Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophiaLDN)
    Same, but people are human. We cant actually police what they do with the amount given to them. If they decide to squander it all at once then that's their prerogative, they'll have no money to last them & will go hungry for weeks.
    Admittedly it's impossibly to police but the financial mismanagement of a few leads the big question: "Once they have squandered their money and are starving, do we allow them to stare or do we step in and hand more out?" If children are involved it becomes an even bigger dilemma.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    Admittedly it's impossibly to police but the financial mismanagement of a few leads the big question: "Once they have squandered their money and are starving, do we allow them to stare or do we step in and hand more out?" If children are involved it becomes an even bigger dilemma.

    Strikes me that most people object to a nanny state. Also, it's impossible to have a perfect model. So I say let them spend it how they like. People want to be treated like independent adults, unless stated otherwise.

    As for the children - treat it like any other section of society. If the children are mistreated or neglected then step in with social services.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankieboy)
    It's a little thing called 'morale'. Deny people any kind of release or 'treat' at all and you'll find morale plumetting which is very bad for the country as a whole, and as the French found, potentially disasterous.

    Sure, benefits shouldn't be paying for bigger TVs and holidays, but come one - you'd deny them the odd visit to Starbucks? Seriously? I find that a touch draconian.
    If it was possible to do - as Sophia pointed out, it's impossible to police - I would deny them the odd visit to Starbucks. Okay, maybe once, say twice a year or so (I'll be generous) but that is the very limit.

    Maybe you've experienced the following feeling. Being in Wales EMA still exists. I couldn't claim it but people at school could. My parents worked hard, have good salaries and I was fortunate enough to be given many nice things. I had an iPhone and realised many people around me - many on EMA - also had iPhones. It turned out they would save up their EMA and not put it towards attending education as is intended, instead purchase iPhones, designer clothes and whatever else with the money. I accept a need for a phone but there were cheaper alternatives to a £500 iPhone. I held great disgust and anger that my parent's money (through the taxes they pay) was not funding young people to continue with education as EMA was marketed but instead was funding an iPhone contract. Sadly, it seemed the majority of EMA claimants in a college of over 1500 did this. This is one of many examples I have!

    If the children are mistreated or neglected then step in with social services.
    Fair enough but with the cost of courts, social workers, care until adoption, legalities etc... It's cheaper to throw more money hoping they will finally feed their children with it than it is to take the children into care.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samba)
    I don't think he gets the idea of free choice really. Wouldn't be surprised if we saw a 'sig heil' on the end of some of his sentences.
    I havent read his other comments so I cant comment. But seeing other comments on here, it seems like people are making poor people the 'other'. Not even human, just a problem that needs to be solved. Spoiler: no one actually wants to be on benefits. Having seen all those propaganda documentaries lately that demonise the poor, im actually shocked that people think its a life of luxury being on benefits when its the complete opposite. Next they'd be removing their ovaries so they cant breed and kicking them into rural areas so they keep out of sight (already staring).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    If it was possible to do - as Sophia pointed out, it's impossible to police - I would deny them the odd visit to Starbucks. Okay, maybe once, say twice a year or so (I'll be generous) but that is the very limit.

    Maybe you've experienced the following feeling. Being in Wales EMA still exists. I couldn't claim it but people at school could. My parents worked hard, have good salaries and I was fortunate enough to be given many nice things. I had an iPhone and realised many people around me - many on EMA - also had iPhones. It turned out they would save up their EMA and not put it towards attending education as is intended, instead purchase iPhones, designer clothes and whatever else with the money. I accept a need for a phone but there were cheaper alternative to a £500 iPhone. I held great disgust and anger that my parent's money (through the taxes they pay) was not funding young people to continue with education as EMA was marketed but instead was funding an iPhone contract. This is one of many example I have!
    Maybe all students should get vouchers too :rofl:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It's a terrible idea even in theory. Paying benefits in the scrip of giant corporations is corporate welfare at its most flagrant. We need to grow some balls and get these scrounging companies off the teat.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    If it was possible to do - as Sophia pointed out, it's impossible to police - I would deny them the odd visit to Starbucks. Okay, maybe once, say twice a year or so (I'll be generous) but that is the very limit.

