Stop Depending on the Government and Tax Payers for a Living!
Since the age of 18 I have worked for my up keep and even when I studied at university for three years. I am currently 23 and working full time.
I personally feel we shouldn't have to work for people who just don't want to work for their own living. There is no such thing as free money!
ONS stated that "The ten per cent of households with the lowest disposable income spent an average of £196 a week in 2013. Of this, half (£98) was spent on food and non-alcoholic drinks, transport, housing (including net rent), and household fuel and power." Where does the rest of it go? Beer and Cigarettes?
£196 a week is given to somebody who stays at home while others work 28 hours at £7.50p to earn this money. A few of acquintances of mine complain about the strain the living cost has on their mental state as they find it hard to make ends meet. While someone sitting on the sofa with cup of tea refuses to lift a finger to support themselves. It is disgusting to know that this what being British it now.
On top of that, they decide to bring kids into that environment to which they receive further funding per child. For example, I have met this one family of nine, the parents do not work and stay at home to look after their own kids solely to receive more money. I just do not understand why you would have six kids if you know you are not able to provide for them...Correction, it's okay, the government will pay my way. Why should people who in
Bring on the years of austerity!
These benefits were not to be taken as a long term fix people, they were there to support people during illness or lack of income for a quantified amount of time.
Although, the current government need to provide better incentives for people to work. If your aim in life is to live hand to mouth then you will live comfortably on the tax payer's money.
I personally feel we shouldn't have to work for people who just don't want to work for their own living. There is no such thing as free money!
ONS stated that "The ten per cent of households with the lowest disposable income spent an average of £196 a week in 2013. Of this, half (£98) was spent on food and non-alcoholic drinks, transport, housing (including net rent), and household fuel and power." Where does the rest of it go? Beer and Cigarettes?
£196 a week is given to somebody who stays at home while others work 28 hours at £7.50p to earn this money. A few of acquintances of mine complain about the strain the living cost has on their mental state as they find it hard to make ends meet. While someone sitting on the sofa with cup of tea refuses to lift a finger to support themselves. It is disgusting to know that this what being British it now.
On top of that, they decide to bring kids into that environment to which they receive further funding per child. For example, I have met this one family of nine, the parents do not work and stay at home to look after their own kids solely to receive more money. I just do not understand why you would have six kids if you know you are not able to provide for them...Correction, it's okay, the government will pay my way. Why should people who in
Bring on the years of austerity!
These benefits were not to be taken as a long term fix people, they were there to support people during illness or lack of income for a quantified amount of time.
Although, the current government need to provide better incentives for people to work. If your aim in life is to live hand to mouth then you will live comfortably on the tax payer's money.
Gtfo op !!
We need people to have kids otherwise it messes the economy up in 20-25 years
Since 2010 welfare spending has been massively cut with the new universal credit resulting it increas on homeless and rent arrears
Unemployment is at historic lows, the more people you force in to work, means lower wages for everyone else has employers can be more picky. Its one reason why the UK has seen some of the sharpest real wages fall in europe
Also you have a very poor understanding of statistics, no way from that data can you deduce 98 is spent on cigarettes and stuff and frankly £196 pw for a family is very basic poor standard of living .
Having a saftey net is actually a net positive for society.
Also if your working a minimum wage job, you still get some top up money from the govt, so your mates doing menial jobs, if they have families should be eligible for some money. So working is still worthwhile as you get both sources of money
Since 2010 welfare spending has been massively cut with the new universal credit resulting it increas on homeless and rent arrears
Unemployment is at historic lows, the more people you force in to work, means lower wages for everyone else has employers can be more picky. Its one reason why the UK has seen some of the sharpest real wages fall in europe
Also you have a very poor understanding of statistics, no way from that data can you deduce 98 is spent on cigarettes and stuff and frankly £196 pw for a family is very basic poor standard of living .
Having a saftey net is actually a net positive for society.
