The Student Room Group

"Shame of Condem cuts"

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Lumberjack 101
On the flipside, 98.4% of brits didn`t need to use a foodbank during one of the worst recessions in decades. And I suspect quite a few of these people would have needed help regardless of who was in power or how well the economy was doing.


No they just starve during that time instead because they don't want the shame of going to a food bank and they feel very hungry, have you ever felt hungry for ages with finical pressure.
Stop having a naive soulless pricked attitude and think about what you just said.

This is a 1st world country, not some 3rd world where people rely on aid. The rich can easily help these people, but instead they'd rather faff about with their sweatshop made prada handbags instead of opening their eyes and doing something.
Original post by Lumberjack 101
Still a step in the right direction. If the taxpayer gives you money to cover the bills and you chose to spend it on crap then I don`t see why the taxpayer should spend more money bailing you out. There`s plenty of help available for smokers on the NHS so they have no reason to continue.


There's still not a shred of evidence that has ever been presented outside the tabloids that suggests anybody does "choose to spend it on crap". If I was a Tory councillor, perish the thought, I could declare tomorrow that benefit claimants would henceforth not be allowed to buy pet elephants, would it have any bearing on the world as it really is?

(That would be one way to justify the spare bedroom)

And please don't say "well there MUST BE SOME", of course there must be some. The point is that they're so vanishingly rare they're not worth worrying about. And even if it was common to buy luxuries, who would you be to prevent them from doing it, provided that the system is affordable?
Original post by scrotgrot
There's still not a shred of evidence that has ever been presented outside the tabloids that suggests anybody does "choose to spend it on crap". If I was a Tory councillor, perish the thought, I could declare tomorrow that benefit claimants would henceforth not be allowed to buy pet elephants, would it have any bearing on the world as it really is?

(That would be one way to justify the spare bedroom)

And please don't say "well there MUST BE SOME", of course there must be some. The point is that they're so vanishingly rare they're not worth worrying about. And even if it was common to buy luxuries, who would you be to prevent them from doing it, provided that the system is affordable?


Really? Not one person in receipt of any benefits smokes or has sky? Bull.

If they choose to put fags or TV or lottery tickets before food or a roof over their head them **** them.
Original post by Blueray2
No they just starve during that time instead because they don't want the shame of going to a food bank and they feel very hungry, have you ever felt hungry for ages with finical pressure.
Stop having a naive soulless pricked attitude and think about what you just said.

This is a 1st world country, not some 3rd world where people rely on aid. The rich can easily help these people, but instead they'd rather faff about with their sweatshop made prada handbags instead of opening their eyes and doing something.


"The rich" are doing something - where do you think the government gets it`s money from? It comes from income tax, capital gains, corporation tax etc paid by "rich people" and the companies they own.
If we're going to concern ourselves with the vanishingly small number of people using benefits money to buy cigarettes (and thus paying back into the economy through tobacco taxes), can we also worry far more about MPs and their expenses? After all, averaged across all benefits claimants benefit fraud works out to £59 per claimant per year, where expenses fraud for the same year averaged out at £1,858 per MP. Clearly the latter group are far more of a concern - should Lords be allowed to buy cigarettes or have Sky TV while collecting a daily allowance to attend the House? Let's give peers food vouchers instead.
Reply 45
Avatar for the bear
the bear
20
Original post by Dnator
I agree, although you will get a lot of angry responses. The burden apparently isn't on the claimant to plan their finances, not spend on frivolous items and to close their legs. No doubt some of them now know they can get free food so can splash on a few more cigarette packs a week.


agree... if you want to see real poverty go to India.
Reply 46
Avatar for The_Duck
The_Duck
7
Why does everyone here care whether claimants smoke or not? It's not our job to tell them how to spend their money, and just because they're on benefits doesn't mean that they aren't allowed any luxuries.
I always find it wierd that its the libertarians who want to tell poor people how to live.
Original post by The_Duck
Why does everyone here care whether claimants smoke or not? It's not our job to tell them how to spend their money, and just because they're on benefits doesn't mean that they aren't allowed any luxuries.
I always find it wierd that its the libertarians who want to tell poor people how to live.


Because they then need more money from the system to bail them out when they can`t pay the rent or feed the kids. That money that could be used to help more people who are being responsible and trying to improve their situation. Imagine how you would feel if your cooker breaks and you need a crisis loan to get a new one but you are told theres no money left as it`s been spent paying the rent of someone who chose to spend their JSA at the bookies.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Lumberjack 101
"The rich" are doing something - where do you think the government gets it`s money from? It comes from income tax, capital gains, corporation tax etc paid by "rich people" and the companies they own.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10368203/Top-earners-to-pay-third-of-all-income-tax-despite-rate-cut.html

'But the rich are getting a free ride through these cuts!!!'


