to be fed up of George sodding Osbourne and his Knobbish Ideas

[avivabeaver]

The economy is proving harder to fix than he first thought

Solution- suggest cutting £10bn from the benefits budget and "limit the number of children people can claim for". So- are you supposed to choose your 2 favourite and just feed them then? Or what?

'Sky,mobile tariffs and pub trips are all luxuries,don't benefit kids and are a waste of tax payers money. However if you don't fund such luxuries you don't care do you. '

Oh, we're funding HUGE luxuries for MPs and their cronies, we're even paying their relatives fat whack for so-called 'jobs' they create to fleece us.

They have a bar, too, with subsidised drinks. Guess how pays for it?

He wants to cut the welfare bill why doesn't he start with all their perks first?

Not hysterical prairieflower when you're trying to counter "arguments" based on a view that anyone who claims benefits is by default a scrounger.

totally agree with NiceGuy2 at the beginning of this thread. Of course there are always going to be exceptional circumstances. The current benefit system is not fit for purpose, that's my opinion, although it seems among many of my friends who are claiming, I'm not allowed to have one cos I work for a living! I still love them but to hear how they can 'work the system' makes my blood boil.

This particular idea is not 'knobbish.' I am sick to the back teeth of lazy workshy women claiming they have a right to this, that and the other.

Either make some sensible life choices (work hard at school, get a decent job, marry a similar bloke (now there's a cute antiquated idea,) and only have the amount of children you can afford - or keep your underwear on. There, easy-peasy.

I would actually go further and get rid of free school meals and uniform grants. Most children have these things called parents whose job it is to feed and clothe them. Just like I feed and clothe my children and basically get on with it without any help from the government at all after next year.

So bloody flame me.

bialystockandbloom

In any case: £1000 a year at the pub works out, say for two adults having two drinks each at £3 a drink, as 80 visits a year. Less than two times a week. That a conservative estimate. If one of them had 3 drinks in one night, it's 66 times a year, so just over once a week. And we have no idea how many adults there were in that household - there could have been 2, 3, 4 or 5.

Hang on a minute. This is taxpayers' money! Being spent to go to the pub??

TV used by everyone in the house no doubt. Mobile phones prob used by everyone over 12.

So? Why should the taxpayer PAY for these luxuries?

"Free healthcare and education". What, a GP and school? People on benefits shouldn't be allowed access to these?

Way to miss the point.

It's all in the presentation, don't you see?

Yes, and you are presenting it as though everyone can simply help themselves to an unlimited pot of cash. The pot is not unlimited. Your sense of entitlement is astonishing.

expatinscotland

Oh, we're funding HUGE luxuries for MPs and their cronies, we're even paying their relatives fat whack for so-called 'jobs' they create to fleece us.

They have a bar, too, with subsidised drinks. Guess how pays for it?

He wants to cut the welfare bill why doesn't he start with all their perks first?

I completely agree that MPs should cut their perks, particularly their pension and subsidised food and drink. But that doesn't mean benefits shouldn't be cut.

priairie I'll ask again, why is it assumed the benefits were for children?

Sky,mobile tariffs and pub trips are all luxuries,don't benefit kids and are a waste of tax payers money.

Tell you what makes me "PMSL" - the faux-moral outrage of people who not only resent helping those less fortunate than themselves, but think it's got anything to do with them what the benefits are spent on. Who the hell are you to make a judgement about whether or not these people choose to have Sky or go to the pub? Hence my workhouse comment. SHould these people be sitting at home in their hairshirts?

However if you don't fund such luxuries you don't care do you.

Is the "you" aimed at me?

Totally agree Flatpack

As I have said before there seems to be a race to the bottom. It is sad that this is the attitude but if they are going to go there then I would like to see politicians take a cut. Why do so many of them need a 2nd home? Can't they take the train? From the North West it is now 2hrs each way to London. Why not take the train down at 6am and return at 8pm? If they book their ticket in advance it costs GBP80 return which is far cheaper than keeping a 2nd home. The other question I have is why do we need so many MP's?

