I think you're missing the point somewhat and unfortunately its also a point that many politicians miss and what causes "normal" people to believe that they are out of touch with reality - that is that there are millions of hard working parents who are on, or near to, the minimum wage and for whom working 40 hours a week means a gross income (BEFORE deductions) of £247 per week.
Even with just two children and a partner working part time a family on that level of income just does not have any spare cash at the end of EVERY week to put money into savings or expensive income protection insurance policies (and they are expensive, believe me) - to use your example if that family wanted to pay into a cash ISA and use their maximum tax free allowance each year they would have to find £110.76 PER WEEK in order to save £5760 "for a rainy day", that fund would provide the same level of income for the main breadwinner for 23 weeks if they were suddenly jobless (keeping the figures nice and simple without regard to interest rates or tax, NIS etc).
You simply cannot take £110 out of a pay packet of £247 EVERY week.
Of course that is where tax credits kick in, and housing benefits (if in rented accommodation, if not then tough) and without them most of the millions of families that I speak of would be destitute.
That is the reality even for small families and its far, far too easy for critics to point and sneer and spout garbage such as "don't have children then" or "cut out the beer, fags and bingo" or "benefit dependent culture" whereas in reality those critics, including members of parliament, have not the first idea of what life for millions of low waged is like and flipant replies like "Get an insurance policy" or "Put money in an ISA" show a level of ignorance that is staggering.
No no no. Every single excuse to not make the welfare state fairer. Every single alternative rubbished.
Do you even know what it is like to live the way you describe?
"These unloved fighters for the right of poor folk to receive money and comfort from the state have come up with all sorts of theories to explain the poor's failure to get off their lardy derrières and defend welfarism. Their favourite is the idea that poor folk, being a bit dim and all, have been brainwashed by "scrounger"-hating tabloid newspapers. As a result of political-class diktat and media messaging, these dimwits have apparently "internalised a Thatcherite every-man-for-himself mentality".
Pure ideology I'm afraid. Can't see past your left wing views.
JerryChicken wrote:
I think you're missing the point somewhat and unfortunately its also a point that many politicians miss and what causes "normal" people to believe that they are out of touch with reality - that is that there are millions of hard working parents who are on, or near to, the minimum wage and for whom working 40 hours a week means a gross income (BEFORE deductions) of £247 per week.
Even with just two children and a partner working part time a family on that level of income just does not have any spare cash at the end of EVERY week to put money into savings or expensive income protection insurance policies (and they are expensive, believe me) - to use your example if that family wanted to pay into a cash ISA and use their maximum tax free allowance each year they would have to find £110.76 PER WEEK in order to save £5760 "for a rainy day", that fund would provide the same level of income for the main breadwinner for 23 weeks if they were suddenly jobless (keeping the figures nice and simple without regard to interest rates or tax, NIS etc).
You simply cannot take £110 out of a pay packet of £247 EVERY week.
Of course that is where tax credits kick in, and housing benefits (if in rented accommodation, if not then tough) and without them most of the millions of families that I speak of would be destitute.
That is the reality even for small families and its far, far too easy for critics to point and sneer and spout garbage such as "don't have children then" or "cut out the beer, fags and bingo" or "benefit dependent culture" whereas in reality those critics, including members of parliament, have not the first idea of what life for millions of low waged is like and flipant replies like "Get an insurance policy" or "Put money in an ISA" show a level of ignorance that is staggering.
No no no. Every single excuse to not make the welfare state fairer. Every single alternative rubbished.
Do you even know what it is like to live the way you describe?
"These unloved fighters for the right of poor folk to receive money and comfort from the state have come up with all sorts of theories to explain the poor's failure to get off their lardy derrières and defend welfarism. Their favourite is the idea that poor folk, being a bit dim and all, have been brainwashed by "scrounger"-hating tabloid newspapers. As a result of political-class diktat and media messaging, these dimwits have apparently "internalised a Thatcherite every-man-for-himself mentality".
Pure ideology I'm afraid. Can't see past your left wing views.
Someday everything is gonna be different, when I paint my masterpiece ---------------------------------------------------------- Online art gallery, selling original landscape artwork ---------------------------------------------------------- JerryChicken - The Blog ----------------------------------------------------------
"These unloved fighters for the right of poor folk to receive money and comfort from the state have come up with all sorts of theories to explain the poor's failure to get off their lardy derrières and defend welfarism. Their favourite is the idea that poor folk, being a bit dim and all, have been brainwashed by "scrounger"-hating tabloid newspapers. As a result of political-class diktat and media messaging, these dimwits have apparently "internalised a Thatcherite every-man-for-himself mentality".
Pure ideology I'm afraid. Can't see past your left wing views.
Sorry, have you explained to me how to save £110 a week for a rainy day out of a wage packet of less than £250 (before tax) yet ?
No ?
You just don't understand do you.
And to answer your question, yes I have experienced a 70% DECREASE in the household income in April 2009 and for 12 months we lived to that budget, it was very tough and our remaining income was actually much higher than a minimum waged employee so fook knows what it must be like to live on £247 (gross) a week - even on our income having one wage earner in an adult family of four it was impossible to budget "for a rainy day" or even to continue with extravagances like life insurance - to suggest that anyone on an even lower incoe than we were then should budget for income protection insurance or saving in cash ISA's is just hilarious and exposes a huge gaping void in your life experiences if you truly believe that that should be so.
Given your tender age and obvious lack of such experiences I shouldn't be surprised though, unfortunately the ones in power who think the same way have no such excuse other than they were born that way and have no desire to look around ...
Ajw71 wrote:
No no no. Every single excuse to not make the welfare state fairer. Every single alternative rubbished.
