FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > max benifits
max benifits
Jump to: Newest in thread
It does seem high...I agree
I did wonder whether there would be two rates, one of London and one for the rest of the country as the rents are substantially higher there (or so we are told)
Be prepared for the onslaught.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"im sure this has been done to death, but am i the only one appalled at how hight the max benifit cap is due to be set, i work all hours and get no where near this"
Whats it been set at ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"im sure this has been done to death, but am i the only one appalled at how hight the max benifit cap is due to be set, i work all hours and get no where near this
Whats it been set at ? "
around £500 a week...£2000 a month , that equates to a hefty salary to be taking home £2000 AFTER tax... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"im sure this has been done to death, but am i the only one appalled at how hight the max benifit cap is due to be set, i work all hours and get no where near this
Whats it been set at ?
around £500 a week...£2000 a month , that equates to a hefty salary to be taking home £2000 AFTER tax..."
thats 30 k plus to take home 2k Its wrong because average earnings are only 24k .. no point in working eh  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"It does seem high...I agree
I did wonder whether there would be two rates, one of London and one for the rest of the country as the rents are substantially higher there (or so we are told)
Be prepared for the onslaught...."
I read that it was £26,000. But London rents could take the majority of that leaving around 62p per person a day to live on. About the same as some Third World countries. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"benifits are an importamt part of society but when your better off on the dole than working the system is just wrong 
so where is the salt capitol?"
Its in cheshire , winsford to be precise , 90 % of the uk road salt comes from here . google winsford salt mine think there is some videos of it , they have trucks and traffic lights underground  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It does seem high...I agree
I did wonder whether there would be two rates, one of London and one for the rest of the country as the rents are substantially higher there (or so we are told)
Be prepared for the onslaught....
I read that it was £26,000. But London rents could take the majority of that leaving around 62p per person a day to live on. About the same as some Third World countries."
Hence my thoughts on two rates...It does beg the question that if private landlords in London suddenly lost their lucrative tenants would they have to reduce their rents...therefore freeing up more cash... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"benifits are an importamt part of society but when your better off on the dole than working the system is just wrong
so where is the salt capitol?
Its in cheshire , winsford to be precise , 90 % of the uk road salt comes from here . google winsford salt mine think there is some videos of it , they have trucks and traffic lights underground "
every day is a school day |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it is a good thing capping it. this country cant keep going on the amount most of these people get! i work but dont get what they get! is that fair??"
I think that was the OP's point...many people get a lot less than that and still have rent, mortgage etc to pay...
After all as someone said yesterday, your self esteem may rise by working but N Power won't let you pay your gas bill in self esteem... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"JSA is £71 a week.....
Anyone wanting to quit their jobs and try living on that??
Feel free......"
For the cap they are taking housing benefit into account as well as ALL benefits not just jsa.....
A woman on the news last night was living on £2500 a month when all her benefits were taken into account |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Touchy subject. A cattle prod is what id like to give the majority of the work shy feckers. I don't care if you are better off on the dole or whatever. I'd rather work for minimum wage than sit on my fat arse and get hand outs. Some people have no self respect x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"JSA is £71 a week.....
Anyone wanting to quit their jobs and try living on that??
Feel free......"
Precisely...and apart from Child Benefit, which you get whether you work or not (different argument), that's all you would see from this mythical £26k ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"JSA is £71 a week.....
Anyone wanting to quit their jobs and try living on that??
Feel free......
Precisely...and apart from Child Benefit, which you get whether you work or not (different argument), that's all you would see from this mythical £26k !"
ESA is a bit more £100 a week. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It's a complex issue and there's no one size fits all criteria!
It's a cap - not an automatic entitlement and the policy is to encourage people back into work - not rely on benefits. There are many that will see benefits reduced - and none will get any kind of automatic raise. It includes benefits that people don't physically see in terms of actual cash - housing benefit and council tax for example. It will seem high to some but as has been said, rent is a huge proportion of it.
Of course those working 16 hours or more aren't affected - so the key driver is encouraging people to seek work. There's a lot of crap being written in the press and on social networking sites, but combined with the bedroom tax and the rest of the welfare reform act changes there's a lot of people affected - most negatively - not positively.
Those who have need motivation (or a kick up the arse in some cases) to get back into employment will now benefit from doing so. Those that have seen life on benefits as a gravy train will have difficulty in doing so moving forward.
Sadly some who rightly need benefits are being penalised - but the majority of changes are in everyone's interests - those claiming, the taxpayer and society as a whole. It's not a cost saving exercise as the figures have shown (google them - its small pennies in the grand scheme) more a drive for fairness and a recognition that many hard workers resent those getting what they have to earn for free.
There'll be those of course that disagree - but I think it's a good course of action and long overdue! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"woman on the news last night lived in London and was getting £360 a week housing benefit paid for her and her two kids.... That in itself is over £17K a year..."
It costs more than that to keep one person in a homeless refuge for a week, the claimants don't set the tariffs ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *riendly foeWoman
over a year ago
In a crisp poke on the A814 |
"
For the cap they are taking housing benefit into account as well as ALL benefits not just jsa.....
A woman on the news last night was living on £2500 a month when all her benefits were taken into account "
You will find it is her landlord who is "living" off most of that....
Te cap has been put in place because of greedy private landlords.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
For the cap they are taking housing benefit into account as well as ALL benefits not just jsa.....
A woman on the news last night was living on £2500 a month when all her benefits were taken into account
You will find it is her landlord who is "living" off most of that....
Te cap has been put in place because of greedy private landlords...."
As I said in my earlier post.....
