Rincewind Posted 1 February 2012 Posted 1 February 2012 If you've a problem with DLA, blame the GPs who sign the forms just for a quiet life. Even for a glib remark and even for you - that's low. I know little about this conditition so I will not make fun of those that have it. I am not medically qualified to make a diognosis and I suspect the majority of Foxestalk posters are equally non-qualified.
z-layrex Posted 2 February 2012 Posted 2 February 2012 It wasn't a rude question but your response was unbelivably rude, Eh? What response? I didn't mean to cause offence, was just wondering why she didn't work because you left that detail out of your post. It's hard to gain tone by text, but I meant absolutely no offence.
Rincewind Posted 2 February 2012 Posted 2 February 2012 And have you or any of your family suffered from mental illness. What do you know about it? What do you know of employers attitude towards anyone with anxiet dyxlexic or similar conditions? Whilst there are still Dickensonian views around helping the sufferers to adjust will be made more difficult. Yesterday (Wed) there was a first meeting to discuss a new project brought about by Action Homeless which will be in the form of a magazine which will be called Down Not Out.. A discussion was held and one of the issues raised was about who it should be aimed at. The groups included the authorities employers and the ignorant. Similar barriers are faced by mental health charities also.
FoxyPV Posted 2 February 2012 Posted 2 February 2012 I know little about this conditition so I will not make fun of those that have it. I am not medically qualified to make a diognosis and I suspect the majority of Foxestalk posters are equally non-qualified. I'm not questioning Parafox's daughter or the need for DLA but the prevailing attitude that people have regarding DLA. The govt aren't tackling the real source of the problem - GPs sign off people on DLA who don't need it just to get a quiet life as they know these people will torture them.
Rincewind Posted 2 February 2012 Posted 2 February 2012 Maybe. I try not to judge too much though. I know people on DLA who appear to be pretty mobile but I do not know their case histories or have access to medical records. I can be critical of these types sometimes. You are right about not tackling the real issues. What is worrying is the Govt. suggesting those on low income and claiming should move into cheaper housing like sheltered accommondation. Charities are trying to help vulnerable people to move out of these places and improve their lives by kgiving information and help to get back into work. Many people in this position do not know where to go for work. The Govt are just sweeping them under the carpet to make figures look better. Not just this Govt. before I am classed as a loony leftie. If a person with qualifications is finding it difficult to find a job think how hard it is for someone with dyxlexia or a young person who has had a caution from the police as a teenager. Even that goes down as a crimminal record and employers are reluctant to set these people on. Being out of work is a worrying thing and leads to all sort of conditions mentally. It is not like any other disease, you can'talways see the symptoms of a breakdown. If I had not had other interests and family support who knows what would have happened to me. I feel that I have to go out everyday even though it may cost me money I do not have. I could not stay in everyday. Just phoned CAB up for advice. They open 11-1am and the lines were busy. Will try again but I doubt I will get through.
Parafox Posted 3 February 2012 Posted 3 February 2012 Eh? What response? I didn't mean to cause offence, was just wondering why she didn't work because you left that detail out of your post. It's hard to gain tone by text, but I meant absolutely no offence. Sorry z-layrex, that reply was intended for MattP who was quite offensive in what he said. I quoted your response in error. Apologies. I took no offence from your question, i got mixed up with MattP's remark about my daughter being a thug
Guest MattP Posted 3 February 2012 Posted 3 February 2012 Sorry z-layrex, that reply was intended for MattP who was quite offensive in what he said. I quoted your response in error. Apologies. I took no offence from your question, i got mixed up with MattP's remark about my daughter being a thug I apologise for what I said, it was wrong of me to assume that.
acooling08 Posted 3 February 2012 Posted 3 February 2012 If you've a problem with DLA, blame the GPs who sign the forms just for a quiet life. Even for a glib remark and even for you - that's low. What? It's a fact that single mothers get much higher benefits. It was said jokingly, and has nothing to do with any mental disorder she may have.
