Benefit Cuts

The government has today vowed to cut benefits even further, they are especially targeting those people who choose to live on benefits as a lifestyle.

The fact people can live a cushy life on benefits is an absolute outrage. Benefits should pay for food on the table and a roof over your head - nothing more. Benefits shouldn't pay for satellite tv, games consoles or cars. And they certainly shouldn't be an incentive to keep having sprogs.

I applaud the government in this stance, and I hope they get tough.

Am I being too tough or are the government spot on?

They should stop child benefit/tax credits after 2 kids. If you want more kids you should be prepared to pay for them yourself.

Will they really get tough though.or is it simply party conference rhetoric. Lots of good sound bites but governemnts have been saying this sort of thing for years and doing nothing. What they need to do is catch the fraudsters and jail them for a long time so that it might deter others.

There are lots of people who genuinely need benefits and if they're a bit generous- so they can afford a few pints I couldn't care less.

If you're unemployed with nothing to do from one day to the next, then having a few quid off the state for a bit of relaxation and enjoyment is fine with me.

It's the thieving bastards taking the rest of us for a ride that we need to concentrate on.

Like Mrs Hamza with her criminal sons living in a £1million house paid for by the rest of us!

I agree with Rammy white...

here is my rant from another thread, il post it here, I knew Nat would start a thread about this eventually...

I dont like the fact the Tories wont sanction the proposed 'mansion tax'
- apparently MP's were not keen on the idea... wonder why? they are
however, happy to raise VAT to 20% and make low earners pay even more
all in the name of austerity... I look forward to row upon row of
austere mansions on dean road by 2018 as promised...

Nothing will change when the austerity measures have apparently stopped - things wont go cheaper, the government will have got used to the money and wont give it back. VAT wont be cut back to 'normal' levels, schools and other public services will still have to struggle on the crap budgets they have now - the only people who will benefit are the Mp's and certain millionaire's

apparently, some MPs were not keen on the idea of paying any (less) more tax...

so...
going forward, instead of 1% of the earnings of millionaires, they are
taking 10% off the poorest people in society, keep the oyster and
champagne fund alive eh.

dont get me wrong, I fucking hate bums -
but the government is ripping the heart out of the working and middle
classes to finance their own interests.

If you think im wrong -
have a look at how many MPs had bought shares in First Group just before
they were awarded the contract for the west coast main line, ok, its
going to be re-bid due to a 'mistake being made', the mistake was that
somebody smelled a rat!

the Tories are not in it for the people
of this country, its all about making money then fucking off and letting
labour pick up the pieces... again.

weather we like it or not, there ARE people in this country, that
through no fault of there own simply HAVE to live on benefits - I feel a
MEANS TESTED system would be better on the whole. force the cunts who
have no intention of working in to a job or cut ALL the benefits.

make
childcare FREE for all single mothers and you watch a lot more of them
walk in to a job - they currently have no intention of getting a job
when they would be better off on benefits.

...and yes, this little rant comes from a person with a job that pays a half decent salary, not a bum.

mansion tax is a totally ridiculous idea, to tax people based on the size of their home is not even slightly fair. Someone could save up for half their life, spend little money elsewhere and buy a nice home and then be taxed heavily when their income may be low. Also many assest are obtained through inheritance. Should a person on £27,000 a year have to pay a huge amount of tax because their parents left them the family home? of course not.

'mansion tax' is just another ridiculous idea which has been proposed as a tax of the rich when in fact its a tax on anyone who has a large home - so basically if your not an idiot and decide to actually save money for your family to live in a comfortable house your taxed more than a banker on £100,000 who lives in a tiny house and spend it all on parties and cars..

How would that be fair?

Lofty_Love wrote:mansion tax is a totally ridiculous idea, to tax people based on the size of their home is not even slightly fair. Someone could save up for half their life, spend little money elsewhere and buy a nice home and then be taxed heavily when their income may be low. Also many assest are obtained through inheritance. Should a person on £27,000 a year have to pay a huge amount of tax because their parents left them the family home? of course not.

'mansion tax' is just another ridiculous idea which has been proposed as a tax of the rich when in fact its a tax on anyone who has a large home - so basically if your not an idiot and decide to actually save money for your family to live in a comfortable house your taxed more than a banker on £100,000 who lives in a tiny house and spend it all on parties and cars..

