Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Benefits have to be paid by someone ie those working and paying tax who are already struggling. It’s all got to be a balance, benefits /wages need to go up but 10% + just bankrupts the county/companies " 10% doesn’t even put a dent in most company’s Maybe the little mom and pop stores or and stuff But the likes off Tesco Asda Tesco made 75.022 billion in profit Asda 24.3 billon in profit | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everything needs to go past the rate off inflation if not Rich or poor or middle class will get screwed not just the poorest people If not the Super rich become rich Rich become middle class Middle class become the poor The poor become non existent " Not quite, the super rich become super super rich while everyone else suffers in an inflationary spiral. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
God speed boys, enjoy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement." It's not just pensioners who might be unable to work. I say might, because I work with some people of state pension age who choose to continue working and are incredibly fit and healthy. What about those too sick or disabled to work? Should they be condemned to their meagre state assistance becoming even more meagre, to the point where they cannot afford to eat or pay for electricity to power their medical equipment etc? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement." No. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To only agree, or are you open to people disagreeing as well? Why penalise those people on the lower end of the scale who already struggle to make ends meet?" Yes this | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please feel to agree with my statement." I don't agree with your statement  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everything needs to go past the rate off inflation if not Rich or poor or middle class will get screwed not just the poorest people If not the Super rich become rich Rich become middle class Middle class become the poor The poor become non existent Not quite, the super rich become super super rich while everyone else suffers in an inflationary spiral." That’s true | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement. It's not just pensioners who might be unable to work. I say might, because I work with some people of state pension age who choose to continue working and are incredibly fit and healthy. What about those too sick or disabled to work? Should they be condemned to their meagre state assistance becoming even more meagre, to the point where they cannot afford to eat or pay for electricity to power their medical equipment etc?" Good point. Earlier I misspoke. Fuck the poor and disabled... innit. Gosh its like watching David Cameron and austerity coming roaring back to life. Oh yes, it never really left. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Thanks for the option to agree. After careful consideration I’ve decided to not do that. But good hope you find what you’re looking for x"  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement." Is this going under the presumption that if you're on benefits that you don't work so don't deserve any extra or do the people still working 20/30+ hours having to be topped up by benefits because they still can't afford to live not deserve it either? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Most benefits are paid to pensioners. They're covered by the triple lock. The rest are paid to people not in work, often disabled, and people working but earning below a living wage. They are tax payers too. If employers increase wages to a living wage then the benefits reduce. Food banks are running out of food and money to buy more because the numbers of people in work needing help has increased dramatically. Look it up. People earning a living wage contribute to the economy by buying things, enabling business to make a profit. Business could choose to pay their workers a living wage with that profit. OP, your argument is without merit. " This x1,000,000. Perfectly put. *applause* | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To only agree, or are you open to people disagreeing as well? Why penalise those people on the lower end of the scale who already struggle to make ends meet?" People on above average wages are suffering through higher transport costs by travelling to work and then massive increases in their mortages of an average of 600 quid a month in London. By all means give everyone more than 10% but we all know what happens with infaltion The only solution is higher taxes and 3% for those in work in the punblic sector and the same for those on benefits FYI we are 40% taxpayers and would really struggle had it not been for our prudent financial efforts. If people want to esnure they keep on getting their benefits, pensions and the country remains to operate, trust me cuts need to be made | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement." People say that the young are entitled..... this paragraph and the grabby holiday rental requests- speaks volumes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Benefits have to be paid by someone ie those working and paying tax who are already struggling. It’s all got to be a balance, benefits /wages need to go up but 10% + just bankrupts the county/companies 10% doesn’t even put a dent in most company’s Maybe the little mom and pop stores or and stuff But the likes off Tesco Asda Tesco made 75.022 billion in profit Asda 24.3 billon in profit " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement. People say that the young are entitled..... this paragraph and the grabby holiday rental requests- speaks volumes. " Oh god this was him told? Epic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Benefits have to be paid by someone ie those working and paying tax who are already struggling. It’s all got to be a balance, benefits /wages need to go up but 10% + just bankrupts the county/companies " Benefits have to be paid by someone ie those not working and paying very little tax who already have so much money that it increases all on its own no matter how fast they spend it on things that they don't need. It's all got to be a balance, benefits /wages need to go up but funding 10% + wouldn't even be noticed by those single individuals who control more money than entire countries. There, fixed it for you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement. It's not just pensioners who might be unable to work. I say might, because I work with some people of state pension age who choose to continue working and are incredibly fit and healthy. What about those too sick or disabled to work? Should they be condemned to their meagre state assistance becoming even more meagre, to the point where they cannot afford to eat or pay for electricity to power their medical equipment etc? Good point. Earlier I misspoke. Fuck the poor and disabled... innit. Gosh its like watching David Cameron and austerity coming roaring back to life. Oh yes, it never really left." And it didn't bloody work. Total mismanagement of the economy over the last 15 years. Most other economies borrowed when rates were low to aid growth, this country screwed the poor and the workers to pay off a catastrophe of others making. Now the government have made things worse we will try again with the same shit while allowing the wealthy to go relatively unscathed. A wealth tax needs to be looked at for the likes of our new glorious leader who rakes in about 25 million quid a year on his 700 million fortune. These people don't live in the real world and cannot comprehend what it's like. And before anyone starts going on about how people should have prepared better, we haven't all grown up with family money or lived a life where everything worked out. If you start at the bottom it's hard to move on, especially when, no matter how good the job you get or how hard you work, circumstances beyond your control keep you poor  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To only agree, or are you open to people disagreeing as well? Why penalise those people on the lower end of the scale who already struggle to make ends meet? People on above average wages are suffering through higher transport costs by travelling to work and then massive increases in their mortages of an average of 600 quid a month in London. By all means give everyone more than 10% but we all know what happens with infaltion The only solution is higher taxes and 3% for those in work in the punblic sector and the same for those on benefits FYI we are 40% taxpayers and would really struggle had it not been for our prudent financial efforts. If people want to esnure they keep on getting their benefits, pensions and the country remains to operate, trust me cuts need to be made " Cuts need to be made in the dividends paid out by privatised companies, such as the rail operators who get massive government subsidies, and reinvested in staff and infrastructure. The money the government is throwing at the energy companies would be better spent re-nationalising them. And no, I am not some mad lefty jeremy corbyn. If people can afford it, they should pay more like the wankers in the house of Lords and commons who get massive subsidies and grants for food each day that could comfortably feed a family for a month | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement." Feeling free to disagree. What happens to people on benefits who do not receive an adequate income to cover eating, accomodation and heating? The wide group of people "on benefits" has been pointed out to you. Should they all be treated in the same way? How do you select who starves, freezes or lives rough? Do they "deserve" for this to happen to them? Are all pensioners unable to support themselves? What about the wealthy ones? Why should those working receive such small pay rises if companies are paying dividends? Why do any pay rises have to go up by the inflation rate if these are temporary price spikes? Why not one of payments? Energy prices will fall, either with increased supply or a switch to other sources. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement." 10% of £70 is only £7 not even a pack of 20 cigs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To only agree, or are you open to people disagreeing as well? Why penalise those people on the lower end of the scale who already struggle to make ends meet? People on above average wages are suffering through higher transport costs by travelling to work and then massive increases in their mortages of an average of 600 quid a month in London. By all means give everyone more than 10% but we all know what happens with infaltion The only solution is higher taxes and 3% for those in work in the punblic sector and the same for those on benefits FYI we are 40% taxpayers and would really struggle had it not been for our prudent financial efforts. If people want to esnure they keep on getting their benefits, pensions and the country remains to operate, trust me cuts need to be made " And why is it always people like you that want the poorest in society to suffer the most. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Noting the tone on here, I'm assuming that no one will object to rail fares rising by 12% in 2023? " What's that to do with benefits raising with inflation? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Noting the tone on here, I'm assuming that no one will object to rail fares rising by 12% in 2023? What's that to do with benefits raising with inflation? " If you use the inflation figure as a measure of increase, then surely it should apply across the board? Linking benefit increases to inflation is fine. The poorest and most vulnerable should be protected in a modern society. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement." Tory voter by any chance? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Noting the tone on here, I'm assuming that no one will object to rail fares rising by 12% in 2023? What's that to do with benefits raising with inflation? If you use the inflation figure as a measure of increase, then surely it should apply across the board? Linking benefit increases to inflation is fine. The poorest and most vulnerable should be protected in a modern society. " Well that's the point of inflation isn't it everything goes up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Noting the tone on here, I'm assuming that no one will object to rail fares rising by 12% in 2023? What's that to do with benefits raising with inflation? If you use the inflation figure as a measure of increase, then surely it should apply across the board? Linking benefit increases to inflation is fine. The poorest and most vulnerable should be protected in a modern society. Well that's the point of inflation isn't it everything goes up. " Should some, or all, taxes go up by inflation? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Noting the tone on here, I'm assuming that no one will object to rail fares rising by 12% in 2023? What's that to do with benefits raising with inflation? If you use the inflation figure as a measure of increase, then surely it should apply across the board? Linking benefit increases to inflation is fine. The poorest and most vulnerable should be protected in a modern society. Well that's the point of inflation isn't it everything goes up. Should some, or all, taxes go up by inflation? " No of course they shouldn't this is about helping the people at the very bottom that need support. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Capitalisms greatest asset is to have the working classes keeping someone worse off than themselves. In a country of many many millionaires and even billionaires, it is obscene that many struggle for the basics of life. Yet we are lectured that our wage rises cause inflation while the companies post record profits. Sorry it is time for some trickle UP economics " Our politics are probably world's apart, but on that point we can agree! The wealth gap must decrease. Whilst I appreciate philanthropy, there are many that are just collecting wealth. The answers will never be simple though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everything needs to go past the rate off inflation if not Rich or poor or middle class will get screwed not just the poorest people If not the Super rich become rich Rich become middle class Middle class become the poor The poor become non existent " As is happening in other European countries we are heading back to: The wealthy The poor - peasants Middle class wipe out! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement." And I thought your comment elsewhere that the poor should just find a better job or work longer hours was insensitive and completely out of touch... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement." Nah, your just trolling again | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement." Agree completely. Benefits should never rise more than the average rate of pay rises. Otherwise you are making benefits more attractive than working. As benefits are paid for by those who work (as tax) and tax is a proportion of pay benefits become increasingly unaffordable if they rise more than pay. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement. Agree completely. Benefits should never rise more than the average rate of pay rises. Otherwise you are making benefits more attractive than working. As benefits are paid for by those who work (as tax) and tax is a proportion of pay benefits become increasingly unaffordable if they rise more than pay." What is the ‘average rate of pay rises’ , you do realise that there are millions of working people on benefits | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement. Agree completely. Benefits should never rise more than the average rate of pay rises. Otherwise you are making benefits more attractive than working. As benefits are paid for by those who work (as tax) and tax is a proportion of pay benefits become increasingly unaffordable if they rise more than pay. What is the ‘average rate of pay rises’ , you do realise that there are millions of working people on benefits " Average pay increase is about half the inflation rate at the moment. In work benefits should be stopped. Why should the state subsidise poor employers and people who can't be bothered to work full time? I'd love to not work, or work part time but I can't afford to. So I have to work full time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement. Agree completely. Benefits should never rise more than the average rate of pay rises. Otherwise you are making benefits more attractive than working. As benefits are paid for by those who work (as tax) and tax is a proportion of pay benefits become increasingly unaffordable if they rise more than pay. What is the ‘average rate of pay rises’ , you do realise that there are millions of working people on benefits Average pay increase is about half the inflation rate at the moment. In work benefits should be stopped. Why should the state subsidise poor employers and people who can't be bothered to work full time? I'd love to not work, or work part time but I can't afford to. So I have to work full time." Can't be bothered? You tell my mate who has significant disability, including to both arms, that he can't be bothered. He physically cannot cope with working FT but he works PT and has top up benefits. Forcing him to work FT would have him costing the NHS even more (he and I cost the NHS a bomb in a good year). There's plenty of reasons, genuine reasons, for people to work PT and there's plenty of people working FT who cannot afford to pay for the basics! FT on minimum wage is peanuts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement. Agree completely. Benefits should never rise more than the average rate of pay rises. Otherwise you are making benefits more attractive than working. As benefits are paid for by those who work (as tax) and tax is a proportion of pay benefits become increasingly unaffordable if they rise more than pay. What is the ‘average rate of pay rises’ , you do realise that there are millions of working people on benefits Average pay increase is about half the inflation rate at the moment. In work benefits should be stopped. Why should the state subsidise poor employers and people who can't be bothered to work full time? I'd love to not work, or work part time but I can't afford to. So I have to work full time." Where can I find the figures for ‘average pay rises’? Why are the state subsidising ‘poor employees’ ? It is illegal to pay below the minimum wage. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement. Agree completely. Benefits should never rise more than the average rate of pay rises. Otherwise you are making benefits more attractive than working. As benefits are paid for by those who work (as tax) and tax is a proportion of pay benefits become increasingly unaffordable if they rise more than pay. What is the ‘average rate of pay rises’ , you do realise that there are millions of working people on benefits Average pay increase is about half the inflation rate at the moment. In work benefits should be stopped. Why should the state subsidise poor employers and people who can't be bothered to work full time? I'd love to not work, or work part time but I can't afford to. So I have to work full time." Why don’t you get a better paid job and just work part time? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement. Agree completely. Benefits should never rise more than the average rate of pay rises. Otherwise you are making benefits more attractive than working. As benefits are paid for by those who work (as tax) and tax is a proportion of pay benefits become increasingly unaffordable if they rise more than pay." You are aware that the majority of benefits will go up a maximum of 15 pounds? Also the problem is benefits are literally the minimum amount the government says you need to live on to cover your very basic needs, If people who are working are worse off than those on benefits which actually is rarely the case then it's the employment system we need to look at not the benefit system. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement. Agree completely. Benefits should never rise more than the average rate of pay rises. Otherwise you are making benefits more attractive than working. As benefits are paid for by those who work (as tax) and tax is a proportion of pay benefits become increasingly unaffordable if they rise more than pay. What is the ‘average rate of pay rises’ , you do realise that there are millions of working people on benefits Average pay increase is about half the inflation rate at the moment. In work benefits should be stopped. Why should the state subsidise poor employers and people who can't be bothered to work full time? I'd love to not work, or work part time but I can't afford to. So I have to work full time. Why don’t you get a better paid job and just work part time? " I am already reasonably paid. It is diminishing returns once you are in the 40% tax bracket. Also, higher paid jobs tend to be things I don't like doing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement. Agree completely. Benefits should never rise more than the average rate of pay rises. Otherwise you are making benefits more attractive than working. As benefits are paid for by those who work (as tax) and tax is a proportion of pay benefits become increasingly unaffordable if they rise more than pay. You are aware that the majority of benefits will go up a maximum of 15 pounds? Also the problem is benefits are literally the minimum amount the government says you need to live on to cover your very basic needs, If people who are working are worse off than those on benefits which actually is rarely the case then it's the employment system we need to look at not the benefit system. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement. Agree completely. Benefits should never rise more than the average rate of pay rises. Otherwise you are making benefits more attractive than working. As benefits are paid for by those who work (as tax) and tax is a proportion of pay benefits become increasingly unaffordable if they rise more than pay. What is the ‘average rate of pay rises’ , you do realise that there are millions of working people on benefits Average pay increase is about half the inflation rate at the moment. In work benefits should be stopped. Why should the state subsidise poor employers and people who can't be bothered to work full time? I'd love to not work, or work part time but I can't afford to. So I have to work full time. Why don’t you get a better paid job and just work part time? I am already reasonably paid. It is diminishing returns once you are in the 40% tax bracket. Also, higher paid jobs tend to be things I don't like doing." I see, you would love to work part time but you can’t be bothered to re train or do a job you don’t like?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement. Agree completely. Benefits should never rise more than the average rate of pay rises. Otherwise you are making benefits more attractive than working. As benefits are paid for by those who work (as tax) and tax is a proportion of pay benefits become increasingly unaffordable if they rise more than pay. You are aware that the majority of benefits will go up a maximum of 15 pounds? Also the problem is benefits are literally the minimum amount the government says you need to live on to cover your very basic needs, If people who are working are worse off than those on benefits which actually is rarely the case then it's the employment system we need to look at not the benefit system. " So full time in work shouldn't need benefits. If an employer doesn't pay enough to live on they are a bad employer and shouldn't be subsidised by the state. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement. Agree completely. Benefits should never rise more than the average rate of pay rises. Otherwise you are making benefits more attractive than working. As benefits are paid for by those who work (as tax) and tax is a proportion of pay benefits become increasingly unaffordable if they rise more than pay. What is the ‘average rate of pay rises’ , you do realise that there are millions of working people on benefits Average pay increase is about half the inflation rate at the moment. In work benefits should be stopped. Why should the state subsidise poor employers and people who can't be bothered to work full time? I'd love to not work, or work part time but I can't afford to. So I have to work full time. Why don’t you get a better paid job and just work part time? I am already reasonably paid. It is diminishing returns once you are in the 40% tax bracket. Also, higher paid jobs tend to be things I don't like doing." And what would be your response to a low paid worker who said that higher paid jobs aren't things they like doing? Perhaps you could discuss it with some care workers, as they wipe your parent's arses or feed your great aunt her specially prepared soft diet? Because it's people like care workers who are working FT but needing top up benefits to survive. I'm sure it'd be a productive conversation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement. Agree completely. Benefits should never rise more than the average rate of pay rises. Otherwise you are making benefits more attractive than working. As benefits are paid for by those who work (as tax) and tax is a proportion of pay benefits become increasingly unaffordable if they rise more than pay. What is the ‘average rate of pay rises’ , you do realise that there are millions of working people on benefits Average pay increase is about half the inflation rate at the moment. In work benefits should be stopped. Why should the state subsidise poor employers and people who can't be bothered to work full time? I'd love to not work, or work part time but I can't afford to. So I have to work full time. Why don’t you get a better paid job and just work part time? I am already reasonably paid. It is diminishing returns once you are in the 40% tax bracket. Also, higher paid jobs tend to be things I don't like doing. I see, you would love to work part time but you can’t be bothered to re train or do a job you don’t like? "Yes, so I work full time to support my family. Even though I don't like it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement. Agree completely. Benefits should never rise more than the average rate of pay rises. Otherwise you are making benefits more attractive than working. As benefits are paid for by those who work (as tax) and tax is a proportion of pay benefits become increasingly unaffordable if they rise more than pay. What is the ‘average rate of pay rises’ , you do realise that there are millions of working people on benefits Average pay increase is about half the inflation rate at the moment. In work benefits should be stopped. Why should the state subsidise poor employers and people who can't be bothered to work full time? I'd love to not work, or work part time but I can't afford to. So I have to work full time. Why don’t you get a better paid job and just work part time? I am already reasonably paid. It is diminishing returns once you are in the 40% tax bracket. Also, higher paid jobs tend to be things I don't like doing. And what would be your response to a low paid worker who said that higher paid jobs aren't things they like doing? Perhaps you could discuss it with some care workers, as they wipe your parent's arses or feed your great aunt her specially prepared soft diet? Because it's people like care workers who are working FT but needing top up benefits to survive. I'm sure it'd be a productive conversation." They need to be paid a livable wage. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement. Agree completely. Benefits should never rise more than the average rate of pay rises. Otherwise you are making benefits more attractive than working. As benefits are paid for by those who work (as tax) and tax is a proportion of pay benefits become increasingly unaffordable if they rise more than pay. You are aware that the majority of benefits will go up a maximum of 15 pounds? Also the problem is benefits are literally the minimum amount the government says you need to live on to cover your very basic needs, If people who are working are worse off than those on benefits which actually is rarely the case then it's the employment system we need to look at not the benefit system. So full time in work shouldn't need benefits. If an employer doesn't pay enough to live on they are a bad employer and shouldn't be subsidised by the state." They have to pay the minimum wage | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was on benefits for years as a single mum! And now I’m a higher rate tax payer. I’ll always be supportive of giving help to those who need it even though tax takes up a chunk of my pay. Not keeping benefits in line with inflation is effectively a benefits cut and they’re already pretty low. " You made the choice to be a single parent so why should the state support you? Having children is a privilege not a right. If you can't afford them, don't have them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement. Agree completely. Benefits should never rise more than the average rate of pay rises. Otherwise you are making benefits more attractive than working. As benefits are paid for by those who work (as tax) and tax is a proportion of pay benefits become increasingly unaffordable if they rise more than pay. What is the ‘average rate of pay rises’ , you do realise that there are millions of working people on benefits Average pay increase is about half the inflation rate at the moment. In work benefits should be stopped. Why should the state subsidise poor employers and people who can't be bothered to work full time? I'd love to not work, or work part time but I can't afford to. So I have to work full time. Why don’t you get a better paid job and just work part time? I am already reasonably paid. It is diminishing returns once you are in the 40% tax bracket. Also, higher paid jobs tend to be things I don't like doing. And what would be your response to a low paid worker who said that higher paid jobs aren't things they like doing? Perhaps you could discuss it with some care workers, as they wipe your parent's arses or feed your great aunt her specially prepared soft diet? Because it's people like care workers who are working FT but needing top up benefits to survive. I'm sure it'd be a productive conversation. They need to be paid a livable wage." I agree, so an increase in the minimum wage? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was on benefits for years as a single mum! And now I’m a higher rate tax payer. I’ll always be supportive of giving help to those who need it even though tax takes up a chunk of my pay. Not keeping benefits in line with inflation is effectively a benefits cut and they’re already pretty low. You made the choice to be a single parent so why should the state support you? Having children is a privilege not a right. If you can't afford them, don't have them." How do you know that every single parent made that choice? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And there is the crux of one problem. The state is topping up poor wages. Should we expect the state to subsidise work? Should we now expect to pay the going rate for a service? If that meal out, were to cost £100 instead of £50, would we bother going? After all, if all elements of the process were to be paid £15 an hour, instead of minimum wage, then cost surely have to rise? " Exactly. So poor businesses will fail. We should pay the going rate for stuff so those that use a service pay. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement. Agree completely. Benefits should never rise more than the average rate of pay rises. Otherwise you are making benefits more attractive than working. As benefits are paid for by those who work (as tax) and tax is a proportion of pay benefits become increasingly unaffordable if they rise more than pay. What is the ‘average rate of pay rises’ , you do realise that there are millions of working people on benefits Average pay increase is about half the inflation rate at the moment. In work benefits should be stopped. Why should the state subsidise poor employers and people who can't be bothered to work full time? I'd love to not work, or work part time but I can't afford to. So I have to work full time. Why don’t you get a better paid job and just work part time? I am already reasonably paid. It is diminishing returns once you are in the 40% tax bracket. Also, higher paid jobs tend to be things I don't like doing. And what would be your response to a low paid worker who said that higher paid jobs aren't things they like doing? Perhaps you could discuss it with some care workers, as they wipe your parent's arses or feed your great aunt her specially prepared soft diet? Because it's people like care workers who are working FT but needing top up benefits to survive. I'm sure it'd be a productive conversation. They need to be paid a livable wage. I agree, so an increase in the minimum wage? " Yes, probably needs to be £15 an hour. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was on benefits for years as a single mum! And now I’m a higher rate tax payer. I’ll always be supportive of giving help to those who need it even though tax takes up a chunk of my pay. Not keeping benefits in line with inflation is effectively a benefits cut and they’re already pretty low. You made the choice to be a single parent so why should the state support you? Having children is a privilege not a right. If you can't afford them, don't have them. How do you know that every single parent made that choice? " Unless their partner died then they did. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was on benefits for years as a single mum! And now I’m a higher rate tax payer. I’ll always be supportive of giving help to those who need it even though tax takes up a chunk of my pay. Not keeping benefits in line with inflation is effectively a benefits cut and they’re already pretty low. You made the choice to be a single parent so why should the state support you? Having children is a privilege not a right. If you can't afford them, don't have them." You assume a lot! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" In work benefits should be stopped. Why should the state subsidise poor employers and people who can't be bothered to work full time? " All of the main parties are in agreement that people who are capable of working should do.. The only party that still wants this obscene position where it allows companies to pay such low rates, working practices of the Victorian era to further profit said owners is the current one.. To have the added costs of a system where people in work qualify for tax credits rather than to legislate is nonsense but it suits the ideology of a party hell bent on standing on and keeping down those it deems unworthy of living in dignity.. Op, I strongly disagree and why are you using the site to advertise? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was on benefits for years as a single mum! And now I’m a higher rate tax payer. I’ll always be supportive of giving help to those who need it even though tax takes up a chunk of my pay. Not keeping benefits in line with inflation is effectively a benefits cut and they’re already pretty low. Excellent post. Thanks to the many that are supportive of my stance which I did not clearly explain in my OP and made a tongue in cheek comment about agreeing with me. Like several here we too are 40% taxpayers and fully support the benefits system but it is absued by a large miniorty like most things As others have said as have I benefits must never rise more than wages. The UK is on her knees and taxes and windfall taxes need to rise You made the choice to be a single parent so why should the state support you? Having children is a privilege not a right. If you can't afford them, don't have them." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement. Agree completely. Benefits should never rise more than the average rate of pay rises. Otherwise you are making benefits more attractive than working. As benefits are paid for by those who work (as tax) and tax is a proportion of pay benefits become increasingly unaffordable if they rise more than pay. What is the ‘average rate of pay rises’ , you do realise that there are millions of working people on benefits Average pay increase is about half the inflation rate at the moment. In work benefits should be stopped. Why should the state subsidise poor employers and people who can't be bothered to work full time? I'd love to not work, or work part time but I can't afford to. So I have to work full time. Why don’t you get a better paid job and just work part time? I am already reasonably paid. It is diminishing returns once you are in the 40% tax bracket. Also, higher paid jobs tend to be things I don't like doing. And what would be your response to a low paid worker who said that higher paid jobs aren't things they like doing? Perhaps you could discuss it with some care workers, as they wipe your parent's arses or feed your great aunt her specially prepared soft diet? Because it's people like care workers who are working FT but needing top up benefits to survive. I'm sure it'd be a productive conversation. They need to be paid a livable wage. I agree, so an increase in the minimum wage? Yes, probably needs to be £15 an hour." I agree with that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was on benefits for years as a single mum! And now I’m a higher rate tax payer. I’ll always be supportive of giving help to those who need it even though tax takes up a chunk of my pay. Not keeping benefits in line with inflation is effectively a benefits cut and they’re already pretty low. You made the choice to be a single parent so why should the state support you? Having children is a privilege not a right. If you can't afford them, don't have them. How do you know that every single parent made that choice? Unless their partner died then they did." Divorce, abusive partner, etc etc | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement. Agree completely. Benefits should never rise more than the average rate of pay rises. Otherwise you are making benefits more attractive than working. As benefits are paid for by those who work (as tax) and tax is a proportion of pay benefits become increasingly unaffordable if they rise more than pay. What is the ‘average rate of pay rises’ , you do realise that there are millions of working people on benefits Average pay increase is about half the inflation rate at the moment. In work benefits should be stopped. Why should the state subsidise poor employers and people who can't be bothered to work full time? I'd love to not work, or work part time but I can't afford to. So I have to work full time. Why don’t you get a better paid job and just work part time? I am already reasonably paid. It is diminishing returns once you are in the 40% tax bracket. Also, higher paid jobs tend to be things I don't like doing. And what would be your response to a low paid worker who said that higher paid jobs aren't things they like doing? Perhaps you could discuss it with some care workers, as they wipe your parent's arses or feed your great aunt her specially prepared soft diet? Because it's people like care workers who are working FT but needing top up benefits to survive. I'm sure it'd be a productive conversation. They need to be paid a livable wage. I agree, so an increase in the minimum wage? Yes, probably needs to be £15 an hour." Are you ready for the mass unemployment that would bring? People like care workers are often employed via contracts paid for by the State (local councils etc). There would simply not be any care workers on £15 an hour, unless central Government provide the funding. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement. Agree completely. Benefits should never rise more than the average rate of pay rises. Otherwise you are making benefits more attractive than working. As benefits are paid for by those who work (as tax) and tax is a proportion of pay benefits become increasingly unaffordable if they rise more than pay. You are aware that the majority of benefits will go up a maximum of 15 pounds? Also the problem is benefits are literally the minimum amount the government says you need to live on to cover your very basic needs, If people who are working are worse off than those on benefits which actually is rarely the case then it's the employment system we need to look at not the benefit system. So full time in work shouldn't need benefits. If an employer doesn't pay enough to live on they are a bad employer and shouldn't be subsidised by the state." So your solution is to punish the people that don't have enough to live on rather than the employers? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was on benefits for years as a single mum! And now I’m a higher rate tax payer. I’ll always be supportive of giving help to those who need it even though tax takes up a chunk of my pay. Not keeping benefits in line with inflation is effectively a benefits cut and they’re already pretty low. You made the choice to be a single parent so why should the state support you? Having children is a privilege not a right. If you can't afford them, don't have them." What a ridiculous statement! How do you know she made a choice to be a single parent? What she meant to do put the child in care or just leave them on the roadside if the partner leaves? You are just being deliberately provocative now it seems to me you just wanted to boast about being a top earner. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was on benefits for years as a single mum! And now I’m a higher rate tax payer. I’ll always be supportive of giving help to those who need it even though tax takes up a chunk of my pay. Not keeping benefits in line with inflation is effectively a benefits cut and they’re already pretty low. You made the choice to be a single parent so why should the state support you? Having children is a privilege not a right. If you can't afford them, don't have them. How do you know that every single parent made that choice? Unless their partner died then they did." Oh you can force a person to stay or someone who is in abusive relationship should just stay put to please people like you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full." Using your own biased clichés surely some of the pensioners you say deserve the triple lock will have in their younger days been the feckless workshy smoking types? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full." Yet another person that does not know what they are talking about. How do you expect someone that lives off £77 a week to have sky television? They don't! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full." Why stereotype people on benefits like this? I know a lot of disabled people who get benefits or work PT + benefits and guess what? None of them smoke. None of them have fancy, luxury goods at home. They don't go out socialising, other than to attend wheelchair sports clubs or within their children's social networks (i.e. sitting in a Wacky Warehouse while kids play with others). Which bit of their essential living needs should they scrap? Food? Heating? Children's school uniform? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Yet another person that does not know what they are talking about. How do you expect someone that lives off £77 a week to have sky television? They don't! " And the reason they get £77 a week is because of the ones that don't want to work and get more on benefits than a lot of two income families and don't even think of saying they don't exist because we have rented houses to some of these lazy work shy baby breeders that get everything paid for until we decided to sell up and let someone else look after them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Why stereotype people on benefits like this? I know a lot of disabled people who get benefits or work PT + benefits and guess what? None of them smoke. None of them have fancy, luxury goods at home. They don't go out socialising, other than to attend wheelchair sports clubs or within their children's social networks (i.e. sitting in a Wacky Warehouse while kids play with others). Which bit of their essential living needs should they scrap? Food? Heating? Children's school uniform? " Disabled people should not be bunched with the unemployed, disabled people didn't choose to be disabled but many unemployed choose to be so. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Yet another person that does not know what they are talking about. How do you expect someone that lives off £77 a week to have sky television? They don't! And the reason they get £77 a week is because of the ones that don't want to work and get more on benefits than a lot of two income families and don't even think of saying they don't exist because we have rented houses to some of these lazy work shy baby breeders that get everything paid for until we decided to sell up and let someone else look after them." The figure I have just given you is somebody over the age of 25 who is on ESA and been judged not fit for work. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fuck the poor innit. " Seems that way! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Yet another person that does not know what they are talking about. How do you expect someone that lives off £77 a week to have sky television? They don't! And the reason they get £77 a week is because of the ones that don't want to work and get more on benefits than a lot of two income families and don't even think of saying they don't exist because we have rented houses to some of these lazy work shy baby breeders that get everything paid for until we decided to sell up and let someone else look after them." But you are quite happy to take the rental income from the government for these work shy people though! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Yet another person that does not know what they are talking about. How do you expect someone that lives off £77 a week to have sky television? They don't! And the reason they get £77 a week is because of the ones that don't want to work and get more on benefits than a lot of two income families and don't even think of saying they don't exist because we have rented houses to some of these lazy work shy baby breeders that get everything paid for until we decided to sell up and let someone else look after them." How many such people are there? If you are so "against" the "benefit scroungers", why are you housing them? Are there no workhouses? No prisons? Perhaps they should die, and decrease the surplus population?? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Yet another person that does not know what they are talking about. How do you expect someone that lives off £77 a week to have sky television? They don't! And the reason they get £77 a week is because of the ones that don't want to work and get more on benefits than a lot of two income families and don't even think of saying they don't exist because we have rented houses to some of these lazy work shy baby breeders that get everything paid for until we decided to sell up and let someone else look after them." Yes they exist, but they are the minority, it is unfair to stereo type everyone on benefits as lazy scroungers | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Why stereotype people on benefits like this? I know a lot of disabled people who get benefits or work PT + benefits and guess what? None of them smoke. None of them have fancy, luxury goods at home. They don't go out socialising, other than to attend wheelchair sports clubs or within their children's social networks (i.e. sitting in a Wacky Warehouse while kids play with others). Which bit of their essential living needs should they scrap? Food? Heating? Children's school uniform? Disabled people should not be bunched with the unemployed, disabled people didn't choose to be disabled but many unemployed choose to be so." But they are. So all your bile about feckless workshy people impacts disabled people too. One of my friends works as many hours as he can but he earns very little due to the short hours. He has two children who he has joint custody for, but the children spend more time with him because his (able bodied ex) chooses to go off and do her own thing. He gets exactly the same next-to-fuck-all benefits as other people on UC, apart from he also gets a bit of PIP but that mainly just allows him to have a wheelchair accessible vehicle. You honestly have absolutely no fucking idea until you've had to live that life. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Yet another person that does not know what they are talking about. How do you expect someone that lives off £77 a week to have sky television? They don't! And the reason they get £77 a week is because of the ones that don't want to work and get more on benefits than a lot of two income families and don't even think of saying they don't exist because we have rented houses to some of these lazy work shy baby breeders that get everything paid for until we decided to sell up and let someone else look after them. But you are quite happy to take the rental income from the government for these work shy people though!" You obviously didn't read the post did you ? We refused to be a part to this scam and sold up Thanks for READING | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Those that need benefits the most, should receive everything that they are entitled to. Society should look after the most vulnerable. That is fair and right. Those that play the system, should be brought to book. They are stealing off the needy, but I expect no remorse or shame from them " I choose not to claim PIP (which I might be entitled to, at least at low rate) because I really cannot put myself through the indignity of claiming. The system is to refuse everyone at first and make them beg. Make them attend a TRIBUNAL (it's not a fucking crime to need benefit support!). I work FT but I spend a lot of my money on essential mobility equipment. My new, properly fitted wheelchair cost me £4500, for example. Without PIP, I am not entitled to many things that people think are automatic for wheelchair users (they're not). I can't pre book wheelchair spaces at the cinema (can't get CEA card). I can't book wheelchair accessible spaces at concert and theatre venues (can't provide a PIP letter). When I need a second person to assist me at a venue, I have to pay for that person to attend because I don't qualify for the "free carer" option (because venues ask for PIP letters). I'm putting myself through immense pain and physical stress to continue working FT. If claiming benefits was lucrative, I'd not be doing that. It's not lucrative. I could not support my family on benefits only. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was on benefits for years as a single mum! And now I’m a higher rate tax payer. I’ll always be supportive of giving help to those who need it even though tax takes up a chunk of my pay. Not keeping benefits in line with inflation is effectively a benefits cut and they’re already pretty low. You made the choice to be a single parent so why should the state support you? Having children is a privilege not a right. If you can't afford them, don't have them." Not got to the bottom of the thread but wow, just wow, I needed to comment on this dozy! What a rude and presumptive thing to say. You have absolutely no idea of someone’s individual circumstances! I have no idea about the person you replied to but let me tell you that there are multiple reasons why someone may be a single parent. That could include, divorce, death of partner, rap3. The father or mother doing a runner and not facing responsibility! Give your head a wobble and stop seeing the world in black & white. Life is complicated and has many permutations! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Why stereotype people on benefits like this? I know a lot of disabled people who get benefits or work PT + benefits and guess what? None of them smoke. None of them have fancy, luxury goods at home. They don't go out socialising, other than to attend wheelchair sports clubs or within their children's social networks (i.e. sitting in a Wacky Warehouse while kids play with others). Which bit of their essential living needs should they scrap? Food? Heating? Children's school uniform? Disabled people should not be bunched with the unemployed, disabled people didn't choose to be disabled but many unemployed choose to be so. But they are. So all your bile about feckless workshy people impacts disabled people too. One of my friends works as many hours as he can but he earns very little due to the short hours. He has two children who he has joint custody for, but the children spend more time with him because his (able bodied ex) chooses to go off and do her own thing. He gets exactly the same next-to-fuck-all benefits as other people on UC, apart from he also gets a bit of PIP but that mainly just allows him to have a wheelchair accessible vehicle. You honestly have absolutely no fucking idea until you've had to live that life." Then perhaps you should focus your attention on the real issue of those that are in REAL need get what they want istead of worthless rants on a swinger site ? Like I ALREADY said, those most desperate should get the help they need those that can work should be working. No point taking part in a debate when you have nothing to offer except rudeness and name calling. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Those that need benefits the most, should receive everything that they are entitled to. Society should look after the most vulnerable. That is fair and right. Those that play the system, should be brought to book. They are stealing off the needy, but I expect no remorse or shame from them " Hear hear | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Those that need benefits the most, should receive everything that they are entitled to. Society should look after the most vulnerable. That is fair and right. Those that play the system, should be brought to book. They are stealing off the needy, but I expect no remorse or shame from them " I agree, unfortunately we have people from all walks of life who are getting away with ‘playing the system’ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Why stereotype people on benefits like this? I know a lot of disabled people who get benefits or work PT + benefits and guess what? None of them smoke. None of them have fancy, luxury goods at home. They don't go out socialising, other than to attend wheelchair sports clubs or within their children's social networks (i.e. sitting in a Wacky Warehouse while kids play with others). Which bit of their essential living needs should they scrap? Food? Heating? Children's school uniform? Disabled people should not be bunched with the unemployed, disabled people didn't choose to be disabled but many unemployed choose to be so. But they are. So all your bile about feckless workshy people impacts disabled people too. One of my friends works as many hours as he can but he earns very little due to the short hours. He has two children who he has joint custody for, but the children spend more time with him because his (able bodied ex) chooses to go off and do her own thing. He gets exactly the same next-to-fuck-all benefits as other people on UC, apart from he also gets a bit of PIP but that mainly just allows him to have a wheelchair accessible vehicle. You honestly have absolutely no fucking idea until you've had to live that life. Then perhaps you should focus your attention on the real issue of those that are in REAL need get what they want istead of worthless rants on a swinger site ? Like I ALREADY said, those most desperate should get the help they need those that can work should be working. No point taking part in a debate when you have nothing to offer except rudeness and name calling. " You are the ones that started using derogatory language then when people didn't agree with you started getting even more unpleasant. Who are the people that you deem worthy to be able to eat and heat their homes if for whatever reason they cannot work or all earn enough to support themselves? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement. Agree completely. Benefits should never rise more than the average rate of pay rises. Otherwise you are making benefits more attractive than working. As benefits are paid for by those who work (as tax) and tax is a proportion of pay benefits become increasingly unaffordable if they rise more than pay. What is the ‘average rate of pay rises’ , you do realise that there are millions of working people on benefits Average pay increase is about half the inflation rate at the moment. In work benefits should be stopped. Why should the state subsidise poor employers and people who can't be bothered to work full time? I'd love to not work, or work part time but I can't afford to. So I have to work full time. Why don’t you get a better paid job and just work part time? I am already reasonably paid. It is diminishing returns once you are in the 40% tax bracket. Also, higher paid jobs tend to be things I don't like doing. And what would be your response to a low paid worker who said that higher paid jobs aren't things they like doing? Perhaps you could discuss it with some care workers, as they wipe your parent's arses or feed your great aunt her specially prepared soft diet? Because it's people like care workers who are working FT but needing top up benefits to survive. I'm sure it'd be a productive conversation. They need to be paid a livable wage. I agree, so an increase in the minimum wage? " It’s the only answer to stop the cliff edge from leaving benefits and starting work. Of course work should be more lucrative than being on benefits! However, just watch all those companies moan they cannot create employment as it is too expensive! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Why stereotype people on benefits like this? I know a lot of disabled people who get benefits or work PT + benefits and guess what? None of them smoke. None of them have fancy, luxury goods at home. They don't go out socialising, other than to attend wheelchair sports clubs or within their children's social networks (i.e. sitting in a Wacky Warehouse while kids play with others). Which bit of their essential living needs should they scrap? Food? Heating? Children's school uniform? Disabled people should not be bunched with the unemployed, disabled people didn't choose to be disabled but many unemployed choose to be so. But they are. So all your bile about feckless workshy people impacts disabled people too. One of my friends works as many hours as he can but he earns very little due to the short hours. He has two children who he has joint custody for, but the children spend more time with him because his (able bodied ex) chooses to go off and do her own thing. He gets exactly the same next-to-fuck-all benefits as other people on UC, apart from he also gets a bit of PIP but that mainly just allows him to have a wheelchair accessible vehicle. You honestly have absolutely no fucking idea until you've had to live that life. Then perhaps you should focus your attention on the real issue of those that are in REAL need get what they want istead of worthless rants on a swinger site ? Like I ALREADY said, those most desperate should get the help they need those that can work should be working. No point taking part in a debate when you have nothing to offer except rudeness and name calling. " You say should. But they don't. That's the simple fact. The system does not distinguish between sick and disabled people or able bodied people, with the exception of PIP. Which no-one is getting rich on. The original question is about benefits going up in line with inflation. Despite your assertion that disabled people should be a distinct case, because at the moment they are NOT, your insistence on not increasing benefits by a suitable level WILL leave sick, disabled and vulnerable people unable to live. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Yet another person that does not know what they are talking about. How do you expect someone that lives off £77 a week to have sky television? They don't! And the reason they get £77 a week is because of the ones that don't want to work and get more on benefits than a lot of two income families and don't even think of saying they don't exist because we have rented houses to some of these lazy work shy baby breeders that get everything paid for until we decided to sell up and let someone else look after them. But you are quite happy to take the rental income from the government for these work shy people though! You obviously didn't read the post did you ? We refused to be a part to this scam and sold up Thanks for READING " So they were clearly working when they moved in so not workshy then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Why stereotype people on benefits like this? I know a lot of disabled people who get benefits or work PT + benefits and guess what? None of them smoke. None of them have fancy, luxury goods at home. They don't go out socialising, other than to attend wheelchair sports clubs or within their children's social networks (i.e. sitting in a Wacky Warehouse while kids play with others). Which bit of their essential living needs should they scrap? Food? Heating? Children's school uniform? Disabled people should not be bunched with the unemployed, disabled people didn't choose to be disabled but many unemployed choose to be so. But they are. So all your bile about feckless workshy people impacts disabled people too. One of my friends works as many hours as he can but he earns very little due to the short hours. He has two children who he has joint custody for, but the children spend more time with him because his (able bodied ex) chooses to go off and do her own thing. He gets exactly the same next-to-fuck-all benefits as other people on UC, apart from he also gets a bit of PIP but that mainly just allows him to have a wheelchair accessible vehicle. You honestly have absolutely no fucking idea until you've had to live that life. Then perhaps you should focus your attention on the real issue of those that are in REAL need get what they want istead of worthless rants on a swinger site ? Like I ALREADY said, those most desperate should get the help they need those that can work should be working. No point taking part in a debate when you have nothing to offer except rudeness and name calling. " And what name did I call you? None. I said "you've absolutely no fucking idea....." Which evidently, you do not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was on benefits for years as a single mum! And now I’m a higher rate tax payer. I’ll always be supportive of giving help to those who need it even though tax takes up a chunk of my pay. Not keeping benefits in line with inflation is effectively a benefits cut and they’re already pretty low. Excellent post. Thanks to the many that are supportive of my stance which I did not clearly explain in my OP and made a tongue in cheek comment about agreeing with me. Like several here we too are 40% taxpayers and fully support the benefits system but it is absued by a large miniorty like most things As others have said as have I benefits must never rise more than wages. The UK is on her knees and taxes and windfall taxes need to rise You made the choice to be a single parent so why should the state support you? Having children is a privilege not a right. If you can't afford them, don't have them." I wish people wouldn’t reply within the quote marks! Makes it almost impossible to see what they added! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Yet another person that does not know what they are talking about. How do you expect someone that lives off £77 a week to have sky television? They don't! And the reason they get £77 a week is because of the ones that don't want to work and get more on benefits than a lot of two income families and don't even think of saying they don't exist because we have rented houses to some of these lazy work shy baby breeders that get everything paid for until we decided to sell up and let someone else look after them. But you are quite happy to take the rental income from the government for these work shy people though! You obviously didn't read the post did you ? We refused to be a part to this scam and sold up Thanks for READING So they were clearly working when they moved in so not workshy then? " No they weren't, we were naive enough to think they might try to get a job though. Sometimes people deserve a chance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Yet another person that does not know what they are talking about. How do you expect someone that lives off £77 a week to have sky television? They don't! And the reason they get £77 a week is because of the ones that don't want to work and get more on benefits than a lot of two income families and don't even think of saying they don't exist because we have rented houses to some of these lazy work shy baby breeders that get everything paid for until we decided to sell up and let someone else look after them. But you are quite happy to take the rental income from the government for these work shy people though! You obviously didn't read the post did you ? We refused to be a part to this scam and sold up Thanks for READING So they were clearly working when they moved in so not workshy then? No they weren't, we were naive enough to think they might try to get a job though. Sometimes people deserve a chance." So you let the move in knowing you would receive money from the government for these people and now you are slagging them off even though you made money out of them. Very interesting. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was on benefits for years as a single mum! And now I’m a higher rate tax payer. I’ll always be supportive of giving help to those who need it even though tax takes up a chunk of my pay. Not keeping benefits in line with inflation is effectively a benefits cut and they’re already pretty low. You made the choice to be a single parent so why should the state support you? Having children is a privilege not a right. If you can't afford them, don't have them. What a ridiculous statement! How do you know she made a choice to be a single parent? What she meant to do put the child in care or just leave them on the roadside if the partner leaves? You are just being deliberately provocative now it seems to me you just wanted to boast about being a top earner. " Not even a top earner (by far) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Why stereotype people on benefits like this? I know a lot of disabled people who get benefits or work PT + benefits and guess what? None of them smoke. None of them have fancy, luxury goods at home. They don't go out socialising, other than to attend wheelchair sports clubs or within their children's social networks (i.e. sitting in a Wacky Warehouse while kids play with others). Which bit of their essential living needs should they scrap? Food? Heating? Children's school uniform? Disabled people should not be bunched with the unemployed, disabled people didn't choose to be disabled but many unemployed choose to be so. But they are. So all your bile about feckless workshy people impacts disabled people too. One of my friends works as many hours as he can but he earns very little due to the short hours. He has two children who he has joint custody for, but the children spend more time with him because his (able bodied ex) chooses to go off and do her own thing. He gets exactly the same next-to-fuck-all benefits as other people on UC, apart from he also gets a bit of PIP but that mainly just allows him to have a wheelchair accessible vehicle. You honestly have absolutely no fucking idea until you've had to live that life. Then perhaps you should focus your attention on the real issue of those that are in REAL need get what they want istead of worthless rants on a swinger site ? Like I ALREADY said, those most desperate should get the help they need those that can work should be working. No point taking part in a debate when you have nothing to offer except rudeness and name calling. You say should. But they don't. That's the simple fact. The system does not distinguish between sick and disabled people or able bodied people, with the exception of PIP. Which no-one is getting rich on. The original question is about benefits going up in line with inflation. Despite your assertion that disabled people should be a distinct case, because at the moment they are NOT, your insistence on not increasing benefits by a suitable level WILL leave sick, disabled and vulnerable people unable to live." Let's start again Please go back to my first post and read the second paragraph. Then perhaps we can have a sane discussion about how those people in desperation CAN be helped instesd of mud slinging. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Yet another person that does not know what they are talking about. How do you expect someone that lives off £77 a week to have sky television? They don't! And the reason they get £77 a week is because of the ones that don't want to work and get more on benefits than a lot of two income families and don't even think of saying they don't exist because we have rented houses to some of these lazy work shy baby breeders that get everything paid for until we decided to sell up and let someone else look after them." Wait a minute. So you are/were a buy-to-let landlord and happy to take government (tax payer) money in rent from these lazy work shy baby breeders! Bit of hypocrisy there! So you used some of my tax money to pay off the mortgage on your investment but have the cheek to moan about it! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. " There that will save you some time finding it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Those that need benefits the most, should receive everything that they are entitled to. Society should look after the most vulnerable. That is fair and right. Those that play the system, should be brought to book. They are stealing off the needy, but I expect no remorse or shame from them " I agree, and it should apply to all those regardless of which socio-economic group they are in.. Tax evading multi millionaires with a gaff in the Bahamas and an accountant in the BVI etc are just as bad as someone playing the system in a one bad flat .. One costs the country hundreds of thousands yet is protected from criticism by friends in politics and lauded by aspects of the media as a 'success'.. The other, peanuts and is vilified and looked down in by people fooled by the division game.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Yet another person that does not know what they are talking about. How do you expect someone that lives off £77 a week to have sky television? They don't! And the reason they get £77 a week is because of the ones that don't want to work and get more on benefits than a lot of two income families and don't even think of saying they don't exist because we have rented houses to some of these lazy work shy baby breeders that get everything paid for until we decided to sell up and let someone else look after them. Wait a minute. So you are/were a buy-to-let landlord and happy to take government (tax payer) money in rent from these lazy work shy baby breeders! Bit of hypocrisy there! So you used some of my tax money to pay off the mortgage on your investment but have the cheek to moan about it!" Read the rest, no we didn't | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Yet another person that does not know what they are talking about. How do you expect someone that lives off £77 a week to have sky television? They don't! And the reason they get £77 a week is because of the ones that don't want to work and get more on benefits than a lot of two income families and don't even think of saying they don't exist because we have rented houses to some of these lazy work shy baby breeders that get everything paid for until we decided to sell up and let someone else look after them. Wait a minute. So you are/were a buy-to-let landlord and happy to take government (tax payer) money in rent from these lazy work shy baby breeders! Bit of hypocrisy there! So you used some of my tax money to pay off the mortgage on your investment but have the cheek to moan about it! Read the rest, no we didn't " You did because you have admitted they were not working when they move in you just hope they would get a job. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Why stereotype people on benefits like this? I know a lot of disabled people who get benefits or work PT + benefits and guess what? None of them smoke. None of them have fancy, luxury goods at home. They don't go out socialising, other than to attend wheelchair sports clubs or within their children's social networks (i.e. sitting in a Wacky Warehouse while kids play with others). Which bit of their essential living needs should they scrap? Food? Heating? Children's school uniform? Disabled people should not be bunched with the unemployed, disabled people didn't choose to be disabled but many unemployed choose to be so. But they are. So all your bile about feckless workshy people impacts disabled people too. One of my friends works as many hours as he can but he earns very little due to the short hours. He has two children who he has joint custody for, but the children spend more time with him because his (able bodied ex) chooses to go off and do her own thing. He gets exactly the same next-to-fuck-all benefits as other people on UC, apart from he also gets a bit of PIP but that mainly just allows him to have a wheelchair accessible vehicle. You honestly have absolutely no fucking idea until you've had to live that life. Then perhaps you should focus your attention on the real issue of those that are in REAL need get what they want istead of worthless rants on a swinger site ? Like I ALREADY said, those most desperate should get the help they need those that can work should be working. No point taking part in a debate when you have nothing to offer except rudeness and name calling. You say should. But they don't. That's the simple fact. The system does not distinguish between sick and disabled people or able bodied people, with the exception of PIP. Which no-one is getting rich on. The original question is about benefits going up in line with inflation. Despite your assertion that disabled people should be a distinct case, because at the moment they are NOT, your insistence on not increasing benefits by a suitable level WILL leave sick, disabled and vulnerable people unable to live. Let's start again Please go back to my first post and read the second paragraph. Then perhaps we can have a sane discussion about how those people in desperation CAN be helped instesd of mud slinging." You have told people not to be personal yet that is exactly what you are choosing to do. Oh let's get this straight you let a family move in who were not earning a wage, You knew this when they moved in so you were doing it out of the kindness of your heart where you? You didn't receive any rental income from this family at all? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Why stereotype people on benefits like this? I know a lot of disabled people who get benefits or work PT + benefits and guess what? None of them smoke. None of them have fancy, luxury goods at home. They don't go out socialising, other than to attend wheelchair sports clubs or within their children's social networks (i.e. sitting in a Wacky Warehouse while kids play with others). Which bit of their essential living needs should they scrap? Food? Heating? Children's school uniform? Disabled people should not be bunched with the unemployed, disabled people didn't choose to be disabled but many unemployed choose to be so. But they are. So all your bile about feckless workshy people impacts disabled people too. One of my friends works as many hours as he can but he earns very little due to the short hours. He has two children who he has joint custody for, but the children spend more time with him because his (able bodied ex) chooses to go off and do her own thing. He gets exactly the same next-to-fuck-all benefits as other people on UC, apart from he also gets a bit of PIP but that mainly just allows him to have a wheelchair accessible vehicle. You honestly have absolutely no fucking idea until you've had to live that life. Then perhaps you should focus your attention on the real issue of those that are in REAL need get what they want istead of worthless rants on a swinger site ? Like I ALREADY said, those most desperate should get the help they need those that can work should be working. No point taking part in a debate when you have nothing to offer except rudeness and name calling. You say should. But they don't. That's the simple fact. The system does not distinguish between sick and disabled people or able bodied people, with the exception of PIP. Which no-one is getting rich on. The original question is about benefits going up in line with inflation. Despite your assertion that disabled people should be a distinct case, because at the moment they are NOT, your insistence on not increasing benefits by a suitable level WILL leave sick, disabled and vulnerable people unable to live. Let's start again Please go back to my first post and read the second paragraph. Then perhaps we can have a sane discussion about how those people in desperation CAN be helped instesd of mud slinging." The one off payments being offered are insufficient though. When energy is going up significantly; basic foodstuffs going up in double digit levels every week; the cost of fuel for your wheelchair accessible vehicle (aka large van) going up significantly etc etc. A few hundred quid as a one off payment still doesn't help enough. Do you think prices will come down when inflation finally abates? Doubtful. Your ideas are going back towards the Victorian ideas of the deserving vs undeserving poor. Dealing with the poor on this basis shows this distinction to be nonsense. So few people are deliberately trying to game the system, but the whole system (including one off payments) is designed around the small percentage of fraudsters. Have you personally had to deal with the benefits/disability and sickness support system in this country? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Why stereotype people on benefits like this? I know a lot of disabled people who get benefits or work PT + benefits and guess what? None of them smoke. None of them have fancy, luxury goods at home. They don't go out socialising, other than to attend wheelchair sports clubs or within their children's social networks (i.e. sitting in a Wacky Warehouse while kids play with others). Which bit of their essential living needs should they scrap? Food? Heating? Children's school uniform? Disabled people should not be bunched with the unemployed, disabled people didn't choose to be disabled but many unemployed choose to be so. But they are. So all your bile about feckless workshy people impacts disabled people too. One of my friends works as many hours as he can but he earns very little due to the short hours. He has two children who he has joint custody for, but the children spend more time with him because his (able bodied ex) chooses to go off and do her own thing. He gets exactly the same next-to-fuck-all benefits as other people on UC, apart from he also gets a bit of PIP but that mainly just allows him to have a wheelchair accessible vehicle. You honestly have absolutely no fucking idea until you've had to live that life. Then perhaps you should focus your attention on the real issue of those that are in REAL need get what they want istead of worthless rants on a swinger site ? Like I ALREADY said, those most desperate should get the help they need those that can work should be working. No point taking part in a debate when you have nothing to offer except rudeness and name calling. You say should. But they don't. That's the simple fact. The system does not distinguish between sick and disabled people or able bodied people, with the exception of PIP. Which no-one is getting rich on. The original question is about benefits going up in line with inflation. Despite your assertion that disabled people should be a distinct case, because at the moment they are NOT, your insistence on not increasing benefits by a suitable level WILL leave sick, disabled and vulnerable people unable to live. Let's start again Please go back to my first post and read the second paragraph. Then perhaps we can have a sane discussion about how those people in desperation CAN be helped instesd of mud slinging. The one off payments being offered are insufficient though. When energy is going up significantly; basic foodstuffs going up in double digit levels every week; the cost of fuel for your wheelchair accessible vehicle (aka large van) going up significantly etc etc. A few hundred quid as a one off payment still doesn't help enough. Do you think prices will come down when inflation finally abates? Doubtful. Your ideas are going back towards the Victorian ideas of the deserving vs undeserving poor. Dealing with the poor on this basis shows this distinction to be nonsense. So few people are deliberately trying to game the system, but the whole system (including one off payments) is designed around the small percentage of fraudsters. Have you personally had to deal with the benefits/disability and sickness support system in this country? " That's better, so what would you do and who will pay for it ? I certainly can't afford to pay more tax ? Taxing the most wealthy will drive them away and taxing companies means price increases that make people worse off. I wish there was a money tree | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Why stereotype people on benefits like this? I know a lot of disabled people who get benefits or work PT + benefits and guess what? None of them smoke. None of them have fancy, luxury goods at home. They don't go out socialising, other than to attend wheelchair sports clubs or within their children's social networks (i.e. sitting in a Wacky Warehouse while kids play with others). Which bit of their essential living needs should they scrap? Food? Heating? Children's school uniform? Disabled people should not be bunched with the unemployed, disabled people didn't choose to be disabled but many unemployed choose to be so. But they are. So all your bile about feckless workshy people impacts disabled people too. One of my friends works as many hours as he can but he earns very little due to the short hours. He has two children who he has joint custody for, but the children spend more time with him because his (able bodied ex) chooses to go off and do her own thing. He gets exactly the same next-to-fuck-all benefits as other people on UC, apart from he also gets a bit of PIP but that mainly just allows him to have a wheelchair accessible vehicle. You honestly have absolutely no fucking idea until you've had to live that life. Then perhaps you should focus your attention on the real issue of those that are in REAL need get what they want istead of worthless rants on a swinger site ? Like I ALREADY said, those most desperate should get the help they need those that can work should be working. No point taking part in a debate when you have nothing to offer except rudeness and name calling. You say should. But they don't. That's the simple fact. The system does not distinguish between sick and disabled people or able bodied people, with the exception of PIP. Which no-one is getting rich on. The original question is about benefits going up in line with inflation. Despite your assertion that disabled people should be a distinct case, because at the moment they are NOT, your insistence on not increasing benefits by a suitable level WILL leave sick, disabled and vulnerable people unable to live. Let's start again Please go back to my first post and read the second paragraph. Then perhaps we can have a sane discussion about how those people in desperation CAN be helped instesd of mud slinging. The one off payments being offered are insufficient though. When energy is going up significantly; basic foodstuffs going up in double digit levels every week; the cost of fuel for your wheelchair accessible vehicle (aka large van) going up significantly etc etc. A few hundred quid as a one off payment still doesn't help enough. Do you think prices will come down when inflation finally abates? Doubtful. Your ideas are going back towards the Victorian ideas of the deserving vs undeserving poor. Dealing with the poor on this basis shows this distinction to be nonsense. So few people are deliberately trying to game the system, but the whole system (including one off payments) is designed around the small percentage of fraudsters. Have you personally had to deal with the benefits/disability and sickness support system in this country? That's better, so what would you do and who will pay for it ? I certainly can't afford to pay more tax ? Taxing the most wealthy will drive them away and taxing companies means price increases that make people worse off. I wish there was a money tree " Please stop talking down to people it's really unpleasant and unnecessary. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Those that need benefits the most, should receive everything that they are entitled to. Society should look after the most vulnerable. That is fair and right. Those that play the system, should be brought to book. They are stealing off the needy, but I expect no remorse or shame from them I agree, unfortunately we have people from all walks of life who are getting away with ‘playing the system’ " Benefit fraud costs the UK approximately £2.3bn a year. A significant sum that needs to be stamped out. The major portion of that is actually undertaken by organised crime rather than individuals gaming the system. Have a guess how much tax evasion by individuals and businesses costs the UK? If we want more bang for our buck then resources should be directed at tax evasion as the prize is several magnitudes bigger! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Why stereotype people on benefits like this? I know a lot of disabled people who get benefits or work PT + benefits and guess what? None of them smoke. None of them have fancy, luxury goods at home. They don't go out socialising, other than to attend wheelchair sports clubs or within their children's social networks (i.e. sitting in a Wacky Warehouse while kids play with others). Which bit of their essential living needs should they scrap? Food? Heating? Children's school uniform? Disabled people should not be bunched with the unemployed, disabled people didn't choose to be disabled but many unemployed choose to be so. But they are. So all your bile about feckless workshy people impacts disabled people too. One of my friends works as many hours as he can but he earns very little due to the short hours. He has two children who he has joint custody for, but the children spend more time with him because his (able bodied ex) chooses to go off and do her own thing. He gets exactly the same next-to-fuck-all benefits as other people on UC, apart from he also gets a bit of PIP but that mainly just allows him to have a wheelchair accessible vehicle. You honestly have absolutely no fucking idea until you've had to live that life. Then perhaps you should focus your attention on the real issue of those that are in REAL need get what they want istead of worthless rants on a swinger site ? Like I ALREADY said, those most desperate should get the help they need those that can work should be working. No point taking part in a debate when you have nothing to offer except rudeness and name calling. You say should. But they don't. That's the simple fact. The system does not distinguish between sick and disabled people or able bodied people, with the exception of PIP. Which no-one is getting rich on. The original question is about benefits going up in line with inflation. Despite your assertion that disabled people should be a distinct case, because at the moment they are NOT, your insistence on not increasing benefits by a suitable level WILL leave sick, disabled and vulnerable people unable to live. Let's start again Please go back to my first post and read the second paragraph. Then perhaps we can have a sane discussion about how those people in desperation CAN be helped instesd of mud slinging. The one off payments being offered are insufficient though. When energy is going up significantly; basic foodstuffs going up in double digit levels every week; the cost of fuel for your wheelchair accessible vehicle (aka large van) going up significantly etc etc. A few hundred quid as a one off payment still doesn't help enough. Do you think prices will come down when inflation finally abates? Doubtful. Your ideas are going back towards the Victorian ideas of the deserving vs undeserving poor. Dealing with the poor on this basis shows this distinction to be nonsense. So few people are deliberately trying to game the system, but the whole system (including one off payments) is designed around the small percentage of fraudsters. Have you personally had to deal with the benefits/disability and sickness support system in this country? That's better, so what would you do and who will pay for it ? I certainly can't afford to pay more tax ? Taxing the most wealthy will drive them away and taxing companies means price increases that make people worse off. I wish there was a money tree " Taxes will have to rise. Inheritance tax. Corporation tax. Capital gains tax. Windfall tax the fuck out of the energy companies like Shell. Etc. Ban MPs from being involved in lobbying and having second jobs, that cause them to make decisions that benefit their second employer. As an MP, they are employed full time to work for the benefit of their constituents. They should have absolutely no time to work for second or third organisations. I am a basic rate tax payer only, despite best efforts. I'll pay an extra little bit if it means fewer food banks, fewer children coming to school hungry etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Why stereotype people on benefits like this? I know a lot of disabled people who get benefits or work PT + benefits and guess what? None of them smoke. None of them have fancy, luxury goods at home. They don't go out socialising, other than to attend wheelchair sports clubs or within their children's social networks (i.e. sitting in a Wacky Warehouse while kids play with others). Which bit of their essential living needs should they scrap? Food? Heating? Children's school uniform? Disabled people should not be bunched with the unemployed, disabled people didn't choose to be disabled but many unemployed choose to be so. But they are. So all your bile about feckless workshy people impacts disabled people too. One of my friends works as many hours as he can but he earns very little due to the short hours. He has two children who he has joint custody for, but the children spend more time with him because his (able bodied ex) chooses to go off and do her own thing. He gets exactly the same next-to-fuck-all benefits as other people on UC, apart from he also gets a bit of PIP but that mainly just allows him to have a wheelchair accessible vehicle. You honestly have absolutely no fucking idea until you've had to live that life. Then perhaps you should focus your attention on the real issue of those that are in REAL need get what they want istead of worthless rants on a swinger site ? Like I ALREADY said, those most desperate should get the help they need those that can work should be working. No point taking part in a debate when you have nothing to offer except rudeness and name calling. You say should. But they don't. That's the simple fact. The system does not distinguish between sick and disabled people or able bodied people, with the exception of PIP. Which no-one is getting rich on. The original question is about benefits going up in line with inflation. Despite your assertion that disabled people should be a distinct case, because at the moment they are NOT, your insistence on not increasing benefits by a suitable level WILL leave sick, disabled and vulnerable people unable to live. Let's start again Please go back to my first post and read the second paragraph. Then perhaps we can have a sane discussion about how those people in desperation CAN be helped instesd of mud slinging. You have told people not to be personal yet that is exactly what you are choosing to do. Oh let's get this straight you let a family move in who were not earning a wage, You knew this when they moved in so you were doing it out of the kindness of your heart where you? You didn't receive any rental income from this family at all? " It seems you just want to deflect from the discussion if you want more details on my dealings with them I'm perfectly happy to pm you but I'm not going to discuss in public | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement. Agree completely. Benefits should never rise more than the average rate of pay rises. Otherwise you are making benefits more attractive than working. As benefits are paid for by those who work (as tax) and tax is a proportion of pay benefits become increasingly unaffordable if they rise more than pay. What is the ‘average rate of pay rises’ , you do realise that there are millions of working people on benefits Average pay increase is about half the inflation rate at the moment. In work benefits should be stopped. Why should the state subsidise poor employers and people who can't be bothered to work full time? I'd love to not work, or work part time but I can't afford to. So I have to work full time. Where can I find the figures for ‘average pay rises’? Why are the state subsidising ‘poor employees’ ? It is illegal to pay below the minimum wage. " Umm.....because of inflation!! Minimum wage is just that. If you are on minimum wage your entire income is spent just surviving. A far larger % of income is spent on food than those on higher wages. As most will have noticed, food price inflation is well ahead of headline 10%ish inflation. So what was minimum wage a few months ago, is now 15% less... But 'poor' old pensioners keep the triple lock, which actually guarantees a rise ahead of inflation when inflation is low. And is paid to everyone of pensionable age, regardless of income. Why? Because that policy alone keeps the Tories in power. Everyone else has to 'tighten their belts'. Why pensions should have a guaranteed rise I don't know. It those in work today that are paying for those that are retired tiday. The whole system needs a rethink, with a lot more thought given to supporting those truly in need. Do we all need two holidays a year? Nice to have but no. Do we all need enough food on the table? Yes. 60 years ago bosses earned 3 or 4 times that of average employee pay on average. Now its often many 100s times average pay and noone bat's an eyelid. How often do we hear how companies can only attract the best candidates for the job by paying exorbitant salaries? Utter rubbish as witnessed by the total debacle of the last few weeks in politics. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Those that need benefits the most, should receive everything that they are entitled to. Society should look after the most vulnerable. That is fair and right. Those that play the system, should be brought to book. They are stealing off the needy, but I expect no remorse or shame from them I agree, unfortunately we have people from all walks of life who are getting away with ‘playing the system’ Benefit fraud costs the UK approximately £2.3bn a year. A significant sum that needs to be stamped out. The major portion of that is actually undertaken by organised crime rather than individuals gaming the system. Have a guess how much tax evasion by individuals and businesses costs the UK? If we want more bang for our buck then resources should be directed at tax evasion as the prize is several magnitudes bigger!" And it's a myth that many choose to swallow hook, line and sinker.. 
Like a validation comfort blanket for scorning people who are struggling.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Why stereotype people on benefits like this? I know a lot of disabled people who get benefits or work PT + benefits and guess what? None of them smoke. None of them have fancy, luxury goods at home. They don't go out socialising, other than to attend wheelchair sports clubs or within their children's social networks (i.e. sitting in a Wacky Warehouse while kids play with others). Which bit of their essential living needs should they scrap? Food? Heating? Children's school uniform? Disabled people should not be bunched with the unemployed, disabled people didn't choose to be disabled but many unemployed choose to be so. But they are. So all your bile about feckless workshy people impacts disabled people too. One of my friends works as many hours as he can but he earns very little due to the short hours. He has two children who he has joint custody for, but the children spend more time with him because his (able bodied ex) chooses to go off and do her own thing. He gets exactly the same next-to-fuck-all benefits as other people on UC, apart from he also gets a bit of PIP but that mainly just allows him to have a wheelchair accessible vehicle. You honestly have absolutely no fucking idea until you've had to live that life. Then perhaps you should focus your attention on the real issue of those that are in REAL need get what they want istead of worthless rants on a swinger site ? Like I ALREADY said, those most desperate should get the help they need those that can work should be working. No point taking part in a debate when you have nothing to offer except rudeness and name calling. You say should. But they don't. That's the simple fact. The system does not distinguish between sick and disabled people or able bodied people, with the exception of PIP. Which no-one is getting rich on. The original question is about benefits going up in line with inflation. Despite your assertion that disabled people should be a distinct case, because at the moment they are NOT, your insistence on not increasing benefits by a suitable level WILL leave sick, disabled and vulnerable people unable to live. Let's start again Please go back to my first post and read the second paragraph. Then perhaps we can have a sane discussion about how those people in desperation CAN be helped instesd of mud slinging. You have told people not to be personal yet that is exactly what you are choosing to do. Oh let's get this straight you let a family move in who were not earning a wage, You knew this when they moved in so you were doing it out of the kindness of your heart where you? You didn't receive any rental income from this family at all? It seems you just want to deflect from the discussion if you want more details on my dealings with them I'm perfectly happy to pm you but I'm not going to discuss in public " But you put it here publicly so surely you can reply publicly it's a very simple question you either received government funding for the very people you slagged off or you didn't. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Why stereotype people on benefits like this? I know a lot of disabled people who get benefits or work PT + benefits and guess what? None of them smoke. None of them have fancy, luxury goods at home. They don't go out socialising, other than to attend wheelchair sports clubs or within their children's social networks (i.e. sitting in a Wacky Warehouse while kids play with others). Which bit of their essential living needs should they scrap? Food? Heating? Children's school uniform? Disabled people should not be bunched with the unemployed, disabled people didn't choose to be disabled but many unemployed choose to be so. But they are. So all your bile about feckless workshy people impacts disabled people too. One of my friends works as many hours as he can but he earns very little due to the short hours. He has two children who he has joint custody for, but the children spend more time with him because his (able bodied ex) chooses to go off and do her own thing. He gets exactly the same next-to-fuck-all benefits as other people on UC, apart from he also gets a bit of PIP but that mainly just allows him to have a wheelchair accessible vehicle. You honestly have absolutely no fucking idea until you've had to live that life. Then perhaps you should focus your attention on the real issue of those that are in REAL need get what they want istead of worthless rants on a swinger site ? Like I ALREADY said, those most desperate should get the help they need those that can work should be working. No point taking part in a debate when you have nothing to offer except rudeness and name calling. You say should. But they don't. That's the simple fact. The system does not distinguish between sick and disabled people or able bodied people, with the exception of PIP. Which no-one is getting rich on. The original question is about benefits going up in line with inflation. Despite your assertion that disabled people should be a distinct case, because at the moment they are NOT, your insistence on not increasing benefits by a suitable level WILL leave sick, disabled and vulnerable people unable to live. Let's start again Please go back to my first post and read the second paragraph. Then perhaps we can have a sane discussion about how those people in desperation CAN be helped instesd of mud slinging. The one off payments being offered are insufficient though. When energy is going up significantly; basic foodstuffs going up in double digit levels every week; the cost of fuel for your wheelchair accessible vehicle (aka large van) going up significantly etc etc. A few hundred quid as a one off payment still doesn't help enough. Do you think prices will come down when inflation finally abates? Doubtful. Your ideas are going back towards the Victorian ideas of the deserving vs undeserving poor. Dealing with the poor on this basis shows this distinction to be nonsense. So few people are deliberately trying to game the system, but the whole system (including one off payments) is designed around the small percentage of fraudsters. Have you personally had to deal with the benefits/disability and sickness support system in this country? That's better, so what would you do and who will pay for it ? I certainly can't afford to pay more tax ? Taxing the most wealthy will drive them away and taxing companies means price increases that make people worse off. I wish there was a money tree Taxes will have to rise. Inheritance tax. Corporation tax. Capital gains tax. Windfall tax the fuck out of the energy companies like Shell. Etc. Ban MPs from being involved in lobbying and having second jobs, that cause them to make decisions that benefit their second employer. As an MP, they are employed full time to work for the benefit of their constituents. They should have absolutely no time to work for second or third organisations. I am a basic rate tax payer only, despite best efforts. I'll pay an extra little bit if it means fewer food banks, fewer children coming to school hungry etc." But when do tax rises to pay benefits end ? When companies pay all their profits as tax and don't invest in new machinery and new jobs ? It's a viscous circle that unfortunately isn't easily solved. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You made the choice to be a single parent so why should the state support you? Having children is a privilege not a right. If you can't afford them, don't have them." How does someone make the choice to be a single parent? They don't impregnate themselves. Also can people who have lack of savings not allowed to have children? The cost of a child until 18 is nearly £100,000 for a lone parent according to cpag. Honestly I'm astounded and that's coming from someone who voted Tory in the last election. Your ignorance is shocking and maybe you should educate yourself rather then sound like a sound bite of a privileged gammon. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Yet another person that does not know what they are talking about. How do you expect someone that lives off £77 a week to have sky television? They don't! And the reason they get £77 a week is because of the ones that don't want to work and get more on benefits than a lot of two income families and don't even think of saying they don't exist because we have rented houses to some of these lazy work shy baby breeders that get everything paid for until we decided to sell up and let someone else look after them. Wait a minute. So you are/were a buy-to-let landlord and happy to take government (tax payer) money in rent from these lazy work shy baby breeders! Bit of hypocrisy there! So you used some of my tax money to pay off the mortgage on your investment but have the cheek to moan about it! Read the rest, no we didn't " Sorry but your story is a bit patchy? You said: “we have rented houses to some of these lazy work shy baby breeders that get everything paid for until we decided to sell up and let someone else look after them.” So you have rented to them, which presumably was for more than a day, so you have received tax payer money right? Ok so you decided to not carry on (be interested to know how long it took you to come to that decision). I don’t believe there are any requirements on landlords to have to rent to people on benefits is there? I know a few BTL landlords who love renting to benefit claimants as it is guaranteed rent and long term contracts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Why stereotype people on benefits like this? I know a lot of disabled people who get benefits or work PT + benefits and guess what? None of them smoke. None of them have fancy, luxury goods at home. They don't go out socialising, other than to attend wheelchair sports clubs or within their children's social networks (i.e. sitting in a Wacky Warehouse while kids play with others). Which bit of their essential living needs should they scrap? Food? Heating? Children's school uniform? Disabled people should not be bunched with the unemployed, disabled people didn't choose to be disabled but many unemployed choose to be so. But they are. So all your bile about feckless workshy people impacts disabled people too. One of my friends works as many hours as he can but he earns very little due to the short hours. He has two children who he has joint custody for, but the children spend more time with him because his (able bodied ex) chooses to go off and do her own thing. He gets exactly the same next-to-fuck-all benefits as other people on UC, apart from he also gets a bit of PIP but that mainly just allows him to have a wheelchair accessible vehicle. You honestly have absolutely no fucking idea until you've had to live that life. Then perhaps you should focus your attention on the real issue of those that are in REAL need get what they want istead of worthless rants on a swinger site ? Like I ALREADY said, those most desperate should get the help they need those that can work should be working. No point taking part in a debate when you have nothing to offer except rudeness and name calling. You say should. But they don't. That's the simple fact. The system does not distinguish between sick and disabled people or able bodied people, with the exception of PIP. Which no-one is getting rich on. The original question is about benefits going up in line with inflation. Despite your assertion that disabled people should be a distinct case, because at the moment they are NOT, your insistence on not increasing benefits by a suitable level WILL leave sick, disabled and vulnerable people unable to live. Let's start again Please go back to my first post and read the second paragraph. Then perhaps we can have a sane discussion about how those people in desperation CAN be helped instesd of mud slinging. You have told people not to be personal yet that is exactly what you are choosing to do. Oh let's get this straight you let a family move in who were not earning a wage, You knew this when they moved in so you were doing it out of the kindness of your heart where you? You didn't receive any rental income from this family at all? It seems you just want to deflect from the discussion if you want more details on my dealings with them I'm perfectly happy to pm you but I'm not going to discuss in public But you put it here publicly so surely you can reply publicly it's a very simple question you either received government funding for the very people you slagged off or you didn't. " No I'm not putting details of a family here I can't pm you so if you want the details you pm me as they were in very particular circumstances The comment was made as an illustration of a widespread occurance not to ridicule one particular family. I already said we received payment on behalf of the family and we decided this was not something we wanted to be part of so sold up. It was part of the reason I feel the way info about benefits. If you've never made a decision to do something for someone else then regretted it then I applaud you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Why stereotype people on benefits like this? I know a lot of disabled people who get benefits or work PT + benefits and guess what? None of them smoke. None of them have fancy, luxury goods at home. They don't go out socialising, other than to attend wheelchair sports clubs or within their children's social networks (i.e. sitting in a Wacky Warehouse while kids play with others). Which bit of their essential living needs should they scrap? Food? Heating? Children's school uniform? Disabled people should not be bunched with the unemployed, disabled people didn't choose to be disabled but many unemployed choose to be so. But they are. So all your bile about feckless workshy people impacts disabled people too. One of my friends works as many hours as he can but he earns very little due to the short hours. He has two children who he has joint custody for, but the children spend more time with him because his (able bodied ex) chooses to go off and do her own thing. He gets exactly the same next-to-fuck-all benefits as other people on UC, apart from he also gets a bit of PIP but that mainly just allows him to have a wheelchair accessible vehicle. You honestly have absolutely no fucking idea until you've had to live that life. Then perhaps you should focus your attention on the real issue of those that are in REAL need get what they want istead of worthless rants on a swinger site ? Like I ALREADY said, those most desperate should get the help they need those that can work should be working. No point taking part in a debate when you have nothing to offer except rudeness and name calling. You say should. But they don't. That's the simple fact. The system does not distinguish between sick and disabled people or able bodied people, with the exception of PIP. Which no-one is getting rich on. The original question is about benefits going up in line with inflation. Despite your assertion that disabled people should be a distinct case, because at the moment they are NOT, your insistence on not increasing benefits by a suitable level WILL leave sick, disabled and vulnerable people unable to live. Let's start again Please go back to my first post and read the second paragraph. Then perhaps we can have a sane discussion about how those people in desperation CAN be helped instesd of mud slinging. You have told people not to be personal yet that is exactly what you are choosing to do. Oh let's get this straight you let a family move in who were not earning a wage, You knew this when they moved in so you were doing it out of the kindness of your heart where you? You didn't receive any rental income from this family at all? It seems you just want to deflect from the discussion if you want more details on my dealings with them I'm perfectly happy to pm you but I'm not going to discuss in public But you put it here publicly so surely you can reply publicly it's a very simple question you either received government funding for the very people you slagged off or you didn't. No I'm not putting details of a family here I can't pm you so if you want the details you pm me as they were in very particular circumstances The comment was made as an illustration of a widespread occurance not to ridicule one particular family. I already said we received payment on behalf of the family and we decided this was not something we wanted to be part of so sold up. It was part of the reason I feel the way info about benefits. If you've never made a decision to do something for someone else then regretted it then I applaud you." I didn't ask you for any details about the family I asked you to confirm whether you had ever received money from the government for this family. Hypocrisy at its finest. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement." Don't worry, the government won't do anything to help those worse off. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Those that need benefits the most, should receive everything that they are entitled to. Society should look after the most vulnerable. That is fair and right. Those that play the system, should be brought to book. They are stealing off the needy, but I expect no remorse or shame from them I agree, unfortunately we have people from all walks of life who are getting away with ‘playing the system’ Benefit fraud costs the UK approximately £2.3bn a year. A significant sum that needs to be stamped out. The major portion of that is actually undertaken by organised crime rather than individuals gaming the system. Have a guess how much tax evasion by individuals and businesses costs the UK? If we want more bang for our buck then resources should be directed at tax evasion as the prize is several magnitudes bigger! And it's a myth that many choose to swallow hook, line and sinker..
Like a validation comfort blanket for scorning people who are struggling.."Have you seem the meme with a Murdoch lookalike talking to a builder while pointing at an immigrant. The builder and immigrant both have one cookie while Murdoch has a huge stack of cookies and is pointing at the immigrant saying to the builder “that bloke stole your cookie” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely agree It's possible to support those desperately in need without increasing benefits by what is (hopefully) a short term glitch. One off payments not carrying forward to next year for example. Not having Sky TV isn't desperation and neither is not being able to afford 20 Benson and hedges or going to the pub on a Friday night ! The vast majority of pensioners worked and struggled and paid into their pensions so they deserve the triple lock pension honoured in full. Why stereotype people on benefits like this? I know a lot of disabled people who get benefits or work PT + benefits and guess what? None of them smoke. None of them have fancy, luxury goods at home. They don't go out socialising, other than to attend wheelchair sports clubs or within their children's social networks (i.e. sitting in a Wacky Warehouse while kids play with others). Which bit of their essential living needs should they scrap? Food? Heating? Children's school uniform? Disabled people should not be bunched with the unemployed, disabled people didn't choose to be disabled but many unemployed choose to be so. But they are. So all your bile about feckless workshy people impacts disabled people too. One of my friends works as many hours as he can but he earns very little due to the short hours. He has two children who he has joint custody for, but the children spend more time with him because his (able bodied ex) chooses to go off and do her own thing. He gets exactly the same next-to-fuck-all benefits as other people on UC, apart from he also gets a bit of PIP but that mainly just allows him to have a wheelchair accessible vehicle. You honestly have absolutely no fucking idea until you've had to live that life. Then perhaps you should focus your attention on the real issue of those that are in REAL need get what they want istead of worthless rants on a swinger site ? Like I ALREADY said, those most desperate should get the help they need those that can work should be working. No point taking part in a debate when you have nothing to offer except rudeness and name calling. You say should. But they don't. That's the simple fact. The system does not distinguish between sick and disabled people or able bodied people, with the exception of PIP. Which no-one is getting rich on. The original question is about benefits going up in line with inflation. Despite your assertion that disabled people should be a distinct case, because at the moment they are NOT, your insistence on not increasing benefits by a suitable level WILL leave sick, disabled and vulnerable people unable to live. Let's start again Please go back to my first post and read the second paragraph. Then perhaps we can have a sane discussion about how those people in desperation CAN be helped instesd of mud slinging. You have told people not to be personal yet that is exactly what you are choosing to do. Oh let's get this straight you let a family move in who were not earning a wage, You knew this when they moved in so you were doing it out of the kindness of your heart where you? You didn't receive any rental income from this family at all? It seems you just want to deflect from the discussion if you want more details on my dealings with them I'm perfectly happy to pm you but I'm not going to discuss in public But you put it here publicly so surely you can reply publicly it's a very simple question you either received government funding for the very people you slagged off or you didn't. No I'm not putting details of a family here I can't pm you so if you want the details you pm me as they were in very particular circumstances The comment was made as an illustration of a widespread occurance not to ridicule one particular family. I already said we received payment on behalf of the family and we decided this was not something we wanted to be part of so sold up. It was part of the reason I feel the way info about benefits. If you've never made a decision to do something for someone else then regretted it then I applaud you. I didn't ask you for any details about the family I asked you to confirm whether you had ever received money from the government for this family. Hypocrisy at its finest. " It's an anonymous swingers forum, I care not what you think. The debate is about increasing benefits not explaining myself | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Those that need benefits the most, should receive everything that they are entitled to. Society should look after the most vulnerable. That is fair and right. Those that play the system, should be brought to book. They are stealing off the needy, but I expect no remorse or shame from them I agree, unfortunately we have people from all walks of life who are getting away with ‘playing the system’ Benefit fraud costs the UK approximately £2.3bn a year. A significant sum that needs to be stamped out. The major portion of that is actually undertaken by organised crime rather than individuals gaming the system. Have a guess how much tax evasion by individuals and businesses costs the UK? If we want more bang for our buck then resources should be directed at tax evasion as the prize is several magnitudes bigger! And it's a myth that many choose to swallow hook, line and sinker..
Like a validation comfort blanket for scorning people who are struggling..
Have you seem the meme with a Murdoch lookalike talking to a builder while pointing at an immigrant. The builder and immigrant both have one cookie while Murdoch has a huge stack of cookies and is pointing at the immigrant saying to the builder “that bloke stole your cookie”"Brilliantly put. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's an anonymous swingers forum, I care not what you think. The debate is about increasing benefits not explaining myself " To be fair, no one is asking for your personal business or to talk about your family , they are challenging your comment that you posted on a forum If you don't want to answer that then obviously it is fine, but lets not turn it into anything else | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Those that need benefits the most, should receive everything that they are entitled to. Society should look after the most vulnerable. That is fair and right. Those that play the system, should be brought to book. They are stealing off the needy, but I expect no remorse or shame from them I agree, unfortunately we have people from all walks of life who are getting away with ‘playing the system’ Benefit fraud costs the UK approximately £2.3bn a year. A significant sum that needs to be stamped out. The major portion of that is actually undertaken by organised crime rather than individuals gaming the system. Have a guess how much tax evasion by individuals and businesses costs the UK? If we want more bang for our buck then resources should be directed at tax evasion as the prize is several magnitudes bigger! And it's a myth that many choose to swallow hook, line and sinker..
Like a validation comfort blanket for scorning people who are struggling..