Also if your working a minimum wage job, you still get some top up money from the govt, so your mates doing menial jobs, if they have families should be eligible for some money. So working is still worthwhile as you get both sources of money
(edited 6 years ago)
My parents and most people I have spoke to understand if they can't afford having a large number family they stick to their means. So they stick to a sensible max 2 children and the more finacially affleunt have more.
I don't think the economy would be messed up, as most jobs and processes are begining to be autonomous these days. If you look at agriculture, supermarkets, Amazon, HGVs etc, they are all going to be software controlled.
I don't think the economy would be messed up, as most jobs and processes are begining to be autonomous these days. If you look at agriculture, supermarkets, Amazon, HGVs etc, they are all going to be software controlled.
Original post by hannah00
We need people to have kids otherwise it messes the economy up in 20-25 years
Since 2010 welfare spending has been massively cut with the new universal credit resulting it increas on homeless and rent arrears
Unemployment is at historic lows, the more people you force in to work, means lower wages for everyone else has employers can be more picky. Its one reason why the UK has seen some of the sharpest real wages fall in europe
Also you have a very poor understanding of statistics, no way from that data can you deduce 98 is spent on cigarettes and stuff and frankly £196 pw for a family is very basic poor standard of living .
Having a saftey net is actually a net positive for society.
Also if your working a minimum wage job, you still get some top up money from the govt, so your mates doing menial jobs, if they have families should be eligible for some money. So working is still worthwhile as you get both sources of money
Since 2010 welfare spending has been massively cut with the new universal credit resulting it increas on homeless and rent arrears
Unemployment is at historic lows, the more people you force in to work, means lower wages for everyone else has employers can be more picky. Its one reason why the UK has seen some of the sharpest real wages fall in europe
Also you have a very poor understanding of statistics, no way from that data can you deduce 98 is spent on cigarettes and stuff and frankly £196 pw for a family is very basic poor standard of living .
Having a saftey net is actually a net positive for society.
Also if your working a minimum wage job, you still get some top up money from the govt, so your mates doing menial jobs, if they have families should be eligible for some money. So working is still worthwhile as you get both sources of money
No, actually you'll find in a lot of cases that people are better off on benefits than earning minimum wage
Why should part of the 45% of my father's salary go to the people who don't want to work?
He works two jobs just to pay for other to people to stay at home? His salary from the other job is severly impacted do to the tax bands but he knows, if he needs more money, he has to work for it.
Can you understand why that would be infuriating? Working hard to support your family, only to hear that money which could go to the NHS, Pensions and National Security is being given to people who don't want to get out of the system.
He works two jobs just to pay for other to people to stay at home? His salary from the other job is severly impacted do to the tax bands but he knows, if he needs more money, he has to work for it.
Can you understand why that would be infuriating? Working hard to support your family, only to hear that money which could go to the NHS, Pensions and National Security is being given to people who don't want to get out of the system.
Original post by Ty$signxxx
Since the age of 18 I have worked for my up keep and even when I studied at university for three years. I am currently 23 and working full time.
I personally feel we shouldn't have to work for people who just don't want to work for their own living. There is no such thing as free money!
ONS stated that "The ten per cent of households with the lowest disposable income spent an average of £196 a week in 2013. Of this, half (£98) was spent on food and non-alcoholic drinks, transport, housing (including net rent), and household fuel and power." Where does the rest of it go? Beer and Cigarettes?
£196 a week is given to somebody who stays at home while others work 28 hours at £7.50p to earn this money. A few of acquintances of mine complain about the strain the living cost has on their mental state as they find it hard to make ends meet. While someone sitting on the sofa with cup of tea refuses to lift a finger to support themselves. It is disgusting to know that this what being British it now.
On top of that, they decide to bring kids into that environment to which they receive further funding per child. For example, I have met this one family of nine, the parents do not work and stay at home to look after their own kids solely to receive more money. I just do not understand why you would have six kids if you know you are not able to provide for them...Correction, it's okay, the government will pay my way. Why should people who in
Bring on the years of austerity!