But peeps who go out to work still have to pay greedy landlords out of less than the cap will be...
and this is in no way a pop at anyone who does not/ cannot work. It is extremely difficult to find work at the moment, most people appreciate that.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
For the cap they are taking housing benefit into account as well as ALL benefits not just jsa.....
A woman on the news last night was living on £2500 a month when all her benefits were taken into account
You will find it is her landlord who is "living" off most of that....
Te cap has been put in place because of greedy private landlords...."
Possibly true in some cases - but then many 'private landlords' have mortgages to pay on these properties.
And those mortgages are based on market value of the property and at higher interest rates than ordinary residential mortgages. As such it's not necessarily them being greedy - in many cases needing to cover costs.
Would the alternative - ceasing to accept anything but private tenants not in receipt of benefits be a solution? Or would that simply result in more of a housing shortage and put increased pressure on local authorities and housing associations with already hefty waiting lists?
Why should any landlord be expected to 'adjust' what is effectively the going market rate depending on who is paying the rent?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There was something on TV this morning that said that with that cap that the majority of tenants private renting in London will have to move as that won't cover their bills with their rent being so high. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"
Possibly true in some cases - but then many 'private landlords' have mortgages to pay on these properties.
And those mortgages are based on market value of the property and at higher interest rates than ordinary residential mortgages. As such it's not necessarily them being greedy - in many cases needing to cover costs.
Would the alternative - ceasing to accept anything but private tenants not in receipt of benefits be a solution? Or would that simply result in more of a housing shortage and put increased pressure on local authorities and housing associations with already hefty waiting lists?
Why should any landlord be expected to 'adjust' what is effectively the going market rate depending on who is paying the rent? "
A business model which depends on the DWP (the government) paying a private landlord sufficient to cover his/ her buy-to-let mortgage(s) whilst the landlord keeps all the profit on the eventual resale of the property isn't much of a business model. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
For the cap they are taking housing benefit into account as well as ALL benefits not just jsa.....
A woman on the news last night was living on £2500 a month when all her benefits were taken into account
You will find it is her landlord who is "living" off most of that....
Te cap has been put in place because of greedy private landlords....
Possibly true in some cases - but then many 'private landlords' have mortgages to pay on these properties.
And those mortgages are based on market value of the property and at higher interest rates than ordinary residential mortgages. As such it's not necessarily them being greedy - in many cases needing to cover costs.
Would the alternative - ceasing to accept anything but private tenants not in receipt of benefits be a solution? Or would that simply result in more of a housing shortage and put increased pressure on local authorities and housing associations with already hefty waiting lists?
Why should any landlord be expected to 'adjust' what is effectively the going market rate depending on who is paying the rent? "
A high percentage of private landlords in this area won't accept housing benefit. I always wondered why but I assume that it's due to the cap on maximum housing benefit for the area not being enough to cover the rent they want to charge. X |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *acciWoman
over a year ago
leeds |
"JSA is £71 a week.....
Anyone wanting to quit their jobs and try living on that??
Feel free......
Precisely...and apart from Child Benefit, which you get whether you work or not (different argument), that's all you would see from this mythical £26k !
ESA is a bit more £100 a week."
Im on ESA due to having a heart problem and i dnt get £100 a week. And im not a scrounger i have worked all my life paid all my dues even when having chemo and never claimed a penny till now |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Not all folk on benefits are work shy feckers and not all have never contributed to the sysytem..
peoples circumstances change, its called life and none of us know whats around the corner..
maybe look at the actual welfare elements in perspective pro rata..
info is out there, and not via the red tops..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"JSA is £71 a week.....
Anyone wanting to quit their jobs and try living on that??
Feel free......
Precisely...and apart from Child Benefit, which you get whether you work or not (different argument), that's all you would see from this mythical £26k !
ESA is a bit more £100 a week.
Im on ESA due to having a heart problem and i dnt get £100 a week. And im not a scrounger i have worked all my life paid all my dues even when having chemo and never claimed a penny till now"
Apologies, that was based on what all the homeless guys I work with that are on ESA get. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Possibly true in some cases - but then many 'private landlords' have mortgages to pay on these properties.
And those mortgages are based on market value of the property and at higher interest rates than ordinary residential mortgages. As such it's not necessarily them being greedy - in many cases needing to cover costs.
Would the alternative - ceasing to accept anything but private tenants not in receipt of benefits be a solution? Or would that simply result in more of a housing shortage and put increased pressure on local authorities and housing associations with already hefty waiting lists?
Why should any landlord be expected to 'adjust' what is effectively the going market rate depending on who is paying the rent?
A business model which depends on the DWP (the government) paying a private landlord sufficient to cover his/ her buy-to-let mortgage(s) whilst the landlord keeps all the profit on the eventual resale of the property isn't much of a business model."
Nope! But until that miracle day arises when there's enough social housing to meet need - its necessary!
But then in another 'utopia' - there'd be full employment, everyone would have the ability to buy/rent without state aid and there'd be no need for health, unemployment or any other benefits.
But we all know that will never happen. Laying the blame at so called 'greedy landlords' is an easy cop out. Why not blame local governments for not supplying sufficient housing? The 'nimbys' who object to planning applications for developments offering affordable housing? The free market economy for resulting in different house prices/rents based on location? The generations of individuals who see benefits as a lifestyle and entitlement rather than as a support system in times of need?
The choices of who to blame are as numerous as the reasons individuals find themselves in their own personal circumstances. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *azzaahhWoman
over a year ago
north wales / chester |
"im sure this has been done to death, but am i the only one appalled at how hight the max benifit cap is due to be set, i work all hours and get no where near this
Whats it been set at ?
around £500 a week...£2000 a month , that equates to a hefty salary to be taking home £2000 AFTER tax..."
bloody hell ..wish I was earning half of that and i work a 40 hr week ..that's minimum wage for you |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Possibly true in some cases - but then many 'private landlords' have mortgages to pay on these properties.