How would that be fair?

Its as fair as stamp duty...

when you put it like that, it does not seem fair, I was thinking more along the lines of people who can afford massive mansions can afford to pay a bit more tax... I stand by that.

The alternative is to keep stealing from the poor to make the rich even richer - the tory philosophy.

Do you think the poor are EVER going to benefit from austerity measures? are they fuck, when we eventually (if ever) come out of austerity measures the only people who will Benefit are the select few...

If you genuinely believe that paying more in to the government kitty is going to make a brighter future for US your wrong - its not. you wont see one jot of difference.

When I say 'poor' I do use the term loosely by the way...

I mean say, people who earn less than 50k a year.

Reebok_Rebel wrote:When I say 'poor' I do use the term loosely by the way...

I mean say, people who earn less than 50k a year.

The vast majority of people in this country earn less than £50k - I suspect you're one of those rich pricks you claim to hate.

I heard a good one today, which I hadn't realised.



Back in the UK I know someone who has unfortunately been unemployed for the last 12 months. She has had over 25 interviews and applied for well over 800 jobs. She has had to sell her house, car, books and jewellery to survive. She is currently living in a council flat (paid for through housing benefit) and receiving the basic unemployment benefit which is just over 60 quid a week. When she questioned about being re-trained to help her gain new employment she was told that they do not do retraining any more as due to the austerity measure they were all withdrawn. She was advised, in a very roundabout fashion, that if she wanted to receive more money that the best way would be to get pregnant!!!!!!!

She is a proud person and does want to get her life back on track, does want to work and be independent of any benefits - but how can she as it does look as though she has fallen through the net. She cannot move back home as both her parents died in a car crash a few years ago so she is literally by herself!!!

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Reebok_Rebel wrote:When I say 'poor' I do use the term loosely by the way...

I mean say, people who earn less than 50k a year.

The vast majority of people in this country earn less than £50k - I suspect you're one of those rich pricks you claim to hate.

Wrong...

When I saw you had posted on this thread I initialy thought I was. Going to get 'im rich, daddys money will sort me out' crap...but you amaze me nat...your not as rich as you make out are you?


Instead I get slagged off for picking a figure that I came to by adding me and mrs rebel's (well ex mrs rebels) joint salary and rounding it up or down to the nearest hundred.

If having a 48k joint income made us rich, jesus id hate to see what you consider poor!

Dont get me wrong, we could afford a nice house, cars, clothes, to eat out/go out a lot and a couple of holidays a year...but we still had to be careful with money, we couldnt spend money like it was going out of fashion.

This is why I consider it to be a kind if yardstick for measuring wealth 50k a year gives you a half decent but not lavish lifestyle.

Although david cameron would still consuder that poverty..

bwfc71 wrote:I heard a good one today, which I hadn't realised.



Back in the UK I know someone who has unfortunately been unemployed for the last 12 months. She has had over 25 interviews and applied for well over 800 jobs. She has had to sell her house, car, books and jewellery to survive. She is currently living in a council flat (paid for through housing benefit) and receiving the basic unemployment benefit which is just over 60 quid a week. When she questioned about being re-trained to help her gain new employment she was told that they do not do retraining any more as due to the austerity measure they were all withdrawn. She was advised, in a very roundabout fashion, that if she wanted to receive more money that the best way would be to get pregnant!!!!!!!

She is a proud person and does want to get her life back on track, does want to work and be independent of any benefits - but how can she as it does look as though she has fallen through the net. She cannot move back home as both her parents died in a car crash a few years ago so she is literally by herself!!!

David cameron would just say "if you cant afford to retrain, then polish this oyster stain of my shoe you dirty prole"

I agree its wrong.

sombody I know very well who is a full time mum was TOLD to quit her job as she woyld be better off on benefits..

Im still getting off on the fact nat thinks im a rich playboy, maybe she will let me shag her!

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

the Tories are not in it for the people
of this country, its all about making money then fucking off and letting
labour pick up the pieces... again.

weather we like it or not, there ARE people in this country, that
through no fault of there own simply HAVE to live on benefits - I feel a
MEANS TESTED system would be better on the whole. force the cunts who
have no intention of working in to a job or cut ALL the benefits.

make
childcare FREE for all single mothers and you watch a lot more of them
walk in to a job - they currently have no intention of getting a job
when they would be better off on benefits.