These benefits were not to be taken as a long term fix people, they were there to support people during illness or lack of income for a quantified amount of time.
Although, the current government need to provide better incentives for people to work. If your aim in life is to live hand to mouth then you will live comfortably on the tax payer's money.
I personally feel we shouldn't have to work for people who just don't want to work for their own living. There is no such thing as free money!
ONS stated that "The ten per cent of households with the lowest disposable income spent an average of £196 a week in 2013. Of this, half (£98) was spent on food and non-alcoholic drinks, transport, housing (including net rent), and household fuel and power." Where does the rest of it go? Beer and Cigarettes?
£196 a week is given to somebody who stays at home while others work 28 hours at £7.50p to earn this money. A few of acquintances of mine complain about the strain the living cost has on their mental state as they find it hard to make ends meet. While someone sitting on the sofa with cup of tea refuses to lift a finger to support themselves. It is disgusting to know that this what being British it now.
On top of that, they decide to bring kids into that environment to which they receive further funding per child. For example, I have met this one family of nine, the parents do not work and stay at home to look after their own kids solely to receive more money. I just do not understand why you would have six kids if you know you are not able to provide for them...Correction, it's okay, the government will pay my way. Why should people who in
Bring on the years of austerity!
These benefits were not to be taken as a long term fix people, they were there to support people during illness or lack of income for a quantified amount of time.
Although, the current government need to provide better incentives for people to work. If your aim in life is to live hand to mouth then you will live comfortably on the tax payer's money.
Poorer people have to buy worse quality stuff which breaks more often so they have to buy more of it, poor areas have less attention paid to them (compare the roads in Buckinghamshire and where I live for example) which means more damage to people's belongings and this all means they're spending money replacing everything and can barely afford to do anything http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/one-third-of-britons-are-too-poor-to-join-in-with-society-8633584.html
Legal requirements such as car insurance are far higher, and if they have kids then the kids need hobbies and entertainment. It costs like £10 a week for kids to play football not including transport, my dad gave up his only free day to coach my team because then I got to play for free as he couldn't afford it otherwise due to the household costs rising. That's a few hours a week. Trips to the cinema? Another twenty or so quid. A laptop/something with internet connection (which is required these days to get a job, you walk in with a paper CV and they laugh at you) - £250 minimum. A TV, £100. Oh and don't forget all the debt incurred just to keep afloat - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38534238
Basic stuff that everyone takes for granted is a lot of money for low income and when things like tax, car insurance, petrol prices are random, when the cost of items comparative to wages increases and when all the low quality stuff you have because it's the best you can afford breaks that's a decision between not putting the heating on or not driving your kids to their hobby so you can repair it. Then you save hard, get one nice thing and people go 'oh the luxuries they have, there's nothing wrong with wages in this country - the poor are just so demanding'. People look at my car and use it as evidence I'm well off. It took me four years of hard work including three summers at 40hrs+ p/w because minimum wage is such a miserable amount of money, and I still had to get it second hand off ebay and this is with bare minimum outgoing. Point being having anything nice is a real struggle and then as soon as you get it people are snarky about the greed of the poor.
People on benefits might not have all the same concerns but it isn't a lot easier - and you're assuming these super low income households are all on benefits (not true). Some are milking the system but some equally are ashamed it's the only way they can get by, same as there are coppers going to food banks.
What exactly is your solution then? The ONS puts jobseekers at 1.62m as in that amount of people cant find a job. What about people who get made redundant or fired due to corporate necessity to maximise profit? You shouldn't pay tax because you don't want to subsidise someone who fell on hard times, because sod them they weren't lucky or they weren't born smart so deserve to have a horrible life I guess. It's the same thing as with the McDonalds strike where people were saying 'oh well you shouldn't be able to support a family at McDonalds, get a better job'. It isn't that simple and even if it was why shouldn't lowest paid work support a lowest reasonable quality of life? I'm not talking mansions and Land Rovers, I'm talking financial security and a few nice things. But of course these jobs are totally random hours so you never can tell. I gave up budgeting as of last year whilst at uni because the amount of hours I get is totally random so I have to play it by ear one paycheck to the next. Imagine if your house depended on that, or your car, or your heating.