    Maybe you've experienced the following feeling. Being in Wales EMA still exists. I couldn't claim it but people at school could. My parents worked hard, have good salaries and I was fortunate enough to be given many nice things. I had an iPhone and realised many people around me - many on EMA - also had iPhones. It turned out they would save up their EMA and not put it towards attending education as is intended, instead purchase iPhones, designer clothes and whatever else with the money. I accept a need for a phone but there were cheaper alternative to a £500 iPhone. I held great disgust and anger that my parent's money (through the taxes they pay) was not funding young people to continue with education as EMA was marketed but instead was funding an iPhone contract. This is one of many example I have!



    Fair enough but with the cost of courts, social workers, care until adoption, legalities etc... It's cheaper to throw more money hoping they will finally feed their children with it than it is to take the children into care.

    I agree with Frankieboy, that we cant police people and by depriving them of actually having money and having vouchers or even telling them what they can spend their money on is incredible. The thing about denying them things like coffee or whatever, what if they take their children out for a treat? Or their Birthday? Do we only allow them 1 holiday to celebrate? What about friends? They have friends and family who wont be on benefits, does this mean they wont be able/allowed to socialise with friends? Within their budget ofcourse, we have to realise that this stigma attached that they squander their money away on iphones etc or whatever isnt actually the norm. IF they do, then they will have nothing left and will perish with hunger. I haven't heard of this happening though? Have people been given more money to feed their children once they over spent on benefits??

    EMA is not a luxury come on, 20- 30 pounds a week (if you go in on time consistently and other school rules/grades being kept I think?) isnt enough to afford you with luxury goods like designer clothes. Especially when considering travel costs and food. If so, then they should definitely get travel vouchers then ha!

    What about MPs who are making the taxpayer pay for their £39 breakfast or heating their house and other ridiculous expenses claims when they already have a salary that provides them with more than enough?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophiaLDN)
    Next they'd be removing their ovaries so they cant breed and kicking them into rural areas so they keep out of sight (already staring).
    What a great idea! How dare they! Fat, lazy, booze-fuelled, unemployed, tobacco-addicted, Corrie-watching scroungers messing up the quiet, rural countryside. Outrage! :rofl: Almost as bad as travellers :lol: (two negative generalisations in one sentence. The mods will have a field day)

    (Original post by samba)
    Maybe all students should get vouchers too
    Touché!

    (Original post by SophiaLDN)
    EMA is not a luxury come on, 20- 30 pounds a week (if you go in on time consistently and other school rules/grades being kept I think?) isnt enough to afford you with luxury goods like designer clothes. Especially when considering travel costs and food.
    Yes to all of the previous apart from the last two. I would assume so. If no money is left to feed the children I can't imagine the state sitting idly by. There would be an application to emergency funding.

    £30 a week for a full term, no travel costs as bus passes/train passes are additional and free paid for by the council, free meals, plus child benefit soon adds up to be a large amount.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    If it was possible to do - as Sophia pointed out, it's impossible to police - I would deny them the odd visit to Starbucks. Okay, maybe once, say twice a year or so (I'll be generous) but that is the very limit.

    Maybe you've experienced the following feeling. Being in Wales EMA still exists. I couldn't claim it but people at school could. My parents worked hard, have good salaries and I was fortunate enough to be given many nice things. I had an iPhone and realised many people around me - many on EMA - also had iPhones. It turned out they would save up their EMA and not put it towards attending education as is intended, instead purchase iPhones, designer clothes and whatever else with the money. I accept a need for a phone but there were cheaper alternatives to a £500 iPhone. I held great disgust and anger that my parent's money (through the taxes they pay) was not funding young people to continue with education as EMA was marketed but instead was funding an iPhone contract. Sadly, it seemed the majority of EMA claimants in a college of over 1500 did this. This is one of many examples I have!



    Fair enough but with the cost of courts, social workers, care until adoption, legalities etc... It's cheaper to throw more money hoping they will finally feed their children with it than it is to take the children into care.
    So you were suckling on your parents' teat just as much as they were suckling on the government's teat. Why exactly should you get money for an iPhone without having to work but they shouldn't? Because you were born into the right family? Which century are we living in here?

    Also it doesn't matter what you call a benefit, the name is just a political justification for giving it out. The fact is that poor families need wealth redistribution to survive and to keep the economy from stagnating. Whether that comes from EMA handed over by the kids or a spurious incapacity benefit due to being structurally unemployed, it has to be done. You'd lose the money one way or another, because people start stealing before they let their children starve.

    Also if you think of EMA as being "your parents' money" you have a very, very poor grasp of finance, the treasury for an entire country operates on very different terms from your household finances, despite Thatcher's and Cameron's protestations to the contrary. But let's humour you for a moment and do some back of the envelope calculations based on EMA figures for England in 2011, because I can find no information about the Welsh one.