And those mortgages are based on market value of the property and at higher interest rates than ordinary residential mortgages. As such it's not necessarily them being greedy - in many cases needing to cover costs.
Would the alternative - ceasing to accept anything but private tenants not in receipt of benefits be a solution? Or would that simply result in more of a housing shortage and put increased pressure on local authorities and housing associations with already hefty waiting lists?
Why should any landlord be expected to 'adjust' what is effectively the going market rate depending on who is paying the rent?
A business model which depends on the DWP (the government) paying a private landlord sufficient to cover his/ her buy-to-let mortgage(s) whilst the landlord keeps all the profit on the eventual resale of the property isn't much of a business model.
Nope! But until that miracle day arises when there's enough social housing to meet need - its necessary!
But then in another 'utopia' - there'd be full employment, everyone would have the ability to buy/rent without state aid and there'd be no need for health, unemployment or any other benefits.
But we all know that will never happen. Laying the blame at so called 'greedy landlords' is an easy cop out. Why not blame local governments for not supplying sufficient housing? The 'nimbys' who object to planning applications for developments offering affordable housing? The free market economy for resulting in different house prices/rents based on location? The generations of individuals who see benefits as a lifestyle and entitlement rather than as a support system in times of need?
The choices of who to blame are as numerous as the reasons individuals find themselves in their own personal circumstances. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
They where interviewing a single mother who lives in london on the television last night, at present she gets £309 a WEEK housing benefit and when she gave her out goings her shopping bill was £185 for her and two under 5/6 wtf |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They where interviewing a single mother who lives in london on the television last night, at present she gets £309 a WEEK housing benefit and when she gave her out goings her shopping bill was £185 for her and two under 5/6 wtf"
For shopping? Where does she shop? Harrods? X |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They where interviewing a single mother who lives in london on the television last night, at present she gets £309 a WEEK housing benefit and when she gave her out goings her shopping bill was £185 for her and two under 5/6 wtf
For shopping? Where does she shop? Harrods? X"
Funniest was, she was feeding the kids a bag or crisps each, i expected cavier at least lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"im sure this has been done to death, but am i the only one appalled at how hight the max benifit cap is due to be set, i work all hours and get no where near this"
not really as it's per house and includes rent too.
I have my daughter who is severely disabled, she gets her money. Should I ever find myself on benefits I've already worked out I will get 60% less than I would before the cap.
Because it's per house. Now my daughters severely disabled. That's quite a lot per week but at 16, it's her money not mine.
Yet should I find myself on benefits it would be taken into account in full. Meaning I would be forced to take the money meant for her.
It sounds a lot till you realise how much is being taken away.
Rent and council tax could easily be more than half of that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
It is all benefits rolled together. If you work over 16 hours and are on a low wage you can still claim benefits.
The problem is for those that might have fewer hours than this and those in London. You can just say that the poor should move out of London because the rental costs are so high but then they won't be able to afford to come in and do the low wage jobs that need to be done. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
According to the figures from the Gov. stats dept. Around 40,000 homes will be affected, almost all of a single woman with 3 or more children, and the majority of those in London, where rent is ave. £400\week.
The vast majority of benefit recipients won't worry as they come nowhere near the cap limit.
Another Gov.t missinformation campaign to attack the benefit claimants, theyre really not all Phillpots or getting anything like the money people seem to think.
BTW less than 0.1% are false or fraud claims. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *C69Man
over a year ago
Nr Doncaster |
"Touchy subject. A cattle prod is what id like to give the majority of the work shy feckers. I don't care if you are better off on the dole or whatever. I'd rather work for minimum wage than sit on my fat arse and get hand outs. Some people have no self respect x"
Very True. I am a single Mum and work my arse of just to make ends meet. It sickens me that some of my neighbours get everything paid for and I am "because I work" am not entitled to anything. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Touchy subject. A cattle prod is what id like to give the majority of the work shy feckers. I don't care if you are better off on the dole or whatever. I'd rather work for minimum wage than sit on my fat arse and get hand outs. Some people have no self respect x
Very True. I am a single Mum and work my arse of just to make ends meet. It sickens me that some of my neighbours get everything paid for and I am "because I work" am not entitled to anything."
Good for you. I know people in your exact position who've had 2 and 3 jobs to make ends meet rather than get money from the state. It's very very hard but it will give your children a great work ethic I'm sure x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No child benefit, tax credits or anything ? Seriously if you don't you need to apply for them.
"
But then you become one of the mythical 'benefit scroungers'...an ignominious end for any Fab member, surely you must agree ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Touchy subject. A cattle prod is what id like to give the majority of the work shy feckers. I don't care if you are better off on the dole or whatever. I'd rather work for minimum wage than sit on my fat arse and get hand outs. Some people have no self respect x
Very True. I am a single Mum and work my arse of just to make ends meet. It sickens me that some of my neighbours get everything paid for and I am "because I work" am not entitled to anything.
Good for you. I know people in your exact position who've had 2 and 3 jobs to make ends meet rather than get money from the state. It's very very hard but it will give your children a great work ethic I'm sure x"
So, work yourself into the ground and never see your kids due to the fact you're working 3 jobs, or claim some of the benefits that your NI contributions entitle you to ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No child benefit, tax credits or anything ? Seriously if you don't you need to apply for them.
