Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    That's why there's child benefit.
    So you covered one cost, how about the other ten or so?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think people are getting a bit confused. If you have children there are a number of other benefits you could also be claiming which makes existence a lot more comfortable. That's where the problem lies. With 3 children, for example, the tax credits alone run into many hundreds of pounds a week.

    The fixed amount of £53 (or whatever it is) is for a single man or woman below the age of 25 with no children. Yes, life is not cushy, but that isn't what JSA is for.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meadsy)
    So you covered one cost, how about the other ten or so?
    That's what the £53 is for...

    How about you post a list of what costs the person has, showing them all adding up to more than £53 per week? I bet that if you do it will be possible to reduce and/or elimate the costs you post without restricting them to bread and water with no form of entertainment.

    I don't think of people on benefits as 'all scroungers' and appreciate many people don't want to be on them and are unemployed/receiving very low pay through no fault of their own. However I do think it's ridiculous when people say '£x isn't enough to live on' when I'm living on less just through choosing to buy cheaply.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    The question of whether or not he can live on £53 a week is irrelevant; he earns a salary and pays his own way in the world.

    The people that rely on money taken by force from others do not have the right to set their own budget or to live in houses larger than necessary. In my eyes, they do not deserve anything at all; nobody has a moral obligation to be charitable. If they wish to, they are to be commended for their philanthropy, but nobody is morally obliged to be charitable.

    They should be grateful to get anything.

    And you seem to forget that benefits are not supposed to provide a reasonable standard of living. They are supposed to be a safety net, not a hammock.
    you truly are a scumbag
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    What is "an entitlement society"?
    Britain 1997 - 2010

    "abolished" boom and bust

    Jam today and jam tomorrow and the day after until the cupboard was bare and brown had spent the miney of those who actually contribute many times over.

    NWNF and where's their blame there's a claim

    Whipcash ( just a shame insurers pay out without a FULL neuro exam)...

    A system where significantnumbers of benefit claimants could recieve more net than the median gross wage ..

    A system that brought labour votes by ensuring the feckless clueless professional 3rd generation doleites were kept in sky tv **** and stella.

    A system that permitted and failed to sanction underoccupation of social housing while pulling the ladder up on access to affordable hoysing to buy because of all the champagne socialists who became 'proprty developers' thanks to Brown's out of control credit culture.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    The problem is that there are too many people playing the system, sucking the budget dry.. they are the ones who are preventing hard working men and women who have faced redundancies from receiving adequate support.

    If anyone hear has grown up on a council estate, you would be aware that a lot of people have not worked ONE day in their entire lives..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kolasinac138)
    £212 a month

    -200 for rent

    -100 for food

    -50 for bills

    -200 for clubbing with friends

    = £-338



    NO, I CAN'T
    Clubbing is a LUXURY. Rent is paid ON TOP OF THE £53.00. There are more than four weeks to your average month, so the £212 figure is understated. The totals of what you say, that are what you need and are not covered separately, are £150.00. Therefore, you certainly CAN live on it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    The question of whether or not he can live on £53 a week is irrelevant; he earns a salary and pays his own way in the world.
    Subsidised House of Commons bar, second home, obscene expenses all on the taxpayer but yeah, he pays for his own way in the world :rolleyes:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I would like IDS to tell us when he was on the dole, and was receiving £53 a week. This is the guy who lives in a house which he has not paid a penny for, because it was given to his wife by her Father. IDS has not got a clue what it is like to live on the breadline.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Wasn't what he said "if I had to I would"? Surely that means "if I was unemployed I would have to live on £53 a week because I'd have no other choice" not "I could live my lifestyle as it is now on £53 a week".

    Seems to me the only problem here is a lack of understanding on the part of the people who signed that ridiculous petition.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scots King)
    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?
    Apart from the fact that ONE person doesn't need a TWO-bedroomed place, yes, £6.91 is enough. Food can be bought for £3 a day. The extra £3.91 a day would be enough for utilities and even a mobile phone contract/pay-as-you-go. My phone contract is around 50p a day. That leaves £3.41. That's enough for utilities, at £23.87-a-week. Easily. And this is for someone who is living above the standard they need.

    And, please, people, STOP mentioning "children and rent". This figure is for SINGLE people, with those with children getting child benefit and child tax credit, on top of this. Housing benefit is also on top of this, and council tax benefit has been REPLACED, not totally absolished as a concept.

    If you are not working, it is perfectly feasible to live in a room in a shared house (the utilities being often covered in the rent, in such cases), eat for £20-a-week and spend a limited amount on 'luxuries' such as a phone.

    This is more than MILLIONS live on, worldwide. If you want more, then get a job; therein lies the perfect incentive. Iain Duncan Smith WORKS. Of course he wouldn't WANT to live on this amount.

    That's why he works.............

    Perhaps some of the ever-sanctimonious types could provide evidence as to how this amount ISN'T fit to live on? Some figures, maybe?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gateshipone)
    Wasn't what he said "if I had to I would"? Surely that means "if I was unemployed I would have to live on £53 a week because I'd have no other choice" not "I could live my lifestyle as it is now on £53 a week".

