truman Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 He receives £7,800 a year,still a small sum,and well below his personal tax allowance and the minimum wage(assuming 40 hours worked).A tenth of the salary of MPs,and equivalent to what GPs earn in a month. Still not £53 a week...and obviously still enough for him to live on... "He did however admit he was still placing the occasional bet on horse racing, claiming it was nobody else’s business what he did with his spare money. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howden Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Who'd have thought it? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9968757/Tory-MP-complains-to-the-BBC-about-market-trader-who-challenged-IDS-on-benefits.html "However, it has now been disclosed that Mr Bennett, who was back on his market stall selling household goods on Tuesday, receives £232 a month in housing benefit and £200 a month in working tax credit, triple the amount of money he quoted in the challenge to Mr Duncan Smith." His average weekly income, including market stall earnings, is in fact £156 a week. Keep up... http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9689517&postcount=227 Posted yesterday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Keep up... http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9689517&postcount=227 Posted yesterday I have to admit to not seeing that...sorry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusflower Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 You are confusing two entirely separate issues, the benefits system is too generous as are the expenses politicians can claim. Using one as an excuse to justify the other is silly. Has "silly" become your new mantra then? ---------- Post added 03-04-2013 at 14:02 ---------- What is the point of the ongoing vitriolic attacks on the character of Ian Duncan Smith? I have read the posts there are few, if any, suggestions as to how the UK is going to get out of the mess we are in. All that contributors seem to want to do is attack the man personally. The fact is, we are in serious financial trouble. This dates back to the introduction of government social welfare in the early 1900s. Well meant but allowed to spiral out of control. "Bailing out the banks" two world wars, loss of empire etc has dealt the UK serious blows from which we recover. We will never recover fully, nor we will grow and prosper until such time as welfare spending is brought under control permanently. Taxation should be reduced at the same time. The target should be that no one earning less than £15,000 p.a should pay income tax. The Minimum Wage should be increased to £8.00.per hour. All unnecessary welfare benefits, e.g. to those who are fit to work but will not, should cease. The NHS, Police and Emergency services should have strict financial restraints placed upon them and we should scrap Trident. There, a few suggestions not involving the personal, pretty vile attacks on a man who is, at least, trying to get something done. Keep taking the tablets! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carosio Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Has "silly" become your new mantra then? ---------- Post added 03-04-2013 at 14:02 ---------- Keep taking the tablets! But what do you suggest? http://www.debtbombshell.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Has "silly" become your new mantra then? ---------- Post added 03-04-2013 at 14:02 ---------- Keep taking the tablets! Why? Apart from reducing emergency services budgets. The rest is a good idea. ---------- Post added 03-04-2013 at 14:18 ---------- Has "silly" become your new mantra then? ---------- Post added 03-04-2013 at 14:02 ---------- Keep taking the tablets! But what do you suggest? http://www.debtbombshell.com/ Complaining about everything seems to be the order of the day on here. Oh and some mouth frothing comments about bankers. But no suggestions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Keep up... http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9689517&postcount=227 Posted yesterday Which is still only £60 a week after rent is paid, instead of £53. That works out at £60 a week after rent is paid, so only just higher than he claimed, it leaves him with £16 a week after his bills are paid. ---------- Post added 03-04-2013 at 15:17 ---------- Has "silly" become your new mantra then? Silly Having or showing a lack of common sense. Common sense dictates that he couldn't live on £53 a week whilst doing his job as an MP, so quoting his expenses has proof he couldn't live on £53 a week is lacking common sense, ergo silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 This story reminds me of Shaun Woodward - the MP who promised to live in a terraced house in St Helens so he could know what it was like for his constituents. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-80873/Millionaire-MP-moved-constituency.html and subsequent stories: MPs' expenses: Shaun Woodward, millionaire minister, received £100,000 to help pay mortgage http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5292955/MPs-expenses-Shaun-Woodward-millionaire-minister-received-100000-to-help-pay-mortgage.html The butler Shaun Woodward doesn't have http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-49419/The-butler-Shaun-Woodward-doesnt-have.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 What is the point of the ongoing vitriolic attacks on the character of Ian Duncan Smith? I have read the posts there are few, if any, suggestions as to how the UK is going to get out of the mess we are in. All that contributors seem to want to do is attack the man personally. The fact is, we are in serious financial trouble. This dates back to the introduction of government social welfare in the early 1900s. Well meant but allowed to spiral out of control. "Bailing out the banks" two world wars, loss of empire etc has dealt the UK serious blows from which we recover. We will never recover fully, nor we will grow and prosper until such time as welfare spending is brought under control permanently. Taxation should be reduced at the same time. The target should be that no one earning less than £15,000 p.a should pay income tax. The Minimum Wage should be increased to £8.00.per hour. All unnecessary welfare benefits, e.g. to those who are fit to work but will not, should cease. The NHS, Police and Emergency services should have strict financial restraints placed upon them and we should scrap Trident. There, a few suggestions not involving the personal, pretty vile attacks on a man who is, at least, trying to get something done. Problem is Hillpig that those in reciept of benefits are often demonised, targetted for ridicule, and made to feel ashamed of claiming. Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling, and George Osborne have all had the opportunity to talk about the research undertaken by the Department of Work and Pensions - which shows that of the billions spent on welfare, most goes on pensions, then in work benefits, then lastly out of work benefits. And the majority of those on out of work benefits, have intermirrent periods of work, followed by periods of unemployment. Not that you'd know this from the debate - it's all 5 generations of families living the life of riley. Iain Duncan Smith has had more opportunity than most to shed light on this area, from his own department's research, but for political reasons he's chosen to keep the heat on those claiming benefits. He can hardly complain when he gets the same treatment that's meted out to the unemployed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Problem is Hillpig that those in reciept of benefits are often demonised, targetted for ridicule, and made to feel ashamed of claiming. Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling, and George Osborne have all had the opportunity to talk about the research undertaken by the Department of Work and Pensions - which shows that of the billions spent on welfare, most goes on pensions, then in work benefits, then lastly out of work benefits. And the majority of those on out of work benefits, have intermirrent periods of work, followed by periods of unemployment. Not that you'd know this from the debate - it's all 5 generations of families living the life of riley. Iain Duncan Smith has had more opportunity than most to shed light on this area, from his own department's research, but for political reasons he's chosen to keep the heat on those claiming benefits. He can hardly complain when he gets the same treatment that's meted out to the unemployed Exactly. We live in a era of gesture politics - all soundbites, scapegoats and photo-ops where being seen to be doing is more important than than actually doing. This furore is simply an example of that strategy biting back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.