But then you become one of the mythical 'benefit scroungers'...an ignominious end for any Fab member, surely you must agree ?"
claiming the top ups available when working is not the same as the won't ever work brigade..Tax credits etc were designed to help people back into work not to encourage them not to work...Two different categories completely..
surely nobody on fab or anywhere else would berate someone who genuinely wants to work and has taken a job? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No child benefit, tax credits or anything ? Seriously if you don't you need to apply for them.
But then you become one of the mythical 'benefit scroungers'...an ignominious end for any Fab member, surely you must agree ?
claiming the top ups available when working is not the same as the won't ever work brigade..Tax credits etc were designed to help people back into work not to encourage them not to work...Two different categories completely..
surely nobody on fab or anywhere else would berate someone who genuinely wants to work and has taken a job? "
I was being facetious...my slightly leftist tendencies must be that obvious, surely ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No child benefit, tax credits or anything ? Seriously if you don't you need to apply for them.
But then you become one of the mythical 'benefit scroungers'...an ignominious end for any Fab member, surely you must agree ?
claiming the top ups available when working is not the same as the won't ever work brigade..Tax credits etc were designed to help people back into work not to encourage them not to work...Two different categories completely..
surely nobody on fab or anywhere else would berate someone who genuinely wants to work and has taken a job? "
As my next comment in the thread would have ably demonstrated ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"No child benefit, tax credits or anything ? Seriously if you don't you need to apply for them.
But then you become one of the mythical 'benefit scroungers'...an ignominious end for any Fab member, surely you must agree ?
claiming the top ups available when working is not the same as the won't ever work brigade..Tax credits etc were designed to help people back into work not to encourage them not to work...Two different categories completely..
surely nobody on fab or anywhere else would berate someone who genuinely wants to work and has taken a job? "
That is part of the point though: most benefits are paid to the elderly (approximately a third) and those in work. Out of work benefits are a small part of the bill. This cap will affect 40k households and makes a tiny dent in the overall benefits bill.
The bandwagon people jump on is about benefits, slating the under 1% that are corrupt and fraudulent and tarring everyone else with the same brush. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"woman on the news last night lived in London and was getting £360 a week housing benefit paid for her and her two kids.... That in itself is over £17K a year..."
she was infact getting £310.00 a week housing benefit and £255.00 per week benefits total £565 per week after the capped benefits it drops down to £500.00 or 26k a year tax free how anyone can complain about that beats me, I run my own business and I don't take that home and I still have to pay my mortgage and other bills, it's a good job the wife works
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No child benefit, tax credits or anything ? Seriously if you don't you need to apply for them.
But then you become one of the mythical 'benefit scroungers'...an ignominious end for any Fab member, surely you must agree ?
claiming the top ups available when working is not the same as the won't ever work brigade..Tax credits etc were designed to help people back into work not to encourage them not to work...Two different categories completely..
surely nobody on fab or anywhere else would berate someone who genuinely wants to work and has taken a job?
That is part of the point though: most benefits are paid to the elderly (approximately a third) and those in work. Out of work benefits are a small part of the bill. This cap will affect 40k households and makes a tiny dent in the overall benefits bill.
The bandwagon people jump on is about benefits, slating the under 1% that are corrupt and fraudulent and tarring everyone else with the same brush."
Someone that gets it, though you'll fall on mostly deaf ears ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Touchy subject. A cattle prod is what id like to give the majority of the work shy feckers. I don't care if you are better off on the dole or whatever. I'd rather work for minimum wage than sit on my fat arse and get hand outs. Some people have no self respect x
Very True. I am a single Mum and work my arse of just to make ends meet. It sickens me that some of my neighbours get everything paid for and I am "because I work" am not entitled to anything.
Good for you. I know people in your exact position who've had 2 and 3 jobs to make ends meet rather than get money from the state. It's very very hard but it will give your children a great work ethic I'm sure x
So, work yourself into the ground and never see your kids due to the fact you're working 3 jobs, or claim some of the benefits that your NI contributions entitle you to ?"
Yep. That's what most hardworking people do ever day of there lives. Well self respecting people do x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No child benefit, tax credits or anything ? Seriously if you don't you need to apply for them.
But then you become one of the mythical 'benefit scroungers'...an ignominious end for any Fab member, surely you must agree ?
claiming the top ups available when working is not the same as the won't ever work brigade..Tax credits etc were designed to help people back into work not to encourage them not to work...Two different categories completely..
surely nobody on fab or anywhere else would berate someone who genuinely wants to work and has taken a job?
That is part of the point though: most benefits are paid to the elderly (approximately a third) and those in work. Out of work benefits are a small part of the bill. This cap will affect 40k households and makes a tiny dent in the overall benefits bill.
The bandwagon people jump on is about benefits, slating the under 1% that are corrupt and fraudulent and tarring everyone else with the same brush."
I suspect the bandwagon people jump on is the people who have never worked and never intend to. Who expect the tax payer to pick up the tab for them, their families and their lifestyles.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
If I were to ask the question what have you claimed on here I am sure most would deny any claim. Welfare benefits come in all sorts of ways.
I have had my school education and the NHS. In terms of benefits I had 6 months of SMP and I've had about the same in SSP in the 30+ years I have been working. I'm not entitled to anything else, even when I have needed it, but that doesn't mean I feel that others that are entitled to benefits and need them should be punished. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"
The bandwagon people jump on is about benefits, slating the under 1% that are corrupt and fraudulent and tarring everyone else with the same brush.
I suspect the bandwagon people jump on is the people who have never worked and never intend to. Who expect the tax payer to pick up the tab for them, their families and their lifestyles.."
Then it moves on those with disabilities - not all are visible and people are quick to make assumptions. As I have said the number that "expect" the tax payer to pick up the tab for them is very small indeed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The bandwagon people jump on is about benefits, slating the under 1% that are corrupt and fraudulent and tarring everyone else with the same brush."