I would also like to see expenses being paid for MP's and Lords based on income and assets. I was shocked to learn that they were claiming so many expenses. Most of them are already multimillionaires and have 2 or 3+ homes.

I agree with Niceguy too.

People need to take more personal responsibility for themselves and their children.

I'm always puzzled by the way some people really begrudge the poor having anything at all. If you want to be bitter, jealous and resentful, surely it would make more sense to be jealous of the rich, who have nice stuff?

(I guess some of the bitter people may imagine the rich aren't living it up at their expense. They'd be wrong. But then, bitter resentful people who bang on about people on benefits having their free goats don't usually bother to check any facts.)

flatpack seems we x-posted.... It grinds my gears to hear MP's talk about cutting benefits when they cost the taxpayer so much themselves. They have continued to grant themselves pay increases too.

They should focus on improving the prospects for all of the people they represent instead of focusing on ways to create divisions.

bialystockandbloom, I agree that it's not my business how benefits are spent.

It is absolutely my business to have a view as to what benefits should be. We live in a democracy. Benefits are paid out of taxpayers' money and should be spent with our consent.

It's because their poor you know, terrible moral failing being poor. Why don't they just all Bally well stop it!

'Why do so many of them need a 2nd home? Can't they take the train? From the North West it is now 2hrs each way to London. Why not take the train down at 6am and return at 8pm? If they book their ticket in advance it costs GBP80 return which is far cheaper than keeping a 2nd home. The other question I have is why do we need so many MP's?

I would also like to see expenses being paid for MP's and Lords based on income and assets. I was shocked to learn that they were claiming so many expenses. Most of them are already multimillionaires and have 2 or 3+ homes.'

And it has to be one they buy, too.

The difference between the poor and the rich that you seem to be mentioning Edam, is that one group works and the other doesn't.

I don't think anyone begrudges working tax credits, because they are for people who are working. Its the child tax credits and income support that people don't like, the benefits that are giving out without people having to lift a finger.

I begrudge the healthy but out of work because they are doing nothing, I don't begrudge the rich who do work, because, err, they work!

Nope it's aimed at people supposedly on a low income squandering vast amounts of tax payers money on Sky,mobile tariffs and pubs.It's like have a teenager at home running up the phone bill-if they aint paying they don't care!

I also would like to question the phrase "less fortunate than themselves".Hmmmm now lets see living a relaxing life with a lie in every day,no early commute,no travel bills,no childcare bills,no slave to the mortgage company,a roof over your head,money for food,help with water bills,free health care,free education and money for luxuries such as Sky,phone tariffs,pubs and judging by a thread not so long ago holidays.

Many working people I know can't afford any of the luxuries I've just listed-"less fortunate" I think not,life of Riley more like.

Listen to creamteas who speaks a lot of sense.

Buy-to-let landlords have distorted the private rental market. I wonder if those landlords with BTL mortgages give a shit have any concerns if their tenants claim Housing Benefit to enable them to pay their inflated rental price?

Probably not, because... us taxpayers contribute to paying the mortgages of profiteering landlords via Housing Benefit. Win win innit?

CelineMcBean, I concur absolutely. There is definitely a 'queuing' problem (Mathematical term) with property as it reaches a bottleneck with wealthy landlords and older people living out their retirement in larger houses (near schools), because there is no incentive to sell, nor are there any suitable properties being built for an aging population.

Where I live, the students are also living in houses suitable for families and student accomodation is not being built where it is needed. Lots of derelict town buildings could be knocked down to make flats for the students freeing up the family sized homes in the best areas for schools etc. Yet builders keep buying up fields for 'affordable family homes' on the outskirts where there are no schools, no shops and no infrastructure.

'I'm bitter and jealous of the tax dodgers etc not people on benefits, but then I'm not so stupid as to believe what the media or politicians would have me believe. '

Exactly!

Not to mention, we're starting to have a serious problem with the increasing cost of state pension (which just increased).