Captain... Posted 3 February 2012 Posted 3 February 2012 What? It's a fact that single mothers get much higher benefits. It was said jokingly, and has nothing to do with any mental disorder she may have. I found it funny, and I'm a lilly livered liberal. I also find it funny that all of you right wing cvnt buckets (I think that is the opposite of lilly livered liberal) blindly spout off about how ridiculous it is that so many people live off benefits, and yet have no problem with the government setting the cap at the "Average working wage" meaning that this amount is greater than that over half the working households in the UK, probably more than half as I am sure that it is skewed heavily towards the higher by the top 10%. So basically people are living in the top 50% of households in the country on benefits, but that is ok because the governement says they can't have any more than that.
dave the caveman Posted 3 February 2012 Posted 3 February 2012 26,000 a year is the max anyone would get. It's the minimum amoint in benefits that is more of a concern. My daughter lives alone and gets JSA £55 a week (£2860 pa or just over a tenth of the proposed max allowance). She currently can't afford to pay for gas and electricity and food. She also has to pay water rates and house insurance, it certainly comes down to "eat or heat" for her. She has had to give up her TV as she can't afford the licence fee. (We intend to subsidise her for this) She uses charity shops for the few clothes she buys. She has a PAYG phone but is for incoming calls only as she never has credit. Granted, she is on housing benefit but without it she would be homeless She can't live with us for reasons I'm not going to disclose here It's not all high living for those on benefits. I agree it needs a review but there are plenty on benefits who do not get close to 26,000 a year £2860 £370 - (average water bill) £330 - (average electricity bill) £330 - (average gas bill) £1830 £1830/52 = £35.19. £35.19 per week to spend on food and miscellaneous items. I don't spend that much, so lets be realistic for a minute. She can afford gas and electricity and food. She doesn't even need to shop at charity shops for clothes. If she is in anyway sensible with her food budget then she could probably save enough for two weeks in Majorca every year.
Captain... Posted 4 February 2012 Posted 4 February 2012 £2860 £370 - (average water bill) £330 - (average electricity bill) £330 - (average gas bill) £1830 £1830/52 = £35.19. £35.19 per week to spend on food and miscellaneous items. I don't spend that much, so lets be realistic for a minute. She can afford gas and electricity and food. She doesn't even need to shop at charity shops for clothes. If she is in anyway sensible with her food budget then she could probably save enough for two weeks in Majorca every year. The post you are responding to also mentions house insurance, which you have omitted from your calculations, it would also be interesting to know where you are getting your figures from. On a normal week I will spend over £35 on food, I could cut it down, but I want to eat more than beans on toast. You are also not considering other things, such as phone line, you may see it as a luxury but without a phone it makes it much harder to find a job, same with running a car, if you have a car you increase your chances of getting a job but if by being on benefits you have to give up your car and phone you decrease your chances of finding a job. Then there is the fact that not every week is a normal week, £35 is the minimum for a decent pair of shoes, that is your budget gone, buying cheaper clothes and shoes end up costing you more in the long run. There are other things that occur that can be costly. It does seem like an obscenely small amount to live on and such a tight budget will not lead to a healthy or enjoyable lifestyle.
Daggers Posted 4 February 2012 Posted 4 February 2012 £370 - (average water bill) £330 - (average electricity bill) £330 - (average gas bill) Bollocks.
AoWW Posted 4 February 2012 Posted 4 February 2012 Bollocks. That's what I was thinking. Fook me, I must be being ripped off!
