Ian Duncan Smith can live on £53 a week...

Personal attacks against the man who is trying to rid us of an entitlement society.

Personal attacks against the man who is trying to rid us of an entitlement society.

Personal attacks against the man who is trying to rid us of an entitlement society.

So good you had to post it twice. Maybe he could start by working on his own delusions of entitlement, £39 breakfast at taxpayers expensence? He wouldn't make it to lunchtime.

What is "an entitlement society"?

One where people feel they are entitled to something.

So unless your actually paying your way. I.e not receiving benefits your opinion on that matter doesn't really count.

People need to wake up and absorb a dose of reality. Living on £53 a week is not easy by any stretch of the imagination. As a previous poster pointed out, how does your £53 cover trips to interviews, clothes for your children, mobile phone bills, gas, water, electricity etc, as well as food and basic survival? How is anyone meant to get a strong footing if they don't have enough money to better them selves and progress up the ladder? You need money to be able to get your self back into employment. You talk about an 'entitlement society', what entitlements exactly? £53 doesn't entitle you too much other than basic, raw survival.

Amazingly, not everyone on benefits is choosing to be on benefits. A lot of people have no other choice, their skills have become redundant, job market non existent and now finding a job becomes a great struggle. Who in the right mind thinks that these people should not be given any money? You think stopping these people from being able to survive and get a job will fix the economy? What a joke. Some of you need to get out your little bubbles. There are honest, hard working men sat on benefits trying their very best to get a job, yet apparently, according to some people on here, they should have no sense of entitlement, no form of support, they should be given to money. What use does that do? Someone who has been paying taxes all their lives and someone who has become victim to a shift in the nature of economy and a depleted jobs market, SHOULD be supported by the Government and SHOULD be supported with enough money to live comfortably and get back on the employment ladder.

Which people? Entitled to what? In what circumstances? Are we talking about people being entitled to being housed, fed, have good health, live in a stable society etc? Or MPs feeling entitled to claim whatever they like from their expenses? Investment bankers feeling entitled to huge bonuses despite their role in crashing the economy? What exactly are we talking about here?

Good technique. Lose the argument and try and turn it away from the issue.

It's not meant to cover everything. If it did they're be no reason to go and get a job. There's enough to survive.

It's not meant to cover everything. If it did they're be no reason to go and get a job. There's enough to survive.

Who said it should cover everything? Read the entirety of the post before commenting next time. I said there needs to be money in place in order to give people the opportunity to get these jobs you speak of. There has been plenty of people in here saying £53 is too much.

What makes you so sure that people who only have enough money to survive are able to travel for interviews, pay phone bills and clothe and feed their children?

Stop focusing on the people who are happy to sit on benefits, and actually consider the people who are actively looking for work. Survival money doesn't help them find work, it doesn't help them get back into employment. How can someone in their 40's be expected to retrain and travel the country looking for work when he doesn't have enough money to feed his own children?

I was just wondering if someone could confirm this for me?

A person claiming JSA between 16-24 will get the lower rate = £56.80. (from April 2013)

If they are living alone in a two bedroomed house/flat then they will lose 14% of their HB and be expected to pay this. Depending on what their rent is, this would put them well below the £53 being discussed here.

Say for arguments sake their weekly rent rate is £60. Their HB will only cover £51.60. The claimant will have to pay £8.40

This would leave the claimant with a grand total of - £48.40. Or £6.91 a day. That is going to be a stretch for most to live on.

Is this correct or am I missing something?

Who said it should cover everything? Read the entirety of the post before commenting next time. I said there needs to be money in place in order to give people the opportunity to get these jobs you speak of. There has been plenty of people in here saying £53 is too much.

What makes you so sure that people who only have enough money to survive are able to travel for interviews, pay phone bills and clothe and feed their children?

Stop focusing on the people who are happy to sit on benefits, and actually consider the people who are actively looking for work. Survival money doesn't help them find work, it doesn't help them get back into employment. How can someone in their 40's be expected to retrain and travel the country looking for work when he doesn't have enough money to feed his own children?

Whys a 16 to 24 year old living by themselves in a two bedroomed house whilst on benefits in the first place?

and yes, it is possible to live off £6.41 a day. Most of the world get by on a $1 a day.