    Let's be generous and assume all 650,000 English claimants got the full £30/wk award. That's £19.5m/wk or 36p for each person in England. That's £19 a year - and in reality not everyone would get the £30 award.

    I do agree EMA in England was a benefit that could be easily cut without too much strife. But it's preposterous, parochial and downright narcissistic to link it and other benefits to your parents' tax bill.

    I speak as someone who didn't get EMA, who saw the same things as you, and furthermore whose parents didn't indulge him with top-of-the-range contract phones either. I was nothing but happy for my poorer friends who got EMA and whose fleeting youth was that much more carefree as a result.

    Also, corporations will have loved EMA. Distributing a benefit to impressionable kids who can be mass-marketed to, and who have no bills to pay? Delicious stuff for the likes of Apple. Poor people are keeping none of this money, it's all being sucked upwards into the giant, autocratic, unaccountable corporations who increasingly provide not only incidental trinkets like iPhones but also the delivery of the country's very infrastructure, which we all need just to survive.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I know all the points about bankers, politicians, corporations avoiding tax and the health and care costs of the elderly .. but I'm sick of the stories about people on benefits claiming more than some people make when they work and living in much bigger, nicer houses in areas of their choosing. Add in the entitled attitude, the usual failure to bring up kids well, the contribution to local crime, etc. and it is clear that far more needs to be changed.

    There's been a lot of discussion about vouchers and the counter argument mentioning things like cost, or people being able to spend their benefits on nandos, or cigs, or whatever they like - I wonder how much goes on betting, for example. In my opinion - **** that. If you are working and it's your money - buy what you like, otherwise - no.

    as an alternative I'd suggest taking the sad fact that we have food banks supplied with donations ... and turn them into benefit distribution points. No money and no reliance on junk food - all food and supplies in one handy package. As an added bonus this food can come from sell by date or damaged stock. Clothes can come from charity shops. You can whine and say this is 'mean' but there are plenty of people who have to do exactly this to get by. There should be no luxuries, no flat screens, fashion labels or saving money for boobjobs.

    The government should also have work schemes - providing education classes and training in all kinds of work and not just ****ty shelf stacking. It seems that plenty of people can't cook, clean or handle basic tasks like managing a budget. If you want to be nice- incentives could be offered to encourage more effort. But - No more sitting on your arse all day on a sofa in the street or stuck in front of the tv waiting to see what your mate has shoplifted for you. And no this doesn't come from just watching tv. You know Benefits Street? I go through that area every day. It's not just James Turner Street that has too many people pissing their lives away living off other people's money.

    there are disabled people who have been through the most offensively insulting 'assessments' and seen their money cut while benefit fraudsters, wasters and baby machines continue to drain the system. The system needs to be the safety net that people need - full care and funding if needed, otherwise it should be there to get you back on track and no more. I'd also cut any support for more than 2 kids - watch the birth rate plummet when the money disappears.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    So you were suckling on your parents' teat just as much as they were suckling on the government's teat. Why exactly should you get money for an iPhone without having to work but they shouldn't? Because you were born into the right family? Which century are we living in here?
    Because it was their own money used to buy the phone and not the government's handed to them in good faith (technically it was my money as I had a job and bough it but they did buy me other things).

    Also it doesn't matter what you call a benefit, the name is just a political justification for giving it out. The fact is that poor families need wealth redistribution to survive and to keep the economy from stagnating. Whether that comes from EMA handed over by the kids or a spurious incapacity benefit due to being structurally unemployed, it has to be done. You'd lose the money one way or another, because people start stealing before they let their children starve.
    I'm not saying any different. Of course state welfare is valuable to millions of people. I'm only proposing cuts to bring about the bare minimum and rolling it all into one. EMA and child benefit could be merged into one for example.

    Also if you think of EMA as being "your parents' money" you have a very, very poor grasp of finance, the treasury for an entire country operates on very different terms from your household finances, despite Thatcher's and Cameron's protestations to the contrary. But let's humour you for a moment and do some back of the envelope calculations based on EMA figures for England in 2011, because I can find no information about the Welsh one.

    I do agree EMA in England was a benefit that could be easily cut without too much strife. But it's preposterous, parochial and downright narcissistic to link it and other benefits to your parents' tax bill.
    I know it works out as a very tiny amount when divided amongst the ratepayer (slightly larger in Wales) but the feeling was still there. The feeling of it was my point. Frustration and anger was caused by people blatantly squandering their money given in good faith on things they didn't need. When you pay in but receive very little back and witness such squandering the feelings only strengthen. In essence it may have been your own money or parent's money due to the connection you felt to it.