Jace Posted 4 February 2012 Posted 4 February 2012 £2860 £370 - (average water bill) £330 - (average electricity bill) £330 - (average gas bill) £1830 £1830/52 = £35.19. £35.19 per week to spend on food and miscellaneous items. I don't spend that much, so lets be realistic for a minute. She can afford gas and electricity and food. She doesn't even need to shop at charity shops for clothes. If she is in anyway sensible with her food budget then she could probably save enough for two weeks in Majorca every year. No chance can someone on JSA live on £35.19 per week and then afford a 2 week holiday in Majorca, where have you taken these essentials into account? £23.03 (7x big mac meals per week) £43.40 (7x pack of 20 Marboro light cigarettes) £60.00 per week petrol (for the Scooby) £20.00 1/4 oz Cannabis per week for the bad back £1.25 (Xbox live membership)
dave the caveman Posted 4 February 2012 Posted 4 February 2012 The average water bill was taken from some website and matches with my personal experience. The average gas and electricity bills are from personal experience. Maybe you guys have bigger homes than me, or maybe you heat your homes to a higher temperature than I do, but that's about what I spend, so if I was receiving the benefits in question, the calculation would be correct. I intentionally omitted "house insurance" because I assume the person in question does not own the home in which she lives and is therefore not responsible for the buildings insurance. She could well pay for contents insurance but I would question why she needs to own items of such value that they require insuring for any significant amount of money. "Wanting" to eat more than beans on toast is a luxury that you can afford if it's your money that you are spending, but perhaps not if you are taking the money from other people. Besides, it's a ridiculous point because it's easily possible to have a varied, healthy diet on £20 per week, never mind £35. A diet consisting of purely beans on toast would cost about £5 per week, so all in all it's one of those airy-fairy points that people like you love to make but which don't stand up to even the most feint touch of realistic scrutiny. You make a fair point about the phone line so that's at most £3.50 a week taken from the budget. Likewise clothing but I do not believe anybody needs to spend any more than £100 per year on clothes in order to look presentable, so I'll be generous and knock another £2 per week from the budget. I don't believe that a car is necessary. If she requires a car to get to work then there are ways around not having one such as renting a car for a short while and then purchasing a car on credit. This is not a very economical solution but it beats having the tax payer pay for all people on benefits to have a car ready just on the off chance that they might need it. All in all it's not a lot of money and no it probably won't lead to an enjoyable lifestyle, but that's not my problem. I have enough trouble scraping together the money to enjoy my own life, I have no desire to subsidise somebody elses fun and frankly it makes me angry that anyone would suggest it's fair for that to happen. The quicker we scrap cash benefits altogether and replace them with a voucher system the better.
danny. Posted 4 February 2012 Posted 4 February 2012 Bollocks. I live in a 2 bed house and spend bang on that on gas+elec per year and less on water (about £240 a year), that's for 2 people, I assume one person would use less. So doesn't sound bollocks?
Magictv Posted 4 February 2012 Posted 4 February 2012 The average water bill was taken from some website and matches with my personal experience. The average gas and electricity bills are from personal experience. Maybe you guys have bigger homes than me, or maybe you heat your homes to a higher temperature than I do, but that's about what I spend, so if I was receiving the benefits in question, the calculation would be correct. I intentionally omitted "house insurance" because I assume the person in question does not own the home in which she lives and is therefore not responsible for the buildings insurance. She could well pay for contents insurance but I would question why she needs to own items of such value that they require insuring for any significant amount of money. "Wanting" to eat more than beans on toast is a luxury that you can afford if it's your money that you are spending, but perhaps not if you are taking the money from other people. Besides, it's a ridiculous point because it's easily possible to have a varied, healthy diet on £20 per week, never mind £35. A diet consisting of purely beans on toast would cost about £5 per week, so all in all it's one of those airy-fairy points that people like you love to make but which don't stand up to even the most feint touch of realistic scrutiny. You make a fair point about the phone line so that's at most £3.50 a week taken from the budget. Likewise clothing but I do not believe anybody needs to spend any more than £100 per year on clothes in order to look presentable, so I'll be generous and knock another £2 per week from the budget. I don't believe that a car is necessary. If she requires a car to get to work then there are ways around not having one such as renting a car for a short while and then purchasing a car on credit. This is not a very economical solution but it beats having the tax payer pay for all people on benefits to have a car ready just on the off chance that they might need it. All in all it's not a lot of money and no it probably won't lead to an enjoyable lifestyle, but that's not my problem. I have enough trouble scraping together the money to enjoy my own life, I have no desire to subsidise somebody elses fun and frankly it makes me angry that anyone would suggest it's fair for that to happen. The quicker we scrap cash benefits altogether and replace them with a voucher system the better. Not sure I really agree with most of what you said, but you're bang on with the last sentence.
