Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
I meant it makes the point that £53 isn't enough to live on
|
It's not ,well it would be possible buying food only but it would be a crap existence and you wouldn't starve, so it's a good job the government doesn't expect people to live on that .
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut
He wasn't 'unchecked' as he's been on Jeremy Kyle and interveiwed by Ann Widdicome and seems to be well known in his area. But he gets away with because of the kids.
Though I do agree with the rest, but from what I also see that is childless couples (through choice or not) will be penalised by that.
|
He most certainly was unchecked .He was allowed to stael the childrens money and his wife and girlfriends wages from the cleaning jobs they had ,every penny that was coming into that house went into his bank account .He was allowed to move his girlfriend and their kids into a house where he lived with his wife and their kids simply to increase the benefit income to the house .How on earth that wasn't against DWP rules i don't know
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut
So at the moment it's okay for the likes of the Philpotts to breed like rabbits and be left untouched to empty to pot, but if you're sick or disabled it's okay to have your money stopped and then have to be supported by a partner who could be on minimum wage? Which in turn forces the partner to give up work because it wouldn't be a viable option to live on.
That is one reason why I and others have moaned in this thread, the reform isn't thought out and they won't listen to anyone either.
|
No ,that's why the universal credit complete with benefit cap is being introduced .