Thats cos 'they' are an easy and predictable target, not so easy or wise for the media and HMG to highlight tax avoidance by the super rich..
cant have ones photographers eaten by sharks off the coast of a private island or have ones arse injuncted in the High Court..
just an opinion with no envy involved to anyone.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The bandwagon people jump on is about benefits, slating the under 1% that are corrupt and fraudulent and tarring everyone else with the same brush.
I suspect the bandwagon people jump on is the people who have never worked and never intend to. Who expect the tax payer to pick up the tab for them, their families and their lifestyles..
Then it moves on those with disabilities - not all are visible and people are quick to make assumptions. As I have said the number that "expect" the tax payer to pick up the tab for them is very small indeed."
Is it? What is that based upon? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"
The bandwagon people jump on is about benefits, slating the under 1% that are corrupt and fraudulent and tarring everyone else with the same brush.
I suspect the bandwagon people jump on is the people who have never worked and never intend to. Who expect the tax payer to pick up the tab for them, their families and their lifestyles..
Then it moves on those with disabilities - not all are visible and people are quick to make assumptions. As I have said the number that "expect" the tax payer to pick up the tab for them is very small indeed.
Is it? What is that based upon?"
It's based on the fact that it is less than 1% of claimants making fraudulent claims. It's based on the fact that out of work benefits are not the bulk of claims that make up the benefits bill. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The bandwagon people jump on is about benefits, slating the under 1% that are corrupt and fraudulent and tarring everyone else with the same brush.
I suspect the bandwagon people jump on is the people who have never worked and never intend to. Who expect the tax payer to pick up the tab for them, their families and their lifestyles..
Then it moves on those with disabilities - not all are visible and people are quick to make assumptions. As I have said the number that "expect" the tax payer to pick up the tab for them is very small indeed.
Is it? What is that based upon?
It's based on the fact that it is less than 1% of claimants making fraudulent claims. It's based on the fact that out of work benefits are not the bulk of claims that make up the benefits bill."
Sorry I meant the part about
As I have said the number that "expect" the tax payer to pick up the tab for them is very small indeed. Apologies |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"
The bandwagon people jump on is about benefits, slating the under 1% that are corrupt and fraudulent and tarring everyone else with the same brush.
I suspect the bandwagon people jump on is the people who have never worked and never intend to. Who expect the tax payer to pick up the tab for them, their families and their lifestyles..
Then it moves on those with disabilities - not all are visible and people are quick to make assumptions. As I have said the number that "expect" the tax payer to pick up the tab for them is very small indeed.
Is it? What is that based upon?
It's based on the fact that it is less than 1% of claimants making fraudulent claims. It's based on the fact that out of work benefits are not the bulk of claims that make up the benefits bill.
Sorry I meant the part about
As I have said the number that "expect" the tax payer to pick up the tab for them is very small indeed. Apologies"
Have a look at poverty.org.uk - it has an analysis of the DWP Longitudinal Study. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Touchy subject. A cattle prod is what id like to give the majority of the work shy feckers. I don't care if you are better off on the dole or whatever. I'd rather work for minimum wage than sit on my fat arse and get hand outs. Some people have no self respect x
Very True. I am a single Mum and work my arse of just to make ends meet. It sickens me that some of my neighbours get everything paid for and I am "because I work" am not entitled to anything.
Good for you. I know people in your exact position who've had 2 and 3 jobs to make ends meet rather than get money from the state. It's very very hard but it will give your children a great work ethic I'm sure x
So, work yourself into the ground and never see your kids due to the fact you're working 3 jobs, or claim some of the benefits that your NI contributions entitle you to ?
Yep. That's what most hardworking people do ever day of there lives. Well self respecting people do x"
Kids - 'Mum, why were you never around to put us to bed in the evenings and spend quality time with us after school when we were younger ?'
Mum - 'Because I was working 3 jobs to keep a roof over our heads'
Kids - 'But Mum, the DWP would have given you tax credits so you didn't have to work the third job (cleaning the school that we'd just gone home from, ironically) and we could have seen you more when we were growing up'
Nothing to do with hard work, nothing to do with self-respect, all to do with a work/life balance and common sense. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I don't mean to be pedantic but there is a big red warning saying it hasn't been updated since 2011...
Anyway the post wasn't about bashing any particular group in society or who had more right to benefits than others.. It was about the caps on benefits .. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a complex issue and there's no one size fits all criteria!
It's a cap - not an automatic entitlement and the policy is to encourage people back into work - not rely on benefits. There are many that will see benefits reduced - and none will get any kind of automatic raise. It includes benefits that people don't physically see in terms of actual cash - housing benefit and council tax for example. It will seem high to some but as has been said, rent is a huge proportion of it.
Of course those working 16 hours or more aren't affected - so the key driver is encouraging people to seek work. There's a lot of crap being written in the press and on social networking sites, but combined with the bedroom tax and the rest of the welfare reform act changes there's a lot of people affected - most negatively - not positively.
Those who have need motivation (or a kick up the arse in some cases) to get back into employment will now benefit from doing so. Those that have seen life on benefits as a gravy train will have difficulty in doing so moving forward.
Sadly some who rightly need benefits are being penalised - but the majority of changes are in everyone's interests - those claiming, the taxpayer and society as a whole. It's not a cost saving exercise as the figures have shown (google them - its small pennies in the grand scheme) more a drive for fairness and a recognition that many hard workers resent those getting what they have to earn for free.
There'll be those of course that disagree - but I think it's a good course of action and long overdue! "
A very good post..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I don't think that many people....including many that will have posted on this thread, understand that their Working Tax Credits are themselves benefits........