If you have the choice between the above, and having one or two kids max because it's all you can afford, or doing nothing all day to get given more provided you have as many kids as you actually wanted in the first place what choice would you make? The alcoholism and addiction in poorer people is due to stress of having such a poor quality of life in many cases https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/science-choice/201705/stress-and-addiction. I'm twenty one and have a dodgy knee because I had to stand up for my whole shift, up to 11 hours a day, without being allowed to lean or sit and I always had to be seen to be doing something otherwise the managers (who spend all day sitting in the office) would shout at you. Why on earth would anyone voluntarily put themselves through the excesses of corporate greed encouraged by our government failing to protect the poor or ensure their quality of life when they can get free money for nothing? I'm so fed up of the 'there are a few scroungers so we shouldn't pay tax' argument, because it fundamentally ignores the problems of plenty of hard working low to low-middle income families perpetuating the idea that if you just get out to work you can get through life just fine.
A lot of your tax also goes on propping up those who are working but still cant afford to live, and on providing services ie the NHS.
I understand the idea we shouldn't fund scroungers but if we created the conditions for work to be an actually better alternative then most people would take it, and there would be a much stronger argument to significantly penalise those who don't. But having seen - and to a lesser degree lived - the life of low income working families I can't get as cross as I otherwise would at scroungers because why would any sane person want to go through what working families have to
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by howitoughttobe
No, actually you'll find in a lot of cases that people are better off on benefits than earning minimum wage
Minimum wage doesnt mean you 0 benefits.
give me an example of someone being better of on welfare? And define alot? Alot implies the majority
Are you denying the new universal credit system has contributed to more homelessness and higher rent arrears?
Original post by Ty$signxxx
ONS stated that "The ten per cent of households with the lowest disposable income spent an average of £196 a week in 2013. Of this, half (£98) was spent on food and non-alcoholic drinks, transport, housing (including net rent), and household fuel and power." Where does the rest of it go? Beer and Cigarettes?
£196 a week is given to somebody who stays at home while others work 28 hours at £7.50p to earn this money. A few of acquintances of mine complain about the strain the living cost has on their mental state as they find it hard to make ends meet. While someone sitting on the sofa with cup of tea refuses to lift a finger to support themselves. It is disgusting to know that this what being British it now.
£196 a week is given to somebody who stays at home while others work 28 hours at £7.50p to earn this money. A few of acquintances of mine complain about the strain the living cost has on their mental state as they find it hard to make ends meet. While someone sitting on the sofa with cup of tea refuses to lift a finger to support themselves. It is disgusting to know that this what being British it now.
It doesn't say that £196 is given to someone who stays at home. You certainly don't get that if you're a childless job seeker.
A car is a luxury. If it weren't, everyone would have one. I say it is a luxury because of cost of running one (tax/insurance/fuel/repairs) compared to using public transport. If you think a car is an essential, then you need to check your priorities.
The people I am talking about are the people who are capable of going to work and choice to stay at home. I appreciate that there are people who are made redundant daily, but the support is meant to be there for short term until they get back on their feet.
The people I am talking about are the people who are capable of going to work and choice to stay at home. I appreciate that there are people who are made redundant daily, but the support is meant to be there for short term until they get back on their feet.
Original post by Ty$signxxx
A car is a luxury. If it weren't, everyone would have one. I say it is a luxury because of cost of running one (tax/insurance/fuel/repairs) compared to using public transport. If you think a car is an essential, then you need to check your priorities.
The people I am talking about are the people who are capable of going to work and choice to stay at home. I appreciate that there are people who are made redundant daily, but the support is meant to be there for short term until they get back on their feet.