    I speak as someone who didn't get EMA, who saw the same things as you, and furthermore whose parents didn't indulge him with top-of-the-range contract phones either. I was nothing but happy for my poorer friends who got EMA and whose fleeting youth was that much more carefree as a result.
    We must be polar opposite. I had nothing but anger, hatred and somewhat envy. There they were having free iPhones courtesy of the taxpayer whilst I and my parents worked to buy the same.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rjdjones)
    I know all the points about bankers, politicians, corporations avoiding tax and the health and care costs of the elderly .. but I'm sick of the stories about people on benefits claiming more than some people make when they work and living in much bigger, nicer houses in areas of their choosing. Add in the entitled attitude, the usual failure to bring up kids well, the contribution to local crime, etc. and it is clear that far more needs to be changed.

    There's been a lot of discussion about vouchers and the counter argument mentioning things like cost, or people being able to spend their benefits on nandos, or cigs, or whatever they like - I wonder how much goes on betting, for example. In my opinion - **** that. If you are working and it's your money - buy what you like, otherwise - no.
    You do realise the money corporations pay workers is made from exploiting their customers? Especially if you work for a company which is profiting from natural monopolies in the country's infrastructure. It's much dirtier money than benefits, and if it is made from privatised public services, it is all supported from the very poor people whose spending power you want to remove.

    as an alternative I'd suggest taking the sad fact that we have food banks supplied with donations ... and turn them into benefit distribution points. No money and no reliance on junk food - all food and supplies in one handy package. As an added bonus this food can come from sell by date or damaged stock. Clothes can come from charity shops. You can whine and say this is 'mean' but there are plenty of people who have to do exactly this to get by. There should be no luxuries, no flat screens, fashion labels or saving money for boobjobs.
    It's also highly inefficient, expensive for government, and reeks of the third world. We already have charities giving out "benefits" in kind. Charity goods and cash benefits in parallel mean there is more choice in the market.

    The government should also have work schemes - providing education classes and training in all kinds of work and not just ****ty shelf stacking.
    I would support workfare for infrastructure and environmental projects only. No profiteering from free labour. Education and training is quite useless in many cases - the fact is that there are pretty much permanently at least 5x as many unemployed as there are jobs, and due to the knowledge economy the unemployment rate will never be outside the range 5-10% no matter what you teach people.

    It seems that plenty of people don't have the time/money to cook, clean or handle basic tasks like managing a budget.
    Fixed

    If you want to be nice- incentives could be offered to encourage more effort. But - No more sitting on your arse all day on a sofa in the street or stuck in front of the tv waiting to see what your mate has shoplifted for you. And no this doesn't come from just watching tv. You know Benefits Street? I go through that area every day. It's not just James Turner Street that has too many people pissing their lives away living off other people's money.
    Transparent appeal to emotion this. Even assuming your dismissive judgemental bull**** were true, one street does not a culture make. (Crime, incidentally, is at all-time lows.) Please leave it out and have a proper debate.

    Also, as outlined above, everyone lives off other people's money: the money you earn as a wage has been given to you by a corporation in return for aiding them in developing products that will convince and/or coerce people to give them their money. We do not track transactions: benefits are simply a legal entitlement and that's all there is to it, they own the money just as much as working people do. Think of benefits as a negative income tax if it makes you feel better.

    there are disabled people who have been through the most offensively insulting 'assessments' and seen their money cut while benefit fraudsters, wasters and baby machines continue to drain the system. The system needs to be the safety net that people need - full care and funding if needed, otherwise it should be there to get you back on track and no more. I'd also cut any support for more than 2 kids - watch the birth rate plummet when the money disappears.
    I agree with this, with the small caveat that you must make yourself aware of the concept of structural unemployment. The efficiencies corporations can make from cutting jobs in a knowledge economy makes the managers/shareholders/lucky workers that much richer, but the books must always balance and I'm afraid the price of that is a need for proper wealth redistribution with reduced conditionality and no social shame attached to claiming. Because as production becomes more and more automated that's what we're going to have to move towards.
    • Community Assistant
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Very Important Poster
    I would be favour in some type of card system. Particularly where children are involved to ensure enough essentials are purchased.
    However, not everwhere will accept such cards. Poorer ppl often use markets.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    Because it was their own money used to buy the phone and not the government's handed to them in good faith (technically it was my money as I had a job and bough it but they did buy me other things).