It's a much needed cap, but as has been pointed out on some posts here, the majority of many peoples benefits are swallowed up by housing costs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"I don't mean to be pedantic but there is a big red warning saying it hasn't been updated since 2011...
Anyway the post wasn't about bashing any particular group in society or who had more right to benefits than others.. It was about the caps on benefits .."
That's the problem with research. They get the figures and then crunch them. If you look at the Labour Force Survey of 2012 you will see lots of what appear contradictory figures for unemployment. Even the figures from the beginning of this year range from 1.6m (actively on JSA and available for work immediately) to over 6m counting those in part-time jobs, not claiming but economically inactive or on other benefits (particularly disability).
On the caps point it's ideology. I'm not saying that is good or bad but I have issues about the way it is being presented to us and the reality of what the benefits bill is actually spent on. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It does seem high...I agree
I did wonder whether there would be two rates, one of London and one for the rest of the country as the rents are substantially higher there (or so we are told)
Be prepared for the onslaught....
I read that it was £26,000. But London rents could take the majority of that leaving around 62p per person a day to live on. About the same as some Third World countries."
Not bad when a lot full time workers on minimum wage at around £13k a year |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
For the cap they are taking housing benefit into account as well as ALL benefits not just jsa.....
A woman on the news last night was living on £2500 a month when all her benefits were taken into account
You will find it is her landlord who is "living" off most of that....
Te cap has been put in place because of greedy private landlords....
Possibly true in some cases - but then many 'private landlords' have mortgages to pay on these properties.
And those mortgages are based on market value of the property and at higher interest rates than ordinary residential mortgages. As such it's not necessarily them being greedy - in many cases needing to cover costs.
Would the alternative - ceasing to accept anything but private tenants not in receipt of benefits be a solution? Or would that simply result in more of a housing shortage and put increased pressure on local authorities and housing associations with already hefty waiting lists?
Why should any landlord be expected to 'adjust' what is effectively the going market rate depending on who is paying the rent? "
a friend owns several properties and trust me when I say he doesn't rent them out out of the goodness of his heart, its a business! one that once the mortgage/loans are paid off will reward very handsomely.
One of the main reasons why there are so many private landlords is simply because after Thatcher sold off all the housing and did not replace it, it was only a matter of time before more became available to rent through private landlords.
cheap affordable rental properties would not only see a reduction in the amount of benefit paid but would also help to kick start local enterprise and local economies..
almost feels cyclical..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
For the cap they are taking housing benefit into account as well as ALL benefits not just jsa.....
A woman on the news last night was living on £2500 a month when all her benefits were taken into account
You will find it is her landlord who is "living" off most of that....
Te cap has been put in place because of greedy private landlords....
Possibly true in some cases - but then many 'private landlords' have mortgages to pay on these properties.
And those mortgages are based on market value of the property and at higher interest rates than ordinary residential mortgages. As such it's not necessarily them being greedy - in many cases needing to cover costs.
Would the alternative - ceasing to accept anything but private tenants not in receipt of benefits be a solution? Or would that simply result in more of a housing shortage and put increased pressure on local authorities and housing associations with already hefty waiting lists?
Why should any landlord be expected to 'adjust' what is effectively the going market rate depending on who is paying the rent?
a friend owns several properties and trust me when I say he doesn't rent them out out of the goodness of his heart, its a business! one that once the mortgage/loans are paid off will reward very handsomely.
One of the main reasons why there are so many private landlords is simply because after Thatcher sold off all the housing and did not replace it, it was only a matter of time before more became available to rent through private landlords.
cheap affordable rental properties would not only see a reduction in the amount of benefit paid but would also help to kick start local enterprise and local economies..
almost feels cyclical..
"
You mean affordable housing, owned and maintained by local authorities, allocated to those in need based on fair assessment criteria? Built by construction businesses that would borrow from banks, buy from suppliers, employ workers both skilled and unskilled, stimulating both the economy at a local level as well as national, whilst reducing the overall benefit bill, providing accommodation and in general - doing nothing but good in all aspects?
What sort of crazy arsed idea is that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
For the cap they are taking housing benefit into account as well as ALL benefits not just jsa.....
A woman on the news last night was living on £2500 a month when all her benefits were taken into account
You will find it is her landlord who is "living" off most of that....
Te cap has been put in place because of greedy private landlords....
Possibly true in some cases - but then many 'private landlords' have mortgages to pay on these properties.
And those mortgages are based on market value of the property and at higher interest rates than ordinary residential mortgages. As such it's not necessarily them being greedy - in many cases needing to cover costs.
Would the alternative - ceasing to accept anything but private tenants not in receipt of benefits be a solution? Or would that simply result in more of a housing shortage and put increased pressure on local authorities and housing associations with already hefty waiting lists?
Why should any landlord be expected to 'adjust' what is effectively the going market rate depending on who is paying the rent?
a friend owns several properties and trust me when I say he doesn't rent them out out of the goodness of his heart, its a business! one that once the mortgage/loans are paid off will reward very handsomely.
One of the main reasons why there are so many private landlords is simply because after Thatcher sold off all the housing and did not replace it, it was only a matter of time before more became available to rent through private landlords.
cheap affordable rental properties would not only see a reduction in the amount of benefit paid but would also help to kick start local enterprise and local economies..
almost feels cyclical..
You mean affordable housing, owned and maintained by local authorities, allocated to those in need based on fair assessment criteria? Built by construction businesses that would borrow from banks, buy from suppliers, employ workers both skilled and unskilled, stimulating both the economy at a local level as well as national, whilst reducing the overall benefit bill, providing accommodation and in general - doing nothing but good in all aspects?