    Seems to me the only problem here is a lack of understanding on the part of the people who signed that ridiculous petition.
    Your defence of everything DWP really is getting a little silly now. Clearly the petition is in jest. What is it now 370,869 that think the incompetent **** should suffer the same as those he's working so hard to demonise. :rofl:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by truffle_girl)
    Iain Duncan Smith WORKS.
    Perhaps he shouldn't given his record, or at least be moved into something with a little less responsibility, Poundland shelf stacker in chief maybe.
    Offline

    2
    Do you expect him to be living off £53 to legitimise his statement? Why would he live off £53 if he earns his money and reaps the rewards of his career??

    People adapt when their circumstances change. If he had to, he would.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    Your defence of everything DWP really is getting a little silly now. Clearly the petition is in jest. What is it now 370,869 that think the incompetent **** should suffer the same as those he's working so hard to demonise. :rofl:
    How am I defending the DWP, I was simply asking if I had the quote right and commenting that if I did, then people have misunderstood it.

    As for the petition being in jest, you just have to look at some of the posts on here you'll see people clearly think he should live on £53 for real.

    Oh and just one more point, I've got a couple of issues with the things that were introduced the other day so definitely not going to blindly defend the DWP. Also, I'm really not a fan of IDS, I just think this whole thing has been blown totally out of proportion.

    The stalkerish posts are getting weird now. Please stop. You disagree with me, fine. To accuse me of defending an organisation that made me redundant is simply stupid and irritating.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gateshipone)
    How am I defending the DWP, I was simply asking if I had the quote right and commenting that if I did, then people have misunderstood it.
    Well you do keep poping up defending everything DWP.

    (Original post by gateshipone)
    Oh and just one more point, I've got a couple of issues with the things that were introduced the other day so definitely not going to blindly defend the DWP. Also, I'm really not a fan of IDS, I just think this whole thing has been blown totally out of proportion.
    Yeah you keep saying that, not seen much evidence of it though just an awful lot of defending.

    (Original post by gateshipone)
    The stalkerish posts are getting weird now. Please stop. You disagree with me, fine. To accuse me of defending an organisation that made me redundant is simply stupid and irritating.
    Oh please, if we're going to resort to that level, I was here first.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    Well you do keep poping up defending everything DWP.
    Except all the posts I've made over the years saying that some of the rules are wrong/crap and telling people how to play the system to their advantage. Surely a defender of the DWP like me would never do such things?

    Yeah you keep saying that, not seen much evidence of it though just an awful lot of defending.
    Kinda creepy that you're on the lookout for my posts...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    Britain 1997 - 2010

    "abolished" boom and bust

    Jam today and jam tomorrow and the day after until the cupboard was bare and brown had spent the miney of those who actually contribute many times over.

    NWNF and where's their blame there's a claim

    Whipcash ( just a shame insurers pay out without a FULL neuro exam)...

    A system where significantnumbers of benefit claimants could recieve more net than the median gross wage ..

    A system that brought labour votes by ensuring the feckless clueless professional 3rd generation doleites were kept in sky tv **** and stella.

    A system that permitted and failed to sanction underoccupation of social housing while pulling the ladder up on access to affordable hoysing to buy because of all the champagne socialists who became 'proprty developers' thanks to Brown's out of control credit culture.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You appear to be attempting to connect various disparate things.

    The abolished boom and bus thing, the only people that believed this were various economists in thrall to neo-liberal economics. I don't personally know anyone who took it seriously, we all saw the crash coming.

    Actually, most of the rest of what you post can be linked - to neo-liberal economics, the need to try and stop profits from falling and the idea of deregulation of everything. Deregulation of claims companies, the decline of wages in real terms and rising cost of living etc.

    Not sure what you mean by "champagne socialists" though. I know a lot of socialists, we all like our booze but not one of us is a property developer. Bizarre.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gateshipone)
    Kinda creepy that you're on the lookout for my posts...
    Don't flatter yourself, i'm not. I despise Iain Duncan Smith, he has absolutely no redeeming features, he's failed miserably in everything he's ever done and his only use seems to be as a patsy. I just can't understand why anyone would defend him in anyway, makes me very suspicious, so if you want to throw around the mentally ill personal attack in an attempt to discredit me you'd probably be better off labelling me as a paranoid conspiraloon.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    You appear to be attempting to connect various disparate things.
    despite the fact they are strong common factors in creating the entitlement culture , a culture of rights without responsibilities, a culture where labour buys the votes of the feckless to shore up the vote of the congenitally labour.

    The abolished boom and bus thing, the only people that believed this were various economists in thrall to neo-liberal economics. I don't personally know anyone who took it seriously, we all saw the crash coming.
    except those who lived on tick over extended themselves and expected the government to prop up their unsustainable lifestyles

    Actually, most of the rest of what you post can be linked - to neo-liberal economics, the need to try and stop profits from falling and the idea of deregulation of everything. Deregulation of claims companies, the decline of wages in real terms and rising cost of living etc.
    claims companies are almost a entirely a new Labour territory - NWNF in itself is a useful tool, but the advertising and backhanders that goes with 'claims companies' and 'accident management companies' rather than expanding access to real legal services .

    Not sure what you mean by "champagne socialists" though. I know a lot of socialists, we all like our booze but not one of us is a property developer. Bizarre.
    ? naive ? or ?troll ?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.