    I'm not saying any different. Of course state welfare is valuable to millions of people. I'm only proposing cuts to bring about the bare minimum and rolling it all into one. EMA and child benefit could be merged into one for example.
    That's the sanitised story of Universal Credit - it's a lovely idea, and it's the sort of benefits I would like to have: no social shame, minimal conditionality, a sense that this is an economic necessity and even a boost to the economy. But as the more well intentioned proponents of Universal Credit are finding, the task is monumentally difficult (particularly when trying to keep conditionality) because people's circumstances are insanely complicated, and the price for failure is mental illness, loan shark debt, crime or even death.

    I know it works out as a very tiny amount when divided amongst the ratepayer (slightly larger in Wales) but the feeling was still there. The feeling of it was my point. Frustration and anger was caused by people blatantly squandering their money given in good faith on things they didn't need. When you pay in but receive very little back and witness such squandering the feelings only strengthen. In essence it may have been your own money or parent's money due to the connection you felt to it.

    We must be polar opposite. I had nothing but anger, hatred and somewhat envy. There they were having free iPhones courtesy of the taxpayer whilst I and my parents worked to buy the same.
    Well, I'm sorry, but feelings aren't a valid argument. I would hope we would want to deal in facts, reasoning and economic argument. Benefits are a cheap insurance policy against mental illness, household debt, crime, and they also boost GDP as poor people have to spend that money to survive, while rich people would just hoard it.

    I don't think we are polar opposites at all. My hate for corporate welfare, bank bail-outs, political gravy trains, tax avoidance, propping up the property market and all the rest of it is visceral. What's worse is this stuff hurts the economy, because the rich hoard money that they don't know what to do with. Sorry if this sounds rude, but the difference is that I'm, you know, actually focusing on where the most money is being stolen from us rather than tinkering around the edges with pathetic rubbish like whether the woman in number 42 spends her dole money on cigarettes - or indeed your parents' ruinous 36p per week contribution towards the EMA budget.

    (That's rhetoric - as I said before, I'd say EMA is actually one of the benefits I'd always have been OK with cutting, and it was way too expensive for very little proven gain. Incidentally, I found a summary figure for EMA spend in England by 2011: £560m per year, which equates to just £10m per week not £19.5m, so you can almost halve that 36p figure in reality. Was still too expensive though.)

    Frankly, even though I pull in only about £6,000 a year (student), I would pay much more than 20p a week not to have to have this sort of debate poisoning our collective consciousness and making us all bitter little Scrooges.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rjdjones)
    I know all the points about bankers, politicians, corporations avoiding tax and the health and care costs of the elderly .. but I'm sick of the stories about people on benefits claiming more than some people make when they work and living in much bigger, nicer houses in areas of their choosing.
    Do you know what percentage of claimants this applies to?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    If it was possible to do - as Sophia pointed out, it's impossible to police - I would deny them the odd visit to Starbucks. Okay, maybe once, say twice a year or so (I'll be generous) but that is the very limit.

    Maybe you've experienced the following feeling. Being in Wales EMA still exists. I couldn't claim it but people at school could. My parents worked hard, have good salaries and I was fortunate enough to be given many nice things. I had an iPhone and realised many people around me - many on EMA - also had iPhones. It turned out they would save up their EMA and not put it towards attending education as is intended, instead purchase iPhones, designer clothes and whatever else with the money. I accept a need for a phone but there were cheaper alternatives to a £500 iPhone. I held great disgust and anger that my parent's money (through the taxes they pay) was not funding young people to continue with education as EMA was marketed but instead was funding an iPhone contract. Sadly, it seemed the majority of EMA claimants in a college of over 1500 did this. This is one of many examples I have!



    Fair enough but with the cost of courts, social workers, care until adoption, legalities etc... It's cheaper to throw more money hoping they will finally feed their children with it than it is to take the children into care.
    I think you need to grow up.