What sort of crazy arsed idea is that? "
I know! how crazy! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
For the cap they are taking housing benefit into account as well as ALL benefits not just jsa.....
A woman on the news last night was living on £2500 a month when all her benefits were taken into account
You will find it is her landlord who is "living" off most of that....
Te cap has been put in place because of greedy private landlords....
Possibly true in some cases - but then many 'private landlords' have mortgages to pay on these properties.
And those mortgages are based on market value of the property and at higher interest rates than ordinary residential mortgages. As such it's not necessarily them being greedy - in many cases needing to cover costs.
Would the alternative - ceasing to accept anything but private tenants not in receipt of benefits be a solution? Or would that simply result in more of a housing shortage and put increased pressure on local authorities and housing associations with already hefty waiting lists?
Why should any landlord be expected to 'adjust' what is effectively the going market rate depending on who is paying the rent?
a friend owns several properties and trust me when I say he doesn't rent them out out of the goodness of his heart, its a business! one that once the mortgage/loans are paid off will reward very handsomely.
One of the main reasons why there are so many private landlords is simply because after Thatcher sold off all the housing and did not replace it, it was only a matter of time before more became available to rent through private landlords.
cheap affordable rental properties would not only see a reduction in the amount of benefit paid but would also help to kick start local enterprise and local economies..
almost feels cyclical..
You mean affordable housing, owned and maintained by local authorities, allocated to those in need based on fair assessment criteria? Built by construction businesses that would borrow from banks, buy from suppliers, employ workers both skilled and unskilled, stimulating both the economy at a local level as well as national, whilst reducing the overall benefit bill, providing accommodation and in general - doing nothing but good in all aspects?
What sort of crazy arsed idea is that? "
My sentiments exactly, It's almost too simple an idea. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
For the cap they are taking housing benefit into account as well as ALL benefits not just jsa.....
A woman on the news last night was living on £2500 a month when all her benefits were taken into account
You will find it is her landlord who is "living" off most of that....
Te cap has been put in place because of greedy private landlords....
Possibly true in some cases - but then many 'private landlords' have mortgages to pay on these properties.
And those mortgages are based on market value of the property and at higher interest rates than ordinary residential mortgages. As such it's not necessarily them being greedy - in many cases needing to cover costs.
Would the alternative - ceasing to accept anything but private tenants not in receipt of benefits be a solution? Or would that simply result in more of a housing shortage and put increased pressure on local authorities and housing associations with already hefty waiting lists?
Why should any landlord be expected to 'adjust' what is effectively the going market rate depending on who is paying the rent?
a friend owns several properties and trust me when I say he doesn't rent them out out of the goodness of his heart, its a business! one that once the mortgage/loans are paid off will reward very handsomely.
One of the main reasons why there are so many private landlords is simply because after Thatcher sold off all the housing and did not replace it, it was only a matter of time before more became available to rent through private landlords.
cheap affordable rental properties would not only see a reduction in the amount of benefit paid but would also help to kick start local enterprise and local economies..
almost feels cyclical..
You mean affordable housing, owned and maintained by local authorities, allocated to those in need based on fair assessment criteria? Built by construction businesses that would borrow from banks, buy from suppliers, employ workers both skilled and unskilled, stimulating both the economy at a local level as well as national, whilst reducing the overall benefit bill, providing accommodation and in general - doing nothing but good in all aspects?
What sort of crazy arsed idea is that?
My sentiments exactly, It's almost too simple an idea."
and if you had to put the work out to tender it could only be bid for by local companies and part of the tender process would be to ensure that skills training/apprenticeships would form part of the bid and the sourcing locally of all materials to be used... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Would be a good idea to spend the next lot of QE on building affordable housing.
Wonder how many houses you can build with £375 million in cash.
All those homes and a reduced welfare bill, sounds better than Bankers getting another couple of million each to me.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *owlmMan
over a year ago
Wakefield |
theres plenty of money in the country but not enough circulation of the stuff. so people who work can still work hard (keeping the value in the currency) and people on benefits can spend the valuable money on food. its probably a short term measure . i might make the company richer!!!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *owlmMan
over a year ago
Wakefield |
"theres plenty of money in the country but not enough circulation of the stuff. so people who work can still work hard (keeping the value in the currency) and people on benefits can spend the valuable money on food. its probably a short term measure . i might make the company richer!!! "
sorrry when i said company i acutally meant COUNTRY lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Touchy subject. A cattle prod is what id like to give the majority of the work shy feckers. I don't care if you are better off on the dole or whatever. I'd rather work for minimum wage than sit on my fat arse and get hand outs. Some people have no self respect x
Very True. I am a single Mum and work my arse of just to make ends meet. It sickens me that some of my neighbours get everything paid for and I am "because I work" am not entitled to anything.
Good for you. I know people in your exact position who've had 2 and 3 jobs to make ends meet rather than get money from the state. It's very very hard but it will give your children a great work ethic I'm sure x
So, work yourself into the ground and never see your kids due to the fact you're working 3 jobs, or claim some of the benefits that your NI contributions entitle you to ?
Yep. That's what most hardworking people do ever day of there lives. Well self respecting people do x
Kids - 'Mum, why were you never around to put us to bed in the evenings and spend quality time with us after school when we were younger ?'
Mum - 'Because I was working 3 jobs to keep a roof over our heads'
Kids - 'But Mum, the DWP would have given you tax credits so you didn't have to work the third job (cleaning the school that we'd just gone home from, ironically) and we could have seen you more when we were growing up'
Nothing to do with hard work, nothing to do with self-respect, all to do with a work/life balance and common sense."
Nope it's all to do with responsibility in society.