Original post by The_Duck

I always find it wierd that its the libertarians who want to tell poor people how to live.


Well, telling people how to spend money you're giving them is different from telling them how to spend their own money...

I don't support restricting benefits, but your reasoning is faulty.
Reply 49
Avatar for Cylos
Cylos
4
Original post by Dnator
I am not sure why you need me to find you a study that 'proves' that you can live on very little money if you spend wisely.

Read my post I want a study that shows.

•

The majority of welfare claimants and low paid employed who go to food banks do so because they waste their money.


That's the claim you seem to be making
Reply 50
Avatar for The_Duck
The_Duck
7
Original post by TimmonaPortella
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10368203/Top-earners-to-pay-third-of-all-income-tax-despite-rate-cut.html

'But the rich are getting a free ride through these cuts!!!'




Well, telling people how to spend money you're giving them is different from telling them how to spend their own money...

I don't support restricting benefits, but your reasoning is faulty.


Disagree completely. If you work for a company who gives you money then they don't dictate your spending.
Reply 51
Avatar for The_Duck
The_Duck
7
Original post by Lumberjack 101
Because they then need more money from the system to bail them out when they can`t pay the rent or feed the kids. That money that could be used to help more people who are being responsible and trying to improve their situation. Imagine how you would feel if your cooker breaks and you need a crisis loan to get a new one but you are told theres no money left as it`s been spent paying the rent of someone who chose to spend their JSA at the bookies.


And this suggests to you that they should have their spending decided centrally? To me that suggests that JSA isn't high enough.

Also who gets emergency loans from the government? Is that even a thing?
Original post by Lumberjack 101
"The rich" are doing something - where do you think the government gets it`s money from? It comes from income tax, capital gains, corporation tax etc paid by "rich people" and the companies they own.


Tell me how much tax have Starbucks paid? Yeah that's right.
Also not enough of the money "rich people" pay goes to the poor in our society to help them get out of poverty. This thread is evidence of it.

Btw i'd love to see you react if you became disabled or lose your job and then see you talking :smile:
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by The_Duck
And this suggests to you that they should have their spending decided centrally? To me that suggests that JSA isn't high enough.

Also who gets emergency loans from the government? Is that even a thing?


Never said that. Spend the money on whatever you want, but if you have essentials like food or bills to pay and don`t then you can`t expect the taxpayer to provide more simply for being stupid. If you spent your student loan on booze and couldn`t pay the last terms rent do you think SFE should just give you more? Would you not rather that money was spent on disadvantaged or disabled students?

If you need money to pay for essentials then you can get a loan from the government: https://www.gov.uk/budgeting-loans/overview. Its been around in various forms since the mid 80`s to help with unexpected financial expenses for people on benefits.
Original post by The_Duck
Disagree completely. If you work for a company who gives you money then they don't dictate your spending.


...

That's not quite the same situation as help from the state, though, is it?
This argument that people on benefits spend all their money on drinks, televisions, etc and then go to the government for bailouts after their benefits have run out - what bail outs? You can't turn up at the job centre and go "Please sir, can I have some more." No one is asking you to bail out a bunch of people who've simply elected not to bother paying rent this month because the government will cover it instead - the system just provides a (barely) liveable minimum standard for a largely vulnerable group, with not much by way of safety net in the event of unexpected crises or expenses.
Original post by anosmianAcrimony
Because fast food is the cheapest food, and also the fattiest. The poorest kids often end up overweight as a result.


Do they?

There was a report on the BBC a few months back from a nutritionist who reckons £15 a week is the cost to feed somebody. But that involves food prep Nd a basic understanding if cooking. That's probably where the problem lies. People paying for conviemience.
Original post by Blueray2
Enough to stop people resulting in food banks in the HIC Britain.


"We should do something!", "Like what?"," I dont know! Something!" :banghead:
Original post by Lumberjack 101
"We should do something!", "Like what?"," I dont know! Something!" :banghead:


Yeah pay more.
Original post by Blueray2
Yeah pay more.


In the 1970`s the top band was 83% on income tax and 98% on interest and "the poor" were a lot worse off then than they are today. In fact it bankrupted the country and the IMF bailed us out. But then I suppose you would think its worth it just to screw "the rich".

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you