    Posted from my iPad, bought with EMA
    • Community Assistant
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by This Is Matt)

    We must be polar opposite. I had nothing but anger, hatred and somewhat envy. There they were having free iPhones courtesy of the taxpayer whilst I and my parents worked to buy the same.
    Both your parents worked hard, budgeted and still couldn't afford ~ 30 pounds a month for an iphone for you?
    If things were that tight that they had no disposable income, I'm surprised you weren't eligible for EMA yourself.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    "You do realise the money corporations pay workers is made from exploiting their customers? Especially if you work for a company which is profiting from natural monopolies in the country's infrastructure. It's much dirtier money than benefits, and if it is made from privatised public services, it is all supported from the very poor people whose spending power you want to remove."

    as I clearly stated at the start - I know these points. I am talking about the benefits system and the fact that for many it is a lifestyle option they have become far too comfortable with.


    "It's also highly inefficient, expensive for government, and reeks of the third world. We already have charities giving out "benefits" in kind. Charity goods and cash benefits in parallel mean there is more choice in the market."

    reeks of the third world? Nonsense. What are many families wasting their money on - junk and junk food. Giving money to people who do not know what to do with it is not helping. Money is being wasted. Food centres and charity shop clothes provide essentials and also make working far more attractive for those able to do so. I've spoken to people who have worked out that they get more from benefits than working and therefore working, even though they are capable, is not an option they want to take.

    "I would support workfare for infrastructure and environmental projects only. No profiteering from free labour. Education and training is quite useless in many cases - the fact is that there are pretty much permanently at least 5x as many unemployed as there are jobs, and due to the knowledge economy the unemployment rate will never be outside the range 5-10% no matter what you teach people."

    skills, experience, training. You see this as just a natural part of our system - there will always be unemployed people. But these people are missing out on the opportunity to develop skills and experience to improve their job chances in future. I have worked for free or taken crap jobs when necessary .. and in the future it has paid off. In the meantime work training provides routine and stops people getting used to watching days drift past at home.

    "Fixed"

    no. Not at all. A common problem is too many people relying on junk food, not knowing how to make a range of meals with what's available and living surrounded by rubbish and mess. Also, too many lack skills that should have been taught by their parents or schools in terms of child care or basic household maintenance. Definitely not an issue of time.

    "Transparent appeal to emotion this. Even assuming your dismissive judgemental bull**** were true, one street does not a culture make. (Crime, incidentally, is at all-time lows.) Please leave it out and have a proper debate."

    do you live in a poor area? Have you been on benefits? Do you actually know any people you are championing in your sjw role? I didn't say street, I said area. And all round birmingham you can see the same. Reported crime may be low but that means little round here. The bankers and politicians may have stolen our pensions and ruined the economy for their own benefit .. but they are not the ones who threaten you on the street, nick things from you, damage the area you live in and make some people unwilling to even go outside after a certain time. Behaviour, manners, consideration for others - all things sadly lacking in too many.

    "Also, as outlined above, everyone lives off other people's money: the money you earn as a wage has been given to you by a corporation in return for aiding them in developing products that will convince and/or coerce people to give them their money. We do not track transactions: benefits are simply a legal entitlement and that's all there is to it, they own the money just as much as working people do. Think of benefits as a negative income tax if it makes you feel better."

    no, I won't. Benefits are meant to provide support not be squandered on junk. Like the EMA point above - money meant for education being wasted on fashion tech. For those incapable of work I am more than happy to fully support them. For those who can but choose not to, or are able but have few/no options - they should still be working - whether it's on their education or skills, or even doing the environment/infrastructure stuff you mentioned to improve the areas they live in.

    This isn't just about the families and people we see in the tabloids and tv shows. The system has warped from what it was supposed to be. Generations of families who have never worked, people believing they are entitled to things while others who work are making sacrifices and tough choices that those on benefits are not even bothered about.

    while I agree with you that the real concern is the scum at the top who are really robbing us blind as the wealth gap only increases .. You cannot dismiss the impact some people have on those around them. In some areas it only takes one ****ty family to make life hell for everyone else.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by keromedic)
    Both your parents worked hard, budgeted and still couldn't afford ~ 30 pounds a month for an iphone for you?
    If things were that tight that they had no disposable income, I'm surprised you weren't eligible for EMA yourself.
    My parents and I worked for the iPhone! I still had it along with other things. The point is, my parents and I worked to buy stuff out of our salaries whereas the EMA students were handed the money by the state to buy it. The envy came from them not having to work for the money.
    • Community Assistant
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    My parents and I worked for the iPhone! I still had it along with other things. The point is, my parents and I worked to buy stuff out of our salaries whereas the EMA students were handed the money by the state to buy it. The envy came from them not having to work for the money.
    Most of the people I know of who've had EMA in the past used it on travel and supplies. That's what I used my bursary for. I lived alone and money was tight.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

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

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