The people I am talking about are the people who are capable of going to work and choice to stay at home. I appreciate that there are people who are made redundant daily, but the support is meant to be there for short term until they get back on their feet.
Cars aren't a luxury when you need one to get to work. My parents need a car to get to work.
So you believe everyone will have money to fund for a car? No. Only people who work can afford it as it is their choice to use it to make their life easier. Therefore it is a luxury as it is a choice.
I used to commute to my job and it was 3hrs going and another 3hrs back. I only got a car after 2 years as I could afford it.
I used to commute to my job and it was 3hrs going and another 3hrs back. I only got a car after 2 years as I could afford it.
Original post by Ty$signxxx
So you believe everyone will have money to fund for a car? No. Only people who work can afford it as it is their choice to use it to make their life easier. Therefore it is a luxury as it is a choice.
I used to commute to my job and it was 3hrs going and another 3hrs back. I only got a car after 2 years as I could afford it.
I used to commute to my job and it was 3hrs going and another 3hrs back. I only got a car after 2 years as I could afford it.
Not everyone is lucky enough to have access to public transport. And what happens when (and yes, this has really happened) when there's no trains or buses running? Cycling isn't always an option.
Original post by Tiger Rag
Not everyone is lucky enough to have access to public transport. And what happens when (and yes, this has really happened) when there's no trains or buses running? Cycling isn't always an option.
Indeed, it's perfectly possible that the only job you can get is a night shift one - are you supposed to get the bus or train then?
Original post by Ty$signxxx
A car is a luxury. If it weren't, everyone would have one. I say it is a luxury because of cost of running one (tax/insurance/fuel/repairs) compared to using public transport. If you think a car is an essential, then you need to check your priorities.
The people I am talking about are the people who are capable of going to work and choice to stay at home. I appreciate that there are people who are made redundant daily, but the support is meant to be there for short term until they get back on their feet.
The people I am talking about are the people who are capable of going to work and choice to stay at home. I appreciate that there are people who are made redundant daily, but the support is meant to be there for short term until they get back on their feet.
Original post by Ty$signxxx
So you believe everyone will have money to fund for a car? No. Only people who work can afford it as it is their choice to use it to make their life easier. Therefore it is a luxury as it is a choice.
I used to commute to my job and it was 3hrs going and another 3hrs back. I only got a car after 2 years as I could afford it.
I used to commute to my job and it was 3hrs going and another 3hrs back. I only got a car after 2 years as I could afford it.
In the same way if you can't afford food then it's a luxury presumably. Whether or not something is a luxury isn't defined by whether or not you can have it otherwise everything you can't have is inherently a luxury regardless of its necessity. You're basically arguing if you have to choose between heating or lighting then one of those is a luxury because you chose it and that's regardless of the fact your argument is people should basically have a thoroughly miserable life - what do you describe as the bare essentials, because so far you've demonstrated if people aren't lucky enough to be born with a propensity to be 'educated' they can work long hours for a pittance and be happy about it, undeserving of a car or anything nice for some reason you haven't yet disclosed. So far all you've said is people who work deserve to 'make their life easier' whereas, by implication, those who might still work but can't afford a car - don't. This is the most simplistic naive interpretation of money I've ever read; it's not the case that insurance is ludicrous particularly for young people and especially so in poor areas, or that we should permit all people a basic quality of life, or that maybe it's alright for the poor to have some so called 'luxuries' so they aren't basically serfs and actually have some joy in their lives and some things to be proud of - no, they should get the bus and be happy they are so graciously given an opportunity to work.