You choose to have children, you choose your career. You choose to work or not to work. You choose what kind of role model you want to be for your children. Problem is. With a lot of things in life, people won't take personal responsibility for there own lives and actions but expect others to do it for them . X |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Nope it's all to do with responsibility in society.
You choose to have children, you choose your career. You choose to work or not to work. You choose what kind of role model you want to be for your children. Problem is. With a lot of things in life, people won't take personal responsibility for there own lives and actions but expect others to do it for them . X"
Unless your one of those unfortunate to develope a serious health problem.
Not much fun being told you got a few years left, and everyone calling you a scrounger I can assure you.
Cutting your money so some guy thats a millionaire can feel superior, really is a kick in the ballocks you dont need. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Nope it's all to do with responsibility in society.
You choose to have children, you choose your career. You choose to work or not to work. You choose what kind of role model you want to be for your children. Problem is. With a lot of things in life, people won't take personal responsibility for there own lives and actions but expect others to do it for them . X
Unless your one of those unfortunate to develope a serious health problem.
Not much fun being told you got a few years left, and everyone calling you a scrounger I can assure you.
Cutting your money so some guy thats a millionaire can feel superior, really is a kick in the ballocks you dont need. "
Health issues are a completely different story. That is what welfare should be for and the short term unemployed. ie a couple of months.
Pensioners, people with illness, disabilities, mental disorders all should get significantly more than they already get. If there were less people who are able to work and choosing not to because its easier and can see there kids more if they don't work. Then maybe there'd be more money in the pit for the people who actually need it x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Touchy subject. A cattle prod is what id like to give the majority of the work shy feckers. I don't care if you are better off on the dole or whatever. I'd rather work for minimum wage than sit on my fat arse and get hand outs. Some people have no self respect x
Very True. I am a single Mum and work my arse of just to make ends meet. It sickens me that some of my neighbours get everything paid for and I am "because I work" am not entitled to anything.
Good for you. I know people in your exact position who've had 2 and 3 jobs to make ends meet rather than get money from the state. It's very very hard but it will give your children a great work ethic I'm sure x
So, work yourself into the ground and never see your kids due to the fact you're working 3 jobs, or claim some of the benefits that your NI contributions entitle you to ?
Yep. That's what most hardworking people do ever day of there lives. Well self respecting people do x
Kids - 'Mum, why were you never around to put us to bed in the evenings and spend quality time with us after school when we were younger ?'
Mum - 'Because I was working 3 jobs to keep a roof over our heads'
Kids - 'But Mum, the DWP would have given you tax credits so you didn't have to work the third job (cleaning the school that we'd just gone home from, ironically) and we could have seen you more when we were growing up'
Nothing to do with hard work, nothing to do with self-respect, all to do with a work/life balance and common sense.
Nope it's all to do with responsibility in society.
You choose to have children, you choose your career. You choose to work or not to work. You choose what kind of role model you want to be for your children. Problem is. With a lot of things in life, people won't take personal responsibility for there own lives and actions but expect others to do it for them . X"
yes its all about choice.
I chose to be made redundant 3 times in the last 15 years, silly me..
and in the 80's I chose to upgrade my house at a mortgage rate of 5% and for it to go up to 16%!
and in all that time I chose to pay all my tax and NI, private pension etc and now should I need it I'll get 60 days of JSA...
Of course my chosen skill set means the nearest work will be a minimum of hours travel at a lower salary but I still have my chosen lifestyle to afford that needs to be paid for if I don't want to go into debt..
aren't choices great... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Touchy subject. A cattle prod is what id like to give the majority of the work shy feckers. I don't care if you are better off on the dole or whatever. I'd rather work for minimum wage than sit on my fat arse and get hand outs. Some people have no self respect x
Very True. I am a single Mum and work my arse of just to make ends meet. It sickens me that some of my neighbours get everything paid for and I am "because I work" am not entitled to anything.
Good for you. I know people in your exact position who've had 2 and 3 jobs to make ends meet rather than get money from the state. It's very very hard but it will give your children a great work ethic I'm sure x
So, work yourself into the ground and never see your kids due to the fact you're working 3 jobs, or claim some of the benefits that your NI contributions entitle you to ?
Yep. That's what most hardworking people do ever day of there lives. Well self respecting people do x
Kids - 'Mum, why were you never around to put us to bed in the evenings and spend quality time with us after school when we were younger ?'
Mum - 'Because I was working 3 jobs to keep a roof over our heads'
Kids - 'But Mum, the DWP would have given you tax credits so you didn't have to work the third job (cleaning the school that we'd just gone home from, ironically) and we could have seen you more when we were growing up'
Nothing to do with hard work, nothing to do with self-respect, all to do with a work/life balance and common sense.
Nope it's all to do with responsibility in society.
You choose to have children, you choose your career. You choose to work or not to work. You choose what kind of role model you want to be for your children. Problem is. With a lot of things in life, people won't take personal responsibility for there own lives and actions but expect others to do it for them . X
yes its all about choice.
I chose to be made redundant 3 times in the last 15 years, silly me..
and in the 80's I chose to upgrade my house at a mortgage rate of 5% and for it to go up to 16%!
and in all that time I chose to pay all my tax and NI, private pension etc and now should I need it I'll get 60 days of JSA...
Of course my chosen skill set means the nearest work will be a minimum of hours travel at a lower salary but I still have my chosen lifestyle to afford that needs to be paid for if I don't want to go into debt..
aren't choices great..."
Being made redundant isn't a choice and that's what the jsa is for. Thats why we pay out contributions ever pay day. Short term work loss and illness. That's how and why welfare was started in the first place. Not so people have a choice whether works worth going to x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