...and yes, this little rant comes from a person with a job that pays a half decent salary, not a bum.

You're dreaming if you think the Labour politicians are any different than the Tories. The majority of the mess we're in was caused by Labour. If Labour had won the last election we'd probably be just like Greece by now - you'd have lost your job and you'd be throwing stones at the police in Bolton Town Centre.

I agree that there are people that HAVE to live on benefits. I would actually vastly increase the payments made to genuine disabled/ill people and their carers.

But too many people have worked out that they're better off on benefits than going out and getting a minimum wage job. How can that be right? The working should always be better off than the unemployed. Always.

And if the unemployed can't afford a Playstation or Sky Sports then GOOD! Perhaps it will encourage them to go out and get a job so they can have the luxuries other people work hard for.

Childcare for free for all single mothers? Are you fucking stupid? That just encourages more slappers to drop their knickers and have a baby. It should be law that you can only have a child when you can afford it.

I'm not saying anything controversial, it's just we've been brought up in such a soft society people have forgotten what real work is, and also what real hardship is.

I agree with cuts to benefits, but when they're looking for 10bn pounds of savings why didn't they stop fucking about in Afganistan, simply bringing our soldiers back from being shot by the people they're training would save that much.

According to his peech today he needs to find a further 16 billion is savings before the next general election. Here is an idea, stop the 12 billion in overseas aid - thats the majority sorted.



Problem being at the moment, yes these savings are working BUT the public borrowing is actually increasing month on month because of the austerity cuts - i.e. continual job losses which outweigh the creation of new jobs. But once pupils stay at school until they are 18 - which will be happening in a couple of years - that should solve the problem, actually it won't because then education will need more money to cover the extra costs for the extra 2 years of schooling and then of course there is changing teh exam system from GCSE's to the E-BAcs which will cost billions in training, new books, new exams, merging exam boards to create a single board - so even more job losses etc etc etc.



Yes we are doing well with the savings but on the flipside we are creating even more and more spending of public money!!!

They should raise the minimum wage by at least a pound an hour.

bwfc71 wrote:Back in the UK I know someone who has unfortunately been unemployed for the last 12 months. She has had over 25 interviews and applied for well over 800 jobs. She has had to sell her house, car, books and jewellery to survive. She is currently living in a council flat (paid for through housing benefit) and receiving the basic unemployment benefit which is just over 60 quid a week. When she questioned about being re-trained to help her gain new employment she was told that they do not do retraining any more as due to the austerity measure they were all withdrawn. She was advised, in a very roundabout fashion, that if she wanted to receive more money that the best way would be to get pregnant!!!!!!!

She is a proud person and does want to get her life back on track, does want to work and be independent of any benefits - but how can she as it does look as though she has fallen through the net. She cannot move back home as both her parents died in a car crash a few years ago so she is literally by herself!!!

This is the nightmare scenario and anyone could suddenly find themselves in this situation through no fault of their own.

One day you're in a job and everything's fine, next thing you know you've been made redundant, sold everything you own and you're spiralling downwards faster than a Coyle-managed team.

Numpty 28723 wrote:
This is the nightmare scenario and anyone could suddenly find themselves in this situation through no fault of their own.

One day you're in a job and everything's fine, next thing you know you've been made redundant, sold everything you own and you're spiralling downwards faster than a Coyle-managed team.

Oh definitely, and I feel for the woman Mr Amos mentioned. But I'm talking about the people who choose to be unemployed because it's better than working for minimum wage.

Minimum wage, to be fair, is too low even for basic necessities nowadays.



Food prices continually rising

Bus fares are not cheap and each bus company have their own fare structure and prices and do not use each others passes and if you get any of the passes that originate from the TFGM then they are even more expensive.

Petrol is just as bad as the fuel companies are now profiteering more than ever.

Utlity bills continually on the rise

etc etc etc

But the Minimum Wage hasn't risen for 3 years now and it actually keeps people below the poverty line now - I am talking working people and not work dodgers!!!!

Fair enough, I know what you mean but when the benefits are cut both types of people are affected cash-wise which is the dilemma.