Not that this covers the fact trains are ludicrously expensive, getting a bus from a small city to a large one is impossible (as in proper commuting like normal people) and a taxi is out of the question. Buses are always late or sometimes don't bother turning up at all, trains are canceled if one leaf falls on the line or if the union decide they've had enough for the billionth time that year, and you're paying out a significant portion of your rubbish minimum wage shift just to turn up to it - which is near impossible if you work nights so your job choices are hugely limited. The council might have placed you, or you might have bought a property significantly away from your immediate family making them basically unreachable by train or bus due to cost/distance but I suppose poor people don't deserve the mobility to see family or go to shows, or visit places not on a bus route because they should be out all hours of the day making money. You yourself have said it took you two years to afford a car whilst working, and you're clearly better off or you wouldn't be lecturing people on how 'if you think a car is an essential you need to check your priorities'. And before you bring up cycling why would anyone want to engage in that thoroughly miserable activity for any length of time? Cycling can be fun but an hour plus to work every day would be nightmarish, nearly getting run over by oblivious idiots, turning up drenched in sweat in the summer and half-hypothermic in the winter, only being able to carry a small amount of weight due to storage limitations, by yourself with no radio or anything to take your mind off the situation and relax you - if these method were so successful how come basically no successful person uses them? Cycling also has the same problem of range.
You also aren't answering the question as to why you expect people to go through all this to be given a pittance more than if they sit on their bum and do nothing all day nor the fact that plenty of this spending is to prop up the pithy wages of in work people because our government fails to force or encourage businesses to actually pay an amount of money people can live off.
I'd be very interested for you to detail what you expect the life of a poorer person to be like as you're so willing to chastise the idea of them having cars and the like given your implication is they deserve a life as hard as possible 'Only people who work can afford it as it is their choice to use it to make their life easier' (which ignores the fact plenty of working people are badly off anyway, and as outlined that they don't deserve the same basic luxuries as everyone else because you don't fancy stumping up a few extra quid)
You seem to lack understanding of people's circumstances. If working was the way out of poverty and the way to stop providing for each other, then how comes people who work are having to apply for benefits just to live? Wages have not increased to match inflation, meaning we are earning less but having to pay more to live. Childcare is hugely expensive, meaning parents are having to drop hours at work to look after children because it is cheaper. There is stagnation in people being able to lift out of poverty. Children from impoverished backgrounds often live in areas with worse schooling, low resources and inadequate housing (which often leads to health conditions, leading to poor attendance in schools and more sick days off work). Many people who start having children do not find themselves in this position to begin with, but have gradually fallen in to poverty due to the increase in inequality. Furthermore, having a family shouldn't be seen as a luxury. Having a family is a basic human right and a natural instinct. Those of us who can afford it should be helping these people because we were fortunate to be in the position to help. I am appalled to live in a country where there is this mentality of "I'm alright jack, screw everyone else". Even from a right winged point of view, helping the poor is beneficial because the more money they have, the more money there is to put back in to the economy.
Let's not forget the stigmatisation people such as yourself place on the poorer people in our society. Studies have shown a large proportion of people entitled to free school meals or certain types of allowances actually don't take them due to the fear of stigmatisation.
The money people get from the state is so little, that's why these people are still the poorest in our society. All the money they claim together could never compare to the amount that could be saved if large businesses didn't find ways to avoid paying taxes. These are the actual people in our society not paying their way, not the impoverished.
Let's not forget the stigmatisation people such as yourself place on the poorer people in our society. Studies have shown a large proportion of people entitled to free school meals or certain types of allowances actually don't take them due to the fear of stigmatisation.
The money people get from the state is so little, that's why these people are still the poorest in our society. All the money they claim together could never compare to the amount that could be saved if large businesses didn't find ways to avoid paying taxes. These are the actual people in our society not paying their way, not the impoverished.
Original post by hannah00
Minimum wage doesnt mean you 0 benefits.
give me an example of someone being better of on welfare? And define alot? Alot implies the majority
Are you denying the new universal credit system has contributed to more homelessness and higher rent arrears?
give me an example of someone being better of on welfare? And define alot? Alot implies the majority
Are you denying the new universal credit system has contributed to more homelessness and higher rent arrears?
A lot does not imply a majority it implies a large group of people. And once you factor in the cost of childcare and transportation a lot of people find they have more disposable income when they are on benefits than off them. Benefits were designed to help people through difficult times and instead they have become a way of life.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
