The state benefits system mega-thread.

Originally Posted by Chris

Let's not forget in all of this that IDS did not stand up and make a claim about anything. He was ambushed by someone who was pretty soon afterwards discovered to be lying.

Well he is the one who is advocating this new rate. It doesn't matter if the person asking if IDS could live on £53 a week is lying about how much he personally lives on as he isn't the one advocating that people do it.

A fairer way of looking at it would be to see IDS affirming he would be able to cope on equal terms with the man in question (terms which, as we now know, are a little less straitened than £53). Or, better still, you could take his words at naked face value. Yes, you *could* live on £53 for a week, if you *had* to, because if you *had* to, then you would simply prioritise what you need to stay alive and buy that first. Everything else, even some of the things you might class as 'essential' such as internet access, become extras that you may or may not be able to afford.

But he is not arguing people should live on £53 a week plus additional cash on the side. He is saying £53 a week excluding other benefits that do not include energy or heating costs (as far as I am aware).

Originally Posted by Chris

Let's not forget in all of this that IDS did not stand up and make a claim about anything. He was ambushed by someone who was pretty soon afterwards discovered to be lying.

He answered a direct question and said "If I had to, I could". Within that short sentence there is room for endless interpretation, and it seems to me that a lot of people are interpreting it a little generously, making very long lists of 'essentials' and then proving with paper and pencil that you can't live that list of 'essentials' on £53.

A fairer way of looking at it would be to see IDS affirming he would be able to cope on equal terms with the man in question (terms which, as we now know, are a little less straitened than £53). Or, better still, you could take his words at naked face value. Yes, you *could* live on £53 for a week, if you *had* to, because if you *had* to, then you would simply prioritise what you need to stay alive and buy that first. Everything else, even some of the things you might class as 'essential' such as internet access, become extras that you may or may not be able to afford.

I have no doubt that someone as intelligent and resourceful as IDS, especially with his military training, *could* live on £53 if he *had* to.

---------- Post added at 18:46 ---------- Previous post was at 18:45 ----------

Incidentally, I've been going back over our online grocery receipts (as we get everything delivered) and a fair estimate of our average weekly grocery bill, ie. all our eating and cleaning, is somewhere between £80 and £90 for a family of five.

As far as i'm concerned the argument always goes back to the original intent of the benefits system imo .People should get what they need not what they want and that argument should be just as valid in 2013 as it was in 1940

Again this further convinces me that cooking should be a core subject at school from year 7 until you leave. The Government loves the idea of everyone learning to program at school but surely cooking is far more beneficial. Nowhere near everyone needs to know how to program but nearly everyone would benefit from being able to cook.

Originally Posted by Damien

But he is not arguing people should live on £53 a week plus additional cash on the side. He is saying £53 a week excluding other benefits that do not include energy or heating costs (as far as I am aware).

putting aside the blokes gambling the bloke was saying he had £53 left after he had payed utility bills ,rent and council tax they do not come out of his £53 .So basically the only thing the bloke had to pay for to 'live' was food and he had £53 pw with which to do that

---------- Post added at 19:01 ---------- Previous post was at 19:00 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

Again this further convinces me that cooking should be a core subject at school from year 7 until you leave. The Government loves the idea of everyone learning to program at school but surely cooking is far more beneficial. Nowhere near everyone needs to know how to program but nearly everyone would benefit from being able to cook.

agree 100% with that

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

Again this further convinces me that cooking should be a core subject at school from year 7 until you leave. The Government loves the idea of everyone learning to program at school but surely cooking is far more beneficial. Nowhere near everyone needs to know how to program but nearly everyone would benefit from being able to cook.

So true. Being a food lover and very keen cook I've been teaching my eldest how to prepare food, cook and combine flavours etc. It really isn't difficult but I can't think of a single one of his mates (male or female) who knows or wants to know how to cook. Even in these inflationary times, a little common sense and imagination can turn relatively cheap ingredients into really good, tasty food far cheaper and more healthy than the ready meals, processed foods and takeaways so many people seem to live on these days.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Osem

So true. Being a food lover and very keen cook I've been teaching my eldest how to prepare food, cook and combine flavours etc. It really isn't difficult but I can't think of a single one of his mates (male or female) who knows or wants to know how to cook. Even in these inflationary times, a little common sense and imagination can turn relatively cheap ingredients into really good, tasty food far cheaper and more healthy than the ready meals, processed foods and takeaways so many people seem to live on these days.

Yes it is indeed shocking how many people can't cook and you only have to pass these takeaways to see the queues of people outside buying their main meal of the day.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by denphone

Yes it is indeed shocking how many people can't cook and you only have to pass these takeaways to see the queues of people outside buying their main meal of the day.

Once again, where children have been brought up by people who can't/won't cook, it's no surprise that they grow up thinking it's normal to eat junk food. Maybe that's one reason why many people say they're short of money - just check out what they have in their supermarket trollies and the amount of takeways they have.

The other day I used some carrots, celery, onions, salt, pepper, water and a turkey carcass to make large saucepan of stock. Had I decided to leave the vegetables in it and added some dried pasta, rice or similar to it it would have made a lovely healthy soup for 4 adults for about a quid. It isn't rocket science.

Originally Posted by Chris

Let's not forget in all of this that IDS did not stand up and make a claim about anything. He was ambushed by someone who was pretty soon afterwards discovered to be lying.

He answered a direct question and said "If I had to, I could". Within that short sentence there is room for endless interpretation, and it seems to me that a lot of people are interpreting it a little generously, making very long lists of 'essentials' and then proving with paper and pencil that you can't live that list of 'essentials' on £53.

A fairer way of looking at it would be to see IDS affirming he would be able to cope on equal terms with the man in question (terms which, as we now know, are a little less straitened than £53). Or, better still, you could take his words at naked face value. Yes, you *could* live on £53 for a week, if you *had* to, because if you *had* to, then you would simply prioritise what you need to stay alive and buy that first. Everything else, even some of the things you might class as 'essential' such as internet access, become extras that you may or may not be able to afford.

I have no doubt that someone as intelligent and resourceful as IDS, especially with his military training, *could* live on £53 if he *had* to.

---------- Post added at 18:46 ---------- Previous post was at 18:45 ----------

Incidentally, I've been going back over our online grocery receipts (as we get everything delivered) and a fair estimate of our average weekly grocery bill, ie. all our eating and cleaning, is somewhere between £80 and £90 for a family of five.

no this is the way that agrees with you it is only fairer for you and those who agree with you but nice try

---------- Post added at 19:43 ---------- Previous post was at 19:41 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

As far as i'm concerned the argument always goes back to the original intent of the benefits system imo .People should get what they need not what they want and that argument should be just as valid in 2013 as it was in 1940

I agree with this 100 %

When you get any form of benefit award you get a sheet of paper stating "the minimum amount of money you need to live on" this figure has come from the government . So the council benefit cuts come on top of this so what you get in effect is the minimum amount of money you need minus the cash you lose to the council making the money you get less than what the government say you need. These figures have stayed the same ie not increase for inflation they have not been dropped by the government so people are now getting less than the government say they need

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

no this is the way that agrees with you it is only fairer for you and those who agree with you but nice try

How the hell is not fair .You and others maintain that IDS and his ilk cannot and would not survive on the money benefits give people ,so to prove the point put IDS on exactly the same money as a bloke in a bedsit on the dole what can possibly