z-layrex Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 Because, dear cuntbollocks, it displays a lazy mind deserving of no attention. You go and starve in the street you halfsharp cockbrain. I love this forum, so many miserable liberals. Probably all the midlanders.
Webbo Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 I love this forum, so many miserable liberals. Probably all the midlanders. Hey! I'm from the midlands.
brockmyster Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 Seems like age discrimination to me, because only under 25s cause trouble in this country
z-layrex Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 Hey! I'm from the midlands. Me too . Not sure where I was going with that one tbh...
MooseBreath Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 The cost of raising a child up to 21 is at £218,000, for that to be covered you'd need £10,380.95 per year in benefits, which works out as £199.63 p/w. An unemployed couple with no disabilities would need at least 3 kids to receive that. Target aquired. Let's get bonking, Lucy-Mae. Ok Tyrone.
I am Rod Hull Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 Nothing in life worth having comes easily. If you couldnt be bothered to work hard in school, or cant be arsed with gaining skills in adult life to make you employable then you should starve in the street. We are all given every oppurtunity to make something of ourselves in this country. Thatcher would be proud of you.
MooseBreath Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 To be honest I can't see this working, and the way Cameron has pitched it is a pretty thinly veiled attempt to draw in anti-benefits votes. I am very much anti-benefits, but I'm not sure this is the right way to go about it. Replacing cash benefits with vouchers that can only be used on essentials is the first thing I would do. I'm sick of seeing people on benefits spending all day in the pub smoking and drinking. If you've got enough money to go anywhere near a pub, you've got more money than you need. Then place severe restrictions on the types of accomodation people on benefits can receive. A single person needs no more than a single room in a shared house. A couple needs no moe than a bedsit. I hear of single people getting entire flats for free. It's ridiculous.
Daggers Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 I love this forum, so many miserable liberals. Probably all the midlanders. Gosh - another reactionary child on FT playing with his Daddy's phone. What on Earth are we all to do...
Webbo Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 The problem with vouchers is that some people will sell them at a loss just to get money to spend on things other than essentials. I'd imagine they are more expensive to administer as well as a bit humiliating for the people who have to hand them in in the shop.
z-layrex Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 Thatcher would be proud of you. Good because i'm proud of her.
MooseBreath Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 The problem with vouchers is that some people will sell them at a loss just to get money to spend on things other than essentials. I'd imagine they are more expensive to administer as well as a bit humiliating for the people who have to hand them in in the shop. I'm all for that bit of humiliation. I'd make an attempt to predetermine what exactly a person needs and the voucher would cover only that. Their value would be pretty low, because nobody really needs much to survive. A couple of loves of bread, some milk, eggs, cheese, a little bit of meat and a small amount for toiletries. The voucher could perhaps have a value as low as £8 per week. If some people want to sell them then that's fine, they'll just have to go without food.
z-layrex Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 Gosh - another reactionary child on FT playing with his Daddy's phone. What on Earth are we all to do... You really must try harder Daggers.
Webbo Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 I'm all for that bit of humiliation. I'd make an attempt to predetermine what exactly a person needs and the voucher would cover only that. Their value would be pretty low, because nobody really needs much to survive. A couple of loves of bread, some milk, eggs, cheese, a little bit of meat and a small amount for toiletries. The voucher could perhaps have a value as low as £8 per week. If some people want to sell them then that's fine, they'll just have to go without food. I know you're trolling, but that's ok. I like you.
I am Rod Hull Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 Good because i'm proud of her. Proud of her for what? Have mummy and daddy been telling you stories about her on fondue nights?
acooling08 Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 Surely the under 25s need the most help as they have the lowest paid jobs (such as myself on apprenticeship wages). What they should do is stop the extra benefits for single teen mums who don't work.
MooseBreath Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 I know you're trolling, but that's ok. I like you. What else would they need? They have shelter, they have water, they have food and they have soap. Anything else is a luxury. As far as i'm concerned, if you're claiming benefits then you have no right to expect even the feintest hint of luxury. It's not your money. If you want nice things, earn them.
z-layrex Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 What else would they need? They have shelter, they have water, they have food and they have soap. Anything else is a luxury. As far as i'm concerned, if you're claiming benefits then you have no right to expect even the feintest hint of luxury. It's not your money. If you want nice things, earn them. They need fags, cider and blackberry phones, why shouldnt we pay?
Rincewind Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 You have all convinced me. We should go back to the good old days when the poor knew the place and were kept there by hook or by crook.
FoxyPV Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 Surely the under 25s need the most help as they have the lowest paid jobs (such as myself on apprenticeship wages). What they should do is stop the extra benefits for single teen mums who don't work. Then you are punishing the child; and if you want single mums to work then make childcare affordable.
sphericalfox Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 Then you are punishing the child; and if you want single mums to work then make childcare affordable. Don't attempt logic, you'll be wasting your time.
acooling08 Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 What else would they need? They have shelter, they have water, they have food and they have soap. Anything else is a luxury. As far as i'm concerned, if you're claiming benefits then you have no right to expect even the feintest hint of luxury. It's not your money. If you want nice things, earn them. Agree entirely with this. As I said earlier, I am on an apprenticeship now working 8.5 hours a day monday to friday. I'm not earning much more than I was getting on JSA. Sometimes at 7 in the morning I wish I was still on the dole, being able to sit around all day or going out. Personally I want to make something of myself so I#ll stick at it, but I can see why many can't be arsed to work. It shouldn't be like this at all.
z-layrex Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 Then you are punishing the child; and if you want single mums to work then make childcare affordable. How about some of them keep their legs closed in the first place?
davieG Posted 24 June 2012 Author Posted 24 June 2012 The problem with vouchers is that some people will sell them at a loss just to get money to spend on things other than essentials. I'd imagine they are more expensive to administer as well as a bit humiliating for the people who have to hand them in in the shop. I'm not sure whether I'm for or against vouchers but they could be in the form of a top up / pre-paid bank card, not sure of the logistics but would be cheaper to administer I would imagine and harder to sell if you just own the one card that needs to be topped up weekly.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.