FACEBOOK Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 Who is Dorothy? Anything to do with the Wizard of Oz? I sometimes worry about you FB, you do not sound like the average Sheffielder. You mention London quite often, you sometimes even mention the word 'dollars', and I couldn't imagine you having a Sheffield accent. Are you a Londoner or from the posh parts of Sheffield, if there are any that still retain the Sheffield accent? I only visit Sheffield forum because you are here poppet. That's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bypassblade Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 I have no sympathy with anyone who is on benefits and 'earns' more than I do. It is simply wrong to be handing out tax payers hard earned money willy nilly to people who do not work for it. How the hell are the kids suffering? I work 40 hour weeks and get £700.00 a month less than they do. It's wron, just plain wrong. I say bring in the old company store method whereby no money is exchanged for claimants, just credits at a store where they can obtain goods, food, clothes etc. Tv's, mobiles, computers can be whistled for. I agree with those that WON'T work but after 40 years paying in, I'm reliant on ESA & DLA to help us, all my luxuries were bought with hard graft, before I had to quit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davyboy Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 Tv's, mobiles, computers can be whistled for. It's their human right to have those as it enhances their quality of life. So stop whinging Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey104 Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 [/b] I agree with those that WON'T work but after 40 years paying in, I'm reliant on ESA & DLA to help us, all my luxuries were bought with hard graft, before I had to quit. No offence and my apologies mate, but this subject really grips my unmentionables. Everyone does seem to be tarred with the same brush, even my wife who has paid in for 35 years is having a spell of claiming due to her falling off the back of my motorcycle and having her leg in a metal frame. I have a mortgage, a car which is insured,taxed and mot'd. I have a tv and a laptop but do not earn much more than minimum wage but still manage to feed myself without bleating on and expecting someone to throw tax payers money at me. But when people who do not benefit society, except by boosting the population, claim more in benefits than the average working person but seem to be in possession of iPhones, laptops, 50 inch tv's and still have the audacity to complain that they don't have enough money to survive, well tough! No one should be able to claim more in benefits than the minimum paid worker earns ---------- Post added 06-11-2013 at 01:01 ---------- It's their human right to have those as it enhances their quality of life. So stop whinging So is the freedom of speech, freedom of expression so no, I shan't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 NO, I'm saying that if hard times occur for a £35k a year salaried homeowner in London, it's easy to get out of that fix with no drop in the standards of living. The value of your house in London will have increased so much in value over time that if you were forced to sell and move up north you could probably buy a huge house debt free. How the children will play in their wonderful new house with the novelty of a huge big garden. No children suffering in that scenario and they'd soon make new friends with their strong sense of security and better lifestyle fitting nicely into their new community. And lets face it, granny was annoying anyway. Why are you assuming a family on 35k can afford to buy in London...the kids will suffer 'cos they'll have to leave their friends and family.. just as the ones whose benefits have been capped would have to.. I see no difference.. ---------- Post added 06-11-2013 at 10:15 ---------- Well one advantage of moving up North is that their benefits will go further. However, if they are forced to live up North and they find there are no jobs, it may cost the tax payer more as their children may have to go into care. That's planning for you isn't it. According to FACEBOOK the unemployed in London have no chance of working there either so the kids stand just as much chance of being taken into care in London.... ---------- Post added 06-11-2013 at 10:17 ---------- Well said FB. this situation could happen to any one of us. People would soon start complaining if they suddenly found themselves down on their luck, then discovered that the government had abolished all benefits tomorrow, when it was their turn to apply. All benefits aren't being abolished.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bypassblade Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 No offence and my apologies mate, but this subject really grips my unmentionables. Everyone does seem to be tarred with the same brush, even my wife who has paid in for 35 years is having a spell of claiming due to her falling off the back of my motorcycle and having her leg in a metal frame. I have a mortgage, a car which is insured,taxed and mot'd. I have a tv and a laptop but do not earn much more than minimum wage but still manage to feed myself without bleating on and expecting someone to throw tax payers money at me. But when people who do not benefit society, except by boosting the population, claim more in benefits than the average working person but seem to be in possession of iPhones, laptops, 50 inch tv's and still have the audacity to complain that they don't have enough money to survive, well tough! No one should be able to claim more in benefits than the minimum paid worker earns No apology needed fella, just thought I'd put my circumstances up I agree 100%; it got my goat also that folk work & work hard for luxuries, and some it seems appear to just get them shall we say. I hope your wife is soon up and mended can't have been nice falling off that. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Why are you assuming a family on 35k can afford to buy in London...the kids will suffer 'cos they'll have to leave their friends and family.. just as the ones whose benefits have been capped would have to.. I see no difference.. ---------- Post added 06-11-2013 at 10:15 ---------- According to FACEBOOK the unemployed in London have no chance of working there either so the kids stand just as much chance of being taken into care in London.... ---------- Post added 06-11-2013 at 10:17 ---------- All benefits aren't being abolished.... Did you spot the word 'IF benefits were abolished', in my post. Which some people on this forum would wish. If children can get taken into care down South, why bother to move unemployed families North which is what some local authorities are doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 If children can get taken into care down South, why bother to move unemployed families North which is what some local authorities are doing? You were saying that kids would be taken into care up here 'cos there are no jobs for their parents (why you think they'd go into care I don't know) if they had to come here 'cos of the cap and you suggested that this would be a false economy.. FACEBOOK said the parents on benefit have no chance of improving their lot...therefore the chance of them being taken into care in London is the same as if they were up here.. if they stayed in London then, not only would the HB be higher but they'd also be paying for care.. up here they'd be paying for care but HB would be lower..so using your scenario there would be a cash saving.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted November 6, 2013 Author Share Posted November 6, 2013 Really? Which benefits will increase? jb Those that have been reduced to the cap of £500. The only way she would be worse off is if she moved into a house where the rent was more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FACEBOOK Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Why are you assuming a family on 35k can afford to buy in London...the kids will suffer 'cos they'll have to leave their friends and family.. just as the ones whose benefits have been capped would have to.. I see no difference.. As stated before, I'm addressing the problem that is effecting people RIGHT NOW! We allowed people on benefits to settle in London where they have happily lived and settled with their families for years. So on that basis, people on 35k in the past could afford to buy in London. To be honest, anyone earning £35k who plans on settling anywhere is probably a bit dim if they don't own a property but that's another matter. So in the past people on £35k could afford property in London. Think of those who bought property in London in 1997. Think of those who moved their families on benefits to London in 1997. If both were now forced to move, and we are talking about the £500 pw cap that is going to negatively impact families right now, who's laughing and who's going to be screwed? That's my point and there's no arguing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.