bear in mind it's not "nothing" - it's constantly proving that you're looking to work, and you'll have to take any job that comes along after a while.
Also you might be put into work for the same amount of far-less-than-minimum-wage money ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan... ) - yet despite working, still be counted bizarrely as "unemployed". (And now that Poundland etc can now get "unemployed" people to do the work for free, it no longer needs to actually employ people properly, thus destroying jobs and keeping more people in unemployment. What a brilliant system! This is what the "make them work" schemes lead to - it ends up putting more people onto the benefits system you hate.) Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement
Edited 16 Jan 12, 12:04 PM by emark
|
16 Jan 12, 12:21 PM
Muzzlehatch
UK(TN), 7 yrs
|
emark wrote:
@Muzzlehatch - you'd actually rather do nothing even if it means only getting £67.50 a week? Also bear in mind it's not "nothing" - it's constantly proving that you're looking to work, and you'll have to take any job that comes along after a while.
Also you might be put into work for the same amount of far-less-than-minimum-wage money ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan... ) - yet despite working, still be counted bizarrely as "unemployed". (And now that Poundland etc can now get "unemployed" people to do the work for free, it no longer needs to actually employ people properly, thus destroying jobs and keeping more people in unemployment. What a brilliant system!)
|
How many times do I have to say, that if I sign on, I get my National Insurance stamp. That's it. No money, so I don't bother.
The system, such as it is, supports those who know how to work it. It's a poor safety net for those who get caught up in it, and as such it is not fit for purpose.
Why not offer a solution, instead of bickering? Owner of The Croppery Dungeon and Breakfast. Organises The St Leonards munch.
|
16 Jan 12, 5:51 PM
Empress_Martine
UK(HA), 2 yrs
£ 
  
  |
Muzzlehatch wrote:
emark wrote:
@Muzzlehatch - you'd actually rather do nothing even if it means only getting £67.50 a week? Also bear in mind it's not "nothing" - it's constantly proving that you're looking to work, and you'll have to take any job that comes along after a while.
Also you might be put into work for the same amount of far-less-than-minimum-wage money ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan... ) - yet despite working, still be counted bizarrely as "unemployed". (And now that Poundland etc can now get "unemployed" people to do the work for free, it no longer needs to actually employ people properly, thus destroying jobs and keeping more people in unemployment. What a brilliant system!)
|
How many times do I have to say, that if I sign on, I get my National Insurance stamp. That's it. No money, so I don't bother.
The system, such as it is, supports those who know how to work it. It's a poor safety net for those who get caught up in it, and as such it is not fit for purpose.
Why not offer a solution, instead of bickering?
|
Something a long the lines of the proposed universal credit but with tighter rules to stop persons playing the system.Coupled with hard enforcement of the minimum wage should make it work. http://empressm7.uboot.com/ http://www.socialkink.com/empressmartine Vampire, pro/lifestyle ts dom/switch.Ageplay mummy/aunty/AB,medical play,domestic,energy, outdoor specialist."Who you calling"@?!;:$£<Σ#"!" "Did you just call me a "@€$££!?"!
Edited 16 Jan 12, 5:52 PM by Empress_Martine
|
16 Jan 12, 10:35 PM
emark
UK, 9 yrs |
Muzzlehatch wrote:
How many times do I have to say, that if I sign on, I get my National Insurance stamp. That's it. No money, so I don't bother. |
But would you prefer a life unemployed, if you did get that amount of money to live on?
| The system, such as it is, supports those who know how to work it. It's a poor safety net for those who get caught up in it, and as such it is not fit for purpose. |
Yes it is a poor safety net, so I'm not sure why people are so envious of those who are on it.
| Why not offer a solution, |
I have. The current situation is one solution that works good enough. Problems such as benefit trap situations can and should be fixed.
That's uncalled for. We're both here to debate.Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement
|
17 Jan 12, 12:49 PM
Empress_Martine
UK(HA), 2 yrs
£
|
emark wrote:
Muzzlehatch wrote:
How many times do I have to say, that if I sign on, I get my National Insurance stamp. That's it. No money, so I don't bother. |
But would you prefer a life unemployed, if you did get that amount of money to live on?
| The system, such as it is, supports those who know how to work it. It's a poor safety net for those who get caught up in it, and as such it is not fit for purpose. |
Yes it is a poor safety net, so I'm not sure why people are so envious of those who are on it.
| Why not offer a solution, |
I have. The current situation is one solution that works good enough. Problems such as benefit trap situations can and should be fixed.
That's uncalled for. We're both here to debate.
|
So why not have a system based on universal credit with vouchers for fuel etc plus an element to cover housing benifit and/or council tax? It would make a lot of sense as wipe away the pyramid of benifits and some of the weird situations such as someone being on JSA but with a disable dependant,and can not claim carers allowance! http://empressm7.uboot.com/ http://www.socialkink.com/empressmartine Vampire, pro/lifestyle ts dom/switch.Ageplay mummy/aunty/AB,medical play,domestic,energy, outdoor specialist."Who you calling"@?!;:$£<Σ#"!" "Did you just call me a "@€$££!?"!
Edited 17 Jan 12, 12:55 PM by Empress_Martine
|
17 Jan 12, 10:17 PM
spirifer
UK, 6 yrs
|
Muzzlehatch wrote:
Amante_Velora wrote:
I know clothing doesn't have to come with designer labels. What a ridiculous thing to say.
|
Why is it ridiculous? Just an example of people today having materialistic aspirations, which they consider reasonable.
When they have got themselves into debt with a lifestyle they can no longer maintain. Why should the benefit system help them with that when they lose a job?
Is that fair on those who pay tax to keep them?
|
What a stupid thing to say. Not many of us can afford to buy a house without a mortgage. But, according to your logic, if we unexpectedly lose our jobs, we've "got into debt with a lifestyle we can no longer maintain", so we shouldn't get any benefits.
The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation - Pierre Trudeau
A denizen of a right little, tight little island.
|
