Mister M Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Any policy that takes welfare from those that don't need it and gives it to those that do need is good in my eyes, sadly there are too many people that get it but don't need it complaining about loosing it. There are also a great many people who are entitled to benefits that don't claim them - £16billion pounds worth a year. Many feel stigmatised and humiliated by the debate on 'welfare' and don't want to be targeted as scroungers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjodeano Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Did he get the PIP? ---------- Post added 20-03-2016 at 21:18 ---------- I already did that on the topic about PIP. Probably................hes that kind of person Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Did he get the PIP? Personal Independence Payment (PIP) helps with some of the extra costs caused by long-term ill-health or a disability if you’re aged 16 to 64. So if there are no extra costs then clearly the payment isn't justified. ---------- Post added 20-03-2016 at 21:18 ---------- I already did that on the topic about PIP. No PIP was introduced in 2013 after his son passed. FWIR the Cameron's claimed DLA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 No PIP was introduced in 2013 after his son passed. FWIR the Cameron's claimed DLA I think that is correct, and as far as I know the Camerons claimed Carer's Allowance as well ---------- Post added 20-03-2016 at 21:30 ---------- Next up for the Tories, another defeat in the Lords tomorrow. The government is trying to resist an amendment to the Immigration Bill that would require us to take a fair share of unaccompanied refugee children in Europe. 3,000 of the poor blighters are in camps, alone without their families. Our government wants to do nothing to help them. Tory scumbags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutty27 Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 There are also a great many people who are entitled to benefits that don't claim them - £16billion pounds worth a year. Many feel stigmatised and humiliated by the debate on 'welfare' and don't want to be targeted as scroungers. Not sure why you think that justifies giving money to people that don't need it. If someone has extra living costs caused by long-term ill-health or a disability then they should get more money to cover these extra costs. If they don't have the extra costs they shouldn't get extra money, why do you think they still deserve extra money when they don't have extra costs? Not really fair is it if one person gets £100 but has to spend it on extra living costs caused by long-term ill-health, whilst someone else gets £100 and gets to spend it on an holiday, or a new TV because they have no extra living costs associated with their long-term ill-health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 I think that is correct, and as far as I know the Camerons claimed Carer's Allowance as well I somehow don't think so. You don't qualify if you earn over £100 a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutty27 Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 No PIP was introduced in 2013 after his son passed. FWIR the Cameron's claimed DLA Did they have extra living costs because of their disabled son? My personal view is that it should be means tested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Did they have extra living costs because of their disabled son? I don't think they have any living costs. He's the PM. He gets a nice free house in a very posh part of London quite close to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Not sure why you think that justifies giving money to people that don't need it. If someone has extra living costs caused by long-term ill-health or a disability then they should get more money to cover these extra costs. If they don't have the extra costs they shouldn't get extra money, why do you think they still deserve extra money when they don't have extra costs? Not really fair is it if one person gets £100 but has to spend it on extra living costs caused by long-term ill-health, whilst someone else gets £100 and gets to spend it on an holiday, or a new TV because they have no extra living costs associated with their long-term ill-health. I used verifiable figures as a counterbalance to the general complaint you made that lots of people get benefits who don't need them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 I somehow don't think so. You don't qualify if you earn over £100 a week. Yes I could be wrong on that. I remember reading somewhere years ago that the Camerons claimed two benefits for their son. ---------- Post added 20-03-2016 at 21:39 ---------- I don't think they have any living costs. He's the PM. He gets a nice free house in a very posh part of London quite close to work. His son died in 2009 as I recall. The benefits system was a bit different then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now