Have you seem the meme with a Murdoch lookalike talking to a builder while pointing at an immigrant. The builder and immigrant both have one cookie while Murdoch has a huge stack of cookies and is pointing at the immigrant saying to the builder “that bloke stole your cookie”
Brilliantly put. "Yep 2.3bn is small fry compared to 30bn+ from tax loopholes and evasion! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement. Agree completely. Benefits should never rise more than the average rate of pay rises. Otherwise you are making benefits more attractive than working. As benefits are paid for by those who work (as tax) and tax is a proportion of pay benefits become increasingly unaffordable if they rise more than pay. What is the ‘average rate of pay rises’ , you do realise that there are millions of working people on benefits Average pay increase is about half the inflation rate at the moment. In work benefits should be stopped. Why should the state subsidise poor employers and people who can't be bothered to work full time? I'd love to not work, or work part time but I can't afford to. So I have to work full time." I agree that those in-work benefits should not be necessary. The state is actually subsidising poorly paying companies. Employers should pay an actual living wage otherwise they are not, viable businesses. What Government defines as a "living wage" clearly is not. It is just a branding exercise. Do you believe that those unable to work for medical or mental health reasons "can't be bothered"? What if they are made redundant? Regardless, you cannot just stop in-work or out of work benefits and hope for the best. Perhaps you do think that. What will the consequences be of that were to happen? Why do you think that "simple" solutions like yours are not in place already? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let the poorest starve, make them send their kids up chimneys, look down on them because you have a job, take anything they bought before losing their jobs off them , that should make the beggars miserable and downtrodden, just how some people like it ! Hmmm what should we do with the people who are working ( over 40% ) but having to top up their wage with UC because their employers don't pay them enough? Do we demonize the UC working claimants or the employers who are potentially making big profits ? " The employers. All employers need to pay a livable wage. The state must not subsidise poor employers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It makes sense to increase benefits with inflation, not sure what the actual rate will be when it is time to increase, but that is irrelevant. The basics and the increase in cost of those items that make up CPI should be reflected in increases to benefits, simple really, we are talking basics and that is the line in the sand. Disability allowances and carers allowances are increased with inflation under law, so that side of the coin is already covered, I believe. I believe the impact of not increasing benefits in line with inflation would be far more costly than if they are not. Increases in crime, mental health increases, children's education impacts through family breakdowns and many other social and community problems that would be created from not rising the benefits would happen. The bigger question would be, once inflation has fallen back to the below 2% level, do benefits get cut at that point?" Why would you cut benefits when inflation lessens? Surely just slow the rate of benefits increase to match. It's all academic anyway, the OP is worrying about nothing. The government won't help poor people, why would they?! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It makes sense to increase benefits with inflation, not sure what the actual rate will be when it is time to increase, but that is irrelevant. The basics and the increase in cost of those items that make up CPI should be reflected in increases to benefits, simple really, we are talking basics and that is the line in the sand. Disability allowances and carers allowances are increased with inflation under law, so that side of the coin is already covered, I believe. I believe the impact of not increasing benefits in line with inflation would be far more costly than if they are not. Increases in crime, mental health increases, children's education impacts through family breakdowns and many other social and community problems that would be created from not rising the benefits would happen. The bigger question would be, once inflation has fallen back to the below 2% level, do benefits get cut at that point? Why would you cut benefits when inflation lessens? Surely just slow the rate of benefits increase to match. It's all academic anyway, the OP is worrying about nothing. The government won't help poor people, why would they?!" I actually heard this very question being asked in a radio interview a couple of weeks ago and the answer was pretty much the one you gave. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement. Agree completely. Benefits should never rise more than the average rate of pay rises. Otherwise you are making benefits more attractive than working. As benefits are paid for by those who work (as tax) and tax is a proportion of pay benefits become increasingly unaffordable if they rise more than pay. What is the ‘average rate of pay rises’ , you do realise that there are millions of working people on benefits Average pay increase is about half the inflation rate at the moment. In work benefits should be stopped. Why should the state subsidise poor employers and people who can't be bothered to work full time? I'd love to not work, or work part time but I can't afford to. So I have to work full time. I agree that those in-work benefits should not be necessary. The state is actually subsidising poorly paying companies. Employers should pay an actual living wage otherwise they are not, viable businesses. What Government defines as a "living wage" clearly is not. It is just a branding exercise. Do you believe that those unable to work for medical or mental health reasons "can't be bothered"? What if they are made redundant? Regardless, you cannot just stop in-work or out of work benefits and hope for the best. Perhaps you do think that. What will the consequences be of that were to happen? Why do you think that "simple" solutions like yours are not in place already?" Because government has a vested interest in keeping tax complicated. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Those that need benefits the most, should receive everything that they are entitled to. Society should look after the most vulnerable. That is fair and right. Those that play the system, should be brought to book. They are stealing off the needy, but I expect no remorse or shame from them I agree, unfortunately we have people from all walks of life who are getting away with ‘playing the system’ Benefit fraud costs the UK approximately £2.3bn a year. A significant sum that needs to be stamped out. The major portion of that is actually undertaken by organised crime rather than individuals gaming the system. Have a guess how much tax evasion by individuals and businesses costs the UK? If we want more bang for our buck then resources should be directed at tax evasion as the prize is several magnitudes bigger! And it's a myth that many choose to swallow hook, line and sinker..
Like a validation comfort blanket for scorning people who are struggling..
Have you seem the meme with a Murdoch lookalike talking to a builder while pointing at an immigrant. The builder and immigrant both have one cookie while Murdoch has a huge stack of cookies and is pointing at the immigrant saying to the builder “that bloke stole your cookie”"No, not aware of it but it's so apt.. Get 'them' fighting over the crumbs from the tables of the Uber wealthy, and some buy into it so earnestly.. The sketch 'i look down upon him' because I'm upper class.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don’t believe there are any requirements on landlords to have to rent to people on benefits is there?" Yes there are. It's illegal to refuse to let a property to someone just because they are on benefits. That's why you don't see "No DHSS" signs in letting agency windows any more. I'm surprised the other poster hasn't mentioned this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The employers. All employers need to pay a livable wage. The state must not subsidise poor employers." The minimum wage is liveable. If you are a single person living in the North of England, you can live quite well on the minimum wage. If you live in the South of England, it's more of a squeeze, but doable. If you live in London and you have a non-working partner and 2 kids, it's not even vaguely possible. It's not that companies aren't paying enough, or that the minimum wage is to low, it's that each case is different. Some require benefits to survive, others don't. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It makes sense to increase benefits with inflation, not sure what the actual rate will be when it is time to increase, but that is irrelevant. The basics and the increase in cost of those items that make up CPI should be reflected in increases to benefits, simple really, we are talking basics and that is the line in the sand. Disability allowances and carers allowances are increased with inflation under law, so that side of the coin is already covered, I believe. I believe the impact of not increasing benefits in line with inflation would be far more costly than if they are not. Increases in crime, mental health increases, children's education impacts through family breakdowns and many other social and community problems that would be created from not rising the benefits would happen. The bigger question would be, once inflation has fallen back to the below 2% level, do benefits get cut at that point? Why would you cut benefits when inflation lessens? Surely just slow the rate of benefits increase to match. It's all academic anyway, the OP is worrying about nothing. The government won't help poor people, why would they?!" Benefits being 10% over the rate of inflation would be quite and overstretch, as an example. Slowing the rate from 10 to 2, would balance out when? That is why I was thinking would it be a cut. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It makes sense to increase benefits with inflation, not sure what the actual rate will be when it is time to increase, but that is irrelevant. The basics and the increase in cost of those items that make up CPI should be reflected in increases to benefits, simple really, we are talking basics and that is the line in the sand. Disability allowances and carers allowances are increased with inflation under law, so that side of the coin is already covered, I believe. I believe the impact of not increasing benefits in line with inflation would be far more costly than if they are not. Increases in crime, mental health increases, children's education impacts through family breakdowns and many other social and community problems that would be created from not rising the benefits would happen. The bigger question would be, once inflation has fallen back to the below 2% level, do benefits get cut at that point? Why would you cut benefits when inflation lessens? Surely just slow the rate of benefits increase to match. It's all academic anyway, the OP is worrying about nothing. The government won't help poor people, why would they?! Benefits being 10% over the rate of inflation would be quite and overstretch, as an example. Slowing the rate from 10 to 2, would balance out when? That is why I was thinking would it be a cut." A cut in the level of increase, or a cut in the benefit in actual £? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think ultimately we should accept and understand there are people that will always abuse any system. That is not just people who are deemed at the bottom it is also those at the very top and the ones in between. The very thought that we should not make sure that those with the least in our society are as protected as much as possible From potentially going cold and hungry just because some people abuse the system is abhorrent to me." Agreed and well put. I fund it kind of grotesque the level of vitriol (fed by the billionaire owned media) aimed at benefits claimants and the minority that are dodgy, while so much less gets said about tax evaders (individual and personal). People on here actually defended the dodgy tax affairs of our then Chancellor and his wife who had been paying an annual fee to avoid having to properly declare her non-dom status costing the exchequer an estimated £20m! The argument put forward was “well all of us would dodge tax if we could” and “didn’t do anything illegal” oh the irony! I bet there are very very few people on here who haven’t got “a discount for cash” from a plumber or electrician etc basically facilitating tax evasion! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think ultimately we should accept and understand there are people that will always abuse any system. That is not just people who are deemed at the bottom it is also those at the very top and the ones in between. The very thought that we should not make sure that those with the least in our society are as protected as much as possible From potentially going cold and hungry just because some people abuse the system is abhorrent to me. Agreed and well put. I fund it kind of grotesque the level of vitriol (fed by the billionaire owned media) aimed at benefits claimants and the minority that are dodgy, while so much less gets said about tax evaders (individual and personal). People on here actually defended the dodgy tax affairs of our then Chancellor and his wife who had been paying an annual fee to avoid having to properly declare her non-dom status costing the exchequer an estimated £20m! The argument put forward was “well all of us would dodge tax if we could” and “didn’t do anything illegal” oh the irony! I bet there are very very few people on here who haven’t got “a discount for cash” from a plumber or electrician etc basically facilitating tax evasion!" *typos!! Individual and corporate | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don’t believe there are any requirements on landlords to have to rent to people on benefits is there? Yes there are. It's illegal to refuse to let a property to someone just because they are on benefits. That's why you don't see "No DHSS" signs in letting agency windows any more. I'm surprised the other poster hasn't mentioned this." I didn’t know that. I suppose it would be relatively easy to offer to the other tenants though? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don’t believe there are any requirements on landlords to have to rent to people on benefits is there? Yes there are. It's illegal to refuse to let a property to someone just because they are on benefits. That's why you don't see "No DHSS" signs in letting agency windows any more. I'm surprised the other poster hasn't mentioned this." Take the next step with your research: 'In the wake of the finding of indirect discrimination in July and September 2020, it seemed likely that instances of blanket ‘No DSS’ adverts would disappear. However, affordability checks based on a tenant’s individual circumstances are still possible.' https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07008/ If it is made illegal you will end up with a similar situation to care homes whereby you have something close to a monopsony which means that local councils are paying below break-even for adult social care (because that's all they have) and people wonder why there is not enough provision. That said, landlords and service providers should not be making fat profits off the state either so an objective price setting process is needed where continuity and certainty of payment is balanced with a level of discount below market rate or more council/housing association provision is once again available. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It makes sense to increase benefits with inflation, not sure what the actual rate will be when it is time to increase, but that is irrelevant. The basics and the increase in cost of those items that make up CPI should be reflected in increases to benefits, simple really, we are talking basics and that is the line in the sand. Disability allowances and carers allowances are increased with inflation under law, so that side of the coin is already covered, I believe. I believe the impact of not increasing benefits in line with inflation would be far more costly than if they are not. Increases in crime, mental health increases, children's education impacts through family breakdowns and many other social and community problems that would be created from not rising the benefits would happen. The bigger question would be, once inflation has fallen back to the below 2% level, do benefits get cut at that point? Why would you cut benefits when inflation lessens? Surely just slow the rate of benefits increase to match. It's all academic anyway, the OP is worrying about nothing. The government won't help poor people, why would they?! Benefits being 10% over the rate of inflation would be quite and overstretch, as an example. Slowing the rate from 10 to 2, would balance out when? That is why I was thinking would it be a cut." I admit I am no mathematician or economist but surely you do not cut benefits (or wages) unless you encounter deflation? The base remains what it got to even if future inflation rate reduces right? £100 with 10% inflation means it is now worth £90 so increasing the £100 by 10% making it £110 retains the buying power of the previous £100 right? Then if inflation dropped to zero, that £110 still only has buying power of previous £100 so people aren’t better off? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The employers. All employers need to pay a livable wage. The state must not subsidise poor employers. The minimum wage is liveable. If you are a single person living in the North of England, you can live quite well on the minimum wage. If you live in the South of England, it's more of a squeeze, but doable. If you live in London and you have a non-working partner and 2 kids, it's not even vaguely possible. It's not that companies aren't paying enough, or that the minimum wage is to low, it's that each case is different. Some require benefits to survive, others don't." Is that so? Do you speak from experience? If not, what is this confident statement based on? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It makes sense to increase benefits with inflation, not sure what the actual rate will be when it is time to increase, but that is irrelevant. The basics and the increase in cost of those items that make up CPI should be reflected in increases to benefits, simple really, we are talking basics and that is the line in the sand. Disability allowances and carers allowances are increased with inflation under law, so that side of the coin is already covered, I believe. I believe the impact of not increasing benefits in line with inflation would be far more costly than if they are not. Increases in crime, mental health increases, children's education impacts through family breakdowns and many other social and community problems that would be created from not rising the benefits would happen. The bigger question would be, once inflation has fallen back to the below 2% level, do benefits get cut at that point? Why would you cut benefits when inflation lessens? Surely just slow the rate of benefits increase to match. It's all academic anyway, the OP is worrying about nothing. The government won't help poor people, why would they?! Benefits being 10% over the rate of inflation would be quite and overstretch, as an example. Slowing the rate from 10 to 2, would balance out when? That is why I was thinking would it be a cut. I admit I am no mathematician or economist but surely you do not cut benefits (or wages) unless you encounter deflation? The base remains what it got to even if future inflation rate reduces right? £100 with 10% inflation means it is now worth £90 so increasing the £100 by 10% making it £110 retains the buying power of the previous £100 right? Then if inflation dropped to zero, that £110 still only has buying power of previous £100 so people aren’t better off?" That's where the argument for a single or a number of one-off payments comes in. If these are short to medium term-spikes due to extraordinary circumstances. Many private companies are doing just this because they do not want wage inflation baked in hit do recognise that there is a short term problem. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It makes sense to increase benefits with inflation, not sure what the actual rate will be when it is time to increase, but that is irrelevant. The basics and the increase in cost of those items that make up CPI should be reflected in increases to benefits, simple really, we are talking basics and that is the line in the sand. Disability allowances and carers allowances are increased with inflation under law, so that side of the coin is already covered, I believe. I believe the impact of not increasing benefits in line with inflation would be far more costly than if they are not. Increases in crime, mental health increases, children's education impacts through family breakdowns and many other social and community problems that would be created from not rising the benefits would happen. The bigger question would be, once inflation has fallen back to the below 2% level, do benefits get cut at that point? Why would you cut benefits when inflation lessens? Surely just slow the rate of benefits increase to match. It's all academic anyway, the OP is worrying about nothing. The government won't help poor people, why would they?! Benefits being 10% over the rate of inflation would be quite and overstretch, as an example. Slowing the rate from 10 to 2, would balance out when? That is why I was thinking would it be a cut. I admit I am no mathematician or economist but surely you do not cut benefits (or wages) unless you encounter deflation? The base remains what it got to even if future inflation rate reduces right? £100 with 10% inflation means it is now worth £90 so increasing the £100 by 10% making it £110 retains the buying power of the previous £100 right? Then if inflation dropped to zero, that £110 still only has buying power of previous £100 so people aren’t better off? That's where the argument for a single or a number of one-off payments comes in. If these are short to medium term-spikes due to extraordinary circumstances. Many private companies are doing just this because they do not want wage inflation baked in hit do recognise that there is a short term problem." That makes sense and it would balance rather than destabilise when / if rates returned below 2% | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It makes sense to increase benefits with inflation, not sure what the actual rate will be when it is time to increase, but that is irrelevant. The basics and the increase in cost of those items that make up CPI should be reflected in increases to benefits, simple really, we are talking basics and that is the line in the sand. Disability allowances and carers allowances are increased with inflation under law, so that side of the coin is already covered, I believe. I believe the impact of not increasing benefits in line with inflation would be far more costly than if they are not. Increases in crime, mental health increases, children's education impacts through family breakdowns and many other social and community problems that would be created from not rising the benefits would happen. The bigger question would be, once inflation has fallen back to the below 2% level, do benefits get cut at that point? Why would you cut benefits when inflation lessens? Surely just slow the rate of benefits increase to match. It's all academic anyway, the OP is worrying about nothing. The government won't help poor people, why would they?! Benefits being 10% over the rate of inflation would be quite and overstretch, as an example. Slowing the rate from 10 to 2, would balance out when? That is why I was thinking would it be a cut. I admit I am no mathematician or economist but surely you do not cut benefits (or wages) unless you encounter deflation? The base remains what it got to even if future inflation rate reduces right? £100 with 10% inflation means it is now worth £90 so increasing the £100 by 10% making it £110 retains the buying power of the previous £100 right? Then if inflation dropped to zero, that £110 still only has buying power of previous £100 so people aren’t better off? That's where the argument for a single or a number of one-off payments comes in. If these are short to medium term-spikes due to extraordinary circumstances. Many private companies are doing just this because they do not want wage inflation baked in hit do recognise that there is a short term problem. That makes sense and it would balance rather than destabilise when / if rates returned below 2% " Ok showing my maths limits here but if prices do not go back to the levels they were previously, ie the base, then a one off payment is no good because that extra one off £10 will be needed again next year right? No idea if I am explaining that well enough? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It makes sense to increase benefits with inflation, not sure what the actual rate will be when it is time to increase, but that is irrelevant. The basics and the increase in cost of those items that make up CPI should be reflected in increases to benefits, simple really, we are talking basics and that is the line in the sand. Disability allowances and carers allowances are increased with inflation under law, so that side of the coin is already covered, I believe. I believe the impact of not increasing benefits in line with inflation would be far more costly than if they are not. Increases in crime, mental health increases, children's education impacts through family breakdowns and many other social and community problems that would be created from not rising the benefits would happen. The bigger question would be, once inflation has fallen back to the below 2% level, do benefits get cut at that point? Why would you cut benefits when inflation lessens? Surely just slow the rate of benefits increase to match. It's all academic anyway, the OP is worrying about nothing. The government won't help poor people, why would they?! Benefits being 10% over the rate of inflation would be quite and overstretch, as an example. Slowing the rate from 10 to 2, would balance out when? That is why I was thinking would it be a cut. I admit I am no mathematician or economist but surely you do not cut benefits (or wages) unless you encounter deflation? The base remains what it got to even if future inflation rate reduces right? £100 with 10% inflation means it is now worth £90 so increasing the £100 by 10% making it £110 retains the buying power of the previous £100 right? Then if inflation dropped to zero, that £110 still only has buying power of previous £100 so people aren’t better off? That's where the argument for a single or a number of one-off payments comes in. If these are short to medium term-spikes due to extraordinary circumstances. Many private companies are doing just this because they do not want wage inflation baked in hit do recognise that there is a short term problem. That makes sense and it would balance rather than destabilise when / if rates returned below 2% Ok showing my maths limits here but if prices do not go back to the levels they were previously, ie the base, then a one off payment is no good because that extra one off £10 will be needed again next year right? No idea if I am explaining that well enough?" Essential items would have dropped in price below that of what they were, or inflation would not have come down. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It makes sense to increase benefits with inflation, not sure what the actual rate will be when it is time to increase, but that is irrelevant. The basics and the increase in cost of those items that make up CPI should be reflected in increases to benefits, simple really, we are talking basics and that is the line in the sand. Disability allowances and carers allowances are increased with inflation under law, so that side of the coin is already covered, I believe. I believe the impact of not increasing benefits in line with inflation would be far more costly than if they are not. Increases in crime, mental health increases, children's education impacts through family breakdowns and many other social and community problems that would be created from not rising the benefits would happen. The bigger question would be, once inflation has fallen back to the below 2% level, do benefits get cut at that point? Why would you cut benefits when inflation lessens? Surely just slow the rate of benefits increase to match. It's all academic anyway, the OP is worrying about nothing. The government won't help poor people, why would they?! Benefits being 10% over the rate of inflation would be quite and overstretch, as an example. Slowing the rate from 10 to 2, would balance out when? That is why I was thinking would it be a cut. I admit I am no mathematician or economist but surely you do not cut benefits (or wages) unless you encounter deflation? The base remains what it got to even if future inflation rate reduces right? £100 with 10% inflation means it is now worth £90 so increasing the £100 by 10% making it £110 retains the buying power of the previous £100 right? Then if inflation dropped to zero, that £110 still only has buying power of previous £100 so people aren’t better off? That's where the argument for a single or a number of one-off payments comes in. If these are short to medium term-spikes due to extraordinary circumstances. Many private companies are doing just this because they do not want wage inflation baked in hit do recognise that there is a short term problem. That makes sense and it would balance rather than destabilise when / if rates returned below 2% Ok showing my maths limits here but if prices do not go back to the levels they were previously, ie the base, then a one off payment is no good because that extra one off £10 will be needed again next year right? No idea if I am explaining that well enough?" That's the point though. We do not know if this will be the case. If there is deflation then it would be wound down with zero or below inflation increases, but that will be harder to calculate. Not being able to immediately stop the increment adds a significant cost to the treasury too. Also, a one-off payment makes it clearer for people that this is not income to count on for other financial decisions into the future. It would also have the benefit of any windfall taxes being transparently hypothecated. They are spent directly for the reason they are being collected. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don’t believe there are any requirements on landlords to have to rent to people on benefits is there?" "Yes there are. It's illegal to refuse to let a property to someone just because they are on benefits. That's why you don't see "No DHSS" signs in letting agency windows any more." "I'm surprised the other poster hasn't mentioned this." "I didn’t know that. I suppose it would be relatively easy to offer to the other tenants though? " That depends where you are. In some places, the majority of applicants will be on benefits, so you'd need to have solid excuses if you turned down several of them. More importantly, it's now illegal to ask applicants if they're on benefits, so it's harder for landlords to just put a blanket ban on them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The minimum wage is liveable. If you are a single person living in the North of England, you can live quite well on the minimum wage. If you live in the South of England, it's more of a squeeze, but doable. If you live in London and you have a non-working partner and 2 kids, it's not even vaguely possible. It's not that companies aren't paying enough, or that the minimum wage is to low, it's that each case is different. Some require benefits to survive, others don't." "Is that so? Do you speak from experience? If not, what is this confident statement based on? " Err. It's based on the explanation I gave in the paragraph above. The one that you quoted. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It makes sense to increase benefits with inflation, not sure what the actual rate will be when it is time to increase, but that is irrelevant. The basics and the increase in cost of those items that make up CPI should be reflected in increases to benefits, simple really, we are talking basics and that is the line in the sand. Disability allowances and carers allowances are increased with inflation under law, so that side of the coin is already covered, I believe. I believe the impact of not increasing benefits in line with inflation would be far more costly than if they are not. Increases in crime, mental health increases, children's education impacts through family breakdowns and many other social and community problems that would be created from not rising the benefits would happen. The bigger question would be, once inflation has fallen back to the below 2% level, do benefits get cut at that point? Why would you cut benefits when inflation lessens? Surely just slow the rate of benefits increase to match. It's all academic anyway, the OP is worrying about nothing. The government won't help poor people, why would they?! Benefits being 10% over the rate of inflation would be quite and overstretch, as an example. Slowing the rate from 10 to 2, would balance out when? That is why I was thinking would it be a cut. I admit I am no mathematician or economist but surely you do not cut benefits (or wages) unless you encounter deflation? The base remains what it got to even if future inflation rate reduces right? £100 with 10% inflation means it is now worth £90 so increasing the £100 by 10% making it £110 retains the buying power of the previous £100 right? Then if inflation dropped to zero, that £110 still only has buying power of previous £100 so people aren’t better off? That's where the argument for a single or a number of one-off payments comes in. If these are short to medium term-spikes due to extraordinary circumstances. Many private companies are doing just this because they do not want wage inflation baked in hit do recognise that there is a short term problem. That makes sense and it would balance rather than destabilise when / if rates returned below 2% Ok showing my maths limits here but if prices do not go back to the levels they were previously, ie the base, then a one off payment is no good because that extra one off £10 will be needed again next year right? No idea if I am explaining that well enough?" you are imo. There is a difference between inflation falling, and prices reducing. If you think prices are going to reduce, then you hold back on giving the full increase. If you think inflation will just fall, there's no reason to give the full increase now (in theory) Companies are holding back as they heading into hard times. A one off recognised they want to help without committing to it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It makes sense to increase benefits with inflation, not sure what the actual rate will be when it is time to increase, but that is irrelevant. The basics and the increase in cost of those items that make up CPI should be reflected in increases to benefits, simple really, we are talking basics and that is the line in the sand. Disability allowances and carers allowances are increased with inflation under law, so that side of the coin is already covered, I believe. I believe the impact of not increasing benefits in line with inflation would be far more costly than if they are not. Increases in crime, mental health increases, children's education impacts through family breakdowns and many other social and community problems that would be created from not rising the benefits would happen. The bigger question would be, once inflation has fallen back to the below 2% level, do benefits get cut at that point? Why would you cut benefits when inflation lessens? Surely just slow the rate of benefits increase to match. It's all academic anyway, the OP is worrying about nothing. The government won't help poor people, why would they?! Benefits being 10% over the rate of inflation would be quite and overstretch, as an example. Slowing the rate from 10 to 2, would balance out when? That is why I was thinking would it be a cut. I admit I am no mathematician or economist but surely you do not cut benefits (or wages) unless you encounter deflation? The base remains what it got to even if future inflation rate reduces right? £100 with 10% inflation means it is now worth £90 so increasing the £100 by 10% making it £110 retains the buying power of the previous £100 right? Then if inflation dropped to zero, that £110 still only has buying power of previous £100 so people aren’t better off? That's where the argument for a single or a number of one-off payments comes in. If these are short to medium term-spikes due to extraordinary circumstances. Many private companies are doing just this because they do not want wage inflation baked in hit do recognise that there is a short term problem. That makes sense and it would balance rather than destabilise when / if rates returned below 2% Ok showing my maths limits here but if prices do not go back to the levels they were previously, ie the base, then a one off payment is no good because that extra one off £10 will be needed again next year right? No idea if I am explaining that well enough? That's the point though. We do not know if this will be the case. If there is deflation then it would be wound down with zero or below inflation increases, but that will be harder to calculate. Not being able to immediately stop the increment adds a significant cost to the treasury too. Also, a one-off payment makes it clearer for people that this is not income to count on for other financial decisions into the future. It would also have the benefit of any windfall taxes being transparently hypothecated. They are spent directly for the reason they are being collected." This again, makes a lot of sense | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Inflation stands at over 10% and it would be unwise, unjust and inflationary to give those on benefits 10% rise when millions that go out to work would be luck to get 3% It is important to retain the pensions triple lock as pensioners are often too old/frail to return to work to top up their income etc. Please feel to agree with my statement." When you talk about benefits… if you are medically unfit to work (forms of incapacity benefits make up the largest amount of people on some sort of benefit) Why are you penalising them? Then we are also talking about those people on low wage jobs? And those people who are unemployed through no fault of their own…. Ect ect | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let the poorest starve, make them send their kids up chimneys, look down on them because you have a job, take anything they bought before losing their jobs off them , that should make the beggars miserable and downtrodden, just how some people like it ! Hmmm what should we do with the people who are working ( over 40% ) but having to top up their wage with UC because their employers don't pay them enough? Do we demonize the UC working claimants or the employers who are potentially making big profits ? The employers. All employers need to pay a livable wage. The state must not subsidise poor employers." All employers need to pay a liveable wage… you mean like a minimum living wage… wow!! That would be a radical concept!!! I mean… if only the government have a minimum wage they could have by law…. Would be kinda sweet!!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Will the living wage go up by 10% or will more low income working people become better of not working " I guess the shortfall could be paid in a benefit, to cover the period of high inflation. Or has stated above one-off payments to support the spike. It wouldn't be in anyones interests to ignore those that need support, in my opinion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let the poorest starve, make them send their kids up chimneys, look down on them because you have a job, take anything they bought before losing their jobs off them , that should make the beggars miserable and downtrodden, just how some people like it ! Hmmm what should we do with the people who are working ( over 40% ) but having to top up their wage with UC because their employers don't pay them enough? Do we demonize the UC working claimants or the employers who are potentially making big profits ? The employers. All employers need to pay a livable wage. The state must not subsidise poor employers. All employers need to pay a liveable wage… you mean like a minimum living wage… wow!! That would be a radical concept!!! I mean… if only the government have a minimum wage they could have by law…. Would be kinda sweet!!! "There is a difference between the £9.50 current minimum wage and the £15 or so required to make benefits unnecessary. So things like care budgets would rightly have to increase but the cost of this is less than subsidising all workers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Will the living wage go up by 10% or will more low income working people become better of not working I guess the shortfall could be paid in a benefit, to cover the period of high inflation. Or has stated above one-off payments to support the spike. It wouldn't be in anyones interests to ignore those that need support, in my opinion." The Real Living Wage* calculation has been increased with inflation. The government Living Wage calculation has not. *It had to be renamed after Gideon Osborne decided to rename the National Minimum Wage as the Living Wage. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don’t believe there are any requirements on landlords to have to rent to people on benefits is there? Yes there are. It's illegal to refuse to let a property to someone just because they are on benefits. That's why you don't see "No DHSS" signs in letting agency windows any more. I'm surprised the other poster hasn't mentioned this." Technically it is illegal but not really enforced. Landlords cannot instruct letting agents to say no benefits however ultimately it is up to the landlord who they rent to. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The minimum wage is liveable. If you are a single person living in the North of England, you can live quite well on the minimum wage. If you live in the South of England, it's more of a squeeze, but doable. If you live in London and you have a non-working partner and 2 kids, it's not even vaguely possible. It's not that companies aren't paying enough, or that the minimum wage is to low, it's that each case is different. Some require benefits to survive, others don't. Is that so? Do you speak from experience? If not, what is this confident statement based on? Err. It's based on the explanation I gave in the paragraph above. The one that you quoted." Err, you appear to have missed the point again. Just because you write something down, that does not make it true. What information do you actually have that validates your statement? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Will the living wage go up by 10% or will more low income working people become better of not working " Very few people are better off not working. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