Captain... Posted 4 February 2012 Posted 4 February 2012 The average water bill was taken from some website and matches with my personal experience. The average gas and electricity bills are from personal experience. Maybe you guys have bigger homes than me, or maybe you heat your homes to a higher temperature than I do, but that's about what I spend, so if I was receiving the benefits in question, the calculation would be correct. I intentionally omitted "house insurance" because I assume the person in question does not own the home in which she lives and is therefore not responsible for the buildings insurance. She could well pay for contents insurance but I would question why she needs to own items of such value that they require insuring for any significant amount of money. "Wanting" to eat more than beans on toast is a luxury that you can afford if it's your money that you are spending, but perhaps not if you are taking the money from other people. Besides, it's a ridiculous point because it's easily possible to have a varied, healthy diet on £20 per week, never mind £35. A diet consisting of purely beans on toast would cost about £5 per week, so all in all it's one of those airy-fairy points that people like you love to make but which don't stand up to even the most feint touch of realistic scrutiny. You make a fair point about the phone line so that's at most £3.50 a week taken from the budget. Likewise clothing but I do not believe anybody needs to spend any more than £100 per year on clothes in order to look presentable, so I'll be generous and knock another £2 per week from the budget. I don't believe that a car is necessary. If she requires a car to get to work then there are ways around not having one such as renting a car for a short while and then purchasing a car on credit. This is not a very economical solution but it beats having the tax payer pay for all people on benefits to have a car ready just on the off chance that they might need it. All in all it's not a lot of money and no it probably won't lead to an enjoyable lifestyle, but that's not my problem. I have enough trouble scraping together the money to enjoy my own life, I have no desire to subsidise somebody elses fun and frankly it makes me angry that anyone would suggest it's fair for that to happen. The quicker we scrap cash benefits altogether and replace them with a voucher system the better. Agree on the last point, But you are still failing to take into account everything else we spend money on, toiletries, cleaning products, ok they have no car, the bus is fvcking expensive these days if you have to go to the job centre every week that's another couple of quid out of your budget.
Daggers Posted 4 February 2012 Posted 4 February 2012 I live in a 2 bed house and spend bang on that on gas+elec per year and less on water (about £240 a year), that's for 2 people, I assume one person would use less. So doesn't sound bollocks? It isn't the average spend on utilities, it's made-up bollocks. It doesn't remotely reflect my spend, it's made-up bollocks. It may be similar to your bills - but it's still made-up bollocks.
ithuriel Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 I've worked nearly all my adult life and was always annoyed that certain peeps i knew milked the system to have a cushy life, including my younger sister. My younger sis just pops another out when required, she has already taught her eldest well. Already pregnant and due to get a flat i believe She has had a better standard of living than myself at times and as never worked a day in her life. She will find a way around this until Labour get in and return things back to as they were. Makes me unhappy that at retirement age she will get the same state benefit as someone who works. Her hubby has not worked in donkeys years and some of the excuses are amazing i really do not get how they get away with it at times.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 Some people just breed like bloody rabbits, and get a huge chunk of the taxpayer's well earner money. The answer is easy. In a word, "castration" That will reduce the benefits handed out, by those who wish to milk the system.
Captain... Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 I've worked nearly all my adult life and was always annoyed that certain peeps i knew milked the system to have a cushy life, including my younger sister. My younger sis just pops another out when required, she has already taught her eldest well. Already pregnant and due to get a flat i believe She has had a better standard of living than myself at times and as never worked a day in her life. She will find a way around this until Labour get in and return things back to as they were. Makes me unhappy that at retirement age she will get the same state benefit as someone who works. Her hubby has not worked in donkeys years and some of the excuses are amazing i really do not get how they get away with it at times. But is she receiving more than 26K tax free in benefits? If not then it is irrelevant she can continue popping them out, the government is not adressing the issue of exploitation of benefits, they are just cutting costs, by putting a cap that will only affect those that need it the most.
ithuriel Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 Can't afford to have a large family on benefits then do not, if you want it work for it. Too many in this country think they are owed something by the state even though they have put nothing in.
Captain... Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 Can't afford to have a large family on benefits then do not, if you want it work for it. Too many in this country think they are owed something by the state even though they have put nothing in. What if you lose your job or the father of your kids and main bread winner dies? Not everyone on benefits is popping out babies to earn more money to spend on fags, some people decide to have a larger family 4-5 kids and an expensive house because they can afford it and are happy to work for it, but then something happens circumstances change, and suddenly you have lost your income. There is a difference between scrounging benefit cheats, and people who genuinely need help. As usual the governments proposal doesn't take that into account.
Daggers Posted 6 February 2012 Posted 6 February 2012 As usual the governments proposal doesn't take that into account. And whip up populist support from right-whingers against something which pales into insignificance compared to tax evasion, bonuses and banks. Let's blame the poor for everything wrong in the country while we build the HS2. Fvcking ill-considered, moronic, dogma-driven policy - just read Robert Joyce at the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The benefits system may need reformation but this shit piece of legislation isn't it.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.