That's true, but to be working full time , but then receiving extra help is a lot more admirable than doing nothing and getting everything paid for isn't it?
some people are going to now going to have to live on only 350 quid a week I nearly fell off my chair...that's what 18000 a year? Oh no to be in such poverty...there are Africans sending shoes and food parcels to help them..
The was a story on BBC website about the capping of benefits to single parents to £500 week, this includes rent.
I work my f*cking ass off 52 hours a week not including all the work I have to do at home in my own time for a lot LESS than this amount.
IMO being poor is a 16yr old in Africa about to die of starvation in the street.
but they are in Africa, if we left ours homeless the cold will kill them before they even get to 16
some other countries also have more affordable government housing as they didn't sell it all and not build more.
If the people assessing the claimants weren't brain dead robots we wouldn't need a one size fits all system, but benefits could be apportioned to need. Now I know this doesn't apply to everyone but around here some girls deliberately get pregnant and then get 'thrown' out of home so they get to the top of the housing list on full benefits. That is wrong, very very wrong.
I also think anyone on benefits should not have a vote, if they don't contribute then they shouldn't have a say in the way the country is run.
I was once told by a JobCentre advisor that they only even push the people they think are capable of getting, and holding down a job. She said that in a lot of cases, they give the "customer" everything they want for fear of them losing their rag and beating the **** out of them.
The security guards they have are useless - they aren't really allowed to do anything (a friend of mine used to do it in Truro - he quit when a "customer" ripped a monitor off the mounting bracket and cracked him round the head with it. When he tried to pursue the matter, he was told there was nothing he could do and that he shouldn't have tried to diffuse the situation...by asking the chap what was wrong...)
a lot of people on benefits do work but the benefits top up a crap wage, so why don't government force large employers to put the wage up so it don't need benefits to top it up?
why are people not moaning at the low paying companies who's staff can only afford to work there because you(s) as tax payers are paying the benefits to top up the wages they are not paying.
loads of people moan because they work hard for less than people on benefits get, so the governments answer is to lower benefits, wouldn't them people prefer it if their wages went up to more than the benefits? cutting benefits isn't going to make any low earning tax payer better off with this government.
Benefits should be there to HELP people through a bad time NOT provide them with a lifestyle.
but you don't want them to have a right to voteI don't have a problem helping people out who are working and need a hand
If wages went up as you say then we would all be out of work as the 'product' would be too expensive and no one would buy. This was something the Unions could not get a grasp of back in the '80s. (It's called inflation and that's not good)