Do you even know what it is like to live the way you describe?
"These unloved fighters for the right of poor folk to receive money and comfort from the state have come up with all sorts of theories to explain the poor's failure to get off their lardy derrières and defend welfarism. Their favourite is the idea that poor folk, being a bit dim and all, have been brainwashed by "scrounger"-hating tabloid newspapers. As a result of political-class diktat and media messaging, these dimwits have apparently "internalised a Thatcherite every-man-for-himself mentality".
Pure ideology I'm afraid. Can't see past your left wing views.
Sorry, have you explained to me how to save £110 a week for a rainy day out of a wage packet of less than £250 (before tax) yet ?
No ?
You just don't understand do you.
And to answer your question, yes I have experienced a 70% DECREASE in the household income in April 2009 and for 12 months we lived to that budget, it was very tough and our remaining income was actually much higher than a minimum waged employee so fook knows what it must be like to live on £247 (gross) a week - even on our income having one wage earner in an adult family of four it was impossible to budget "for a rainy day" or even to continue with extravagances like life insurance - to suggest that anyone on an even lower incoe than we were then should budget for income protection insurance or saving in cash ISA's is just hilarious and exposes a huge gaping void in your life experiences if you truly believe that that should be so.
Given your tender age and obvious lack of such experiences I shouldn't be surprised though, unfortunately the ones in power who think the same way have no such excuse other than they were born that way and have no desire to look around ...
Sorry, have you explained to me how to save £110 a week for a rainy day out of a wage packet of less than £250 (before tax) yet ?
No ?
You just don't understand do you.
And to answer your question, yes I have experienced a 70% DECREASE in the household income in April 2009 and for 12 months we lived to that budget, it was very tough and our remaining income was actually much higher than a minimum waged employee so fook knows what it must be like to live on £247 (gross) a week - even on our income having one wage earner in an adult family of four it was impossible to budget "for a rainy day" or even to continue with extravagances like life insurance - to suggest that anyone on an even lower incoe than we were then should budget for income protection insurance or saving in cash ISA's is just hilarious and exposes a huge gaping void in your life experiences if you truly believe that that should be so.
Given your tender age and obvious lack of such experiences I shouldn't be surprised though, unfortunately the ones in power who think the same way have no such excuse other than they were born that way and have no desire to look around ...
You just don't understand that the welfare state is in need of reform, and these changes are actually backed by public opinion.
74% agree that the the government pays out too much in benefits and that welfare levels overall should be reduced.
JerryChicken wrote:
Sorry, have you explained to me how to save £110 a week for a rainy day out of a wage packet of less than £250 (before tax) yet ?
No ?
You just don't understand do you.
And to answer your question, yes I have experienced a 70% DECREASE in the household income in April 2009 and for 12 months we lived to that budget, it was very tough and our remaining income was actually much higher than a minimum waged employee so fook knows what it must be like to live on £247 (gross) a week - even on our income having one wage earner in an adult family of four it was impossible to budget "for a rainy day" or even to continue with extravagances like life insurance - to suggest that anyone on an even lower incoe than we were then should budget for income protection insurance or saving in cash ISA's is just hilarious and exposes a huge gaping void in your life experiences if you truly believe that that should be so.
Given your tender age and obvious lack of such experiences I shouldn't be surprised though, unfortunately the ones in power who think the same way have no such excuse other than they were born that way and have no desire to look around ...
You just don't understand that the welfare state is in need of reform, and these changes are actually backed by public opinion.
Someday everything is gonna be different, when I paint my masterpiece ---------------------------------------------------------- Online art gallery, selling original landscape artwork ---------------------------------------------------------- JerryChicken - The Blog ----------------------------------------------------------
74% agree that the the government pays out too much in benefits and that welfare levels overall should be reduced.
And I'll wager that those 74% all believe that they were polling to get people to work for money instead of "sitting at home watching Jeremy Kyle and eating Greggs pasties", whereas the truth is that a huge proportion of the benefits bill goes to those who are in work, or the state pension.
How do you square that circle - got another poll for in-work benefits and pensions ?
74% agree that the the government pays out too much in benefits and that welfare levels overall should be reduced.
You realise that survey is over a year old, right?
And given that a majority of the sample vastly overestimated fraudulent claim levels it's no wonder they were all for cutting benefits. I'd guess most of them didn't realise that most benefits are paid out to working families either.
Ajw71 wrote:
You just don't understand that the welfare state is in need of reform, and these changes are actually backed by public opinion.
74% agree that the the government pays out too much in benefits and that welfare levels overall should be reduced.
You realise that survey is over a year old, right?
And given that a majority of the sample vastly overestimated fraudulent claim levels it's no wonder they were all for cutting benefits. I'd guess most of them didn't realise that most benefits are paid out to working families either.
You realise that survey is over a year old, right?
And given that a majority of the sample vastly overestimated fraudulent claim levels it's no wonder they were all for cutting benefits. I'd guess most of them didn't realise that most benefits are paid out to working families either.
Try and twist facts all you want. They are there for all to see.
Try and twist facts all you want. They are there for all to see.
The public support the reform.
I twisted no facts. I pointed out the age of the poll and passed an opinion on some of the data. I didn't even contest the point about majority support - it's not exactly fresh information after all. No need to get all defensive.
The only poll that really counts is the one to be held in a couple of years time. By then a fair few of the respondents to that survey will have realised that they are directly affected by the reduction in benefits and that by implication this Government and its supporters consider them to be scroungers - regardless of how hard working they might be. I suspect this may sway their opinion somewhat.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 187 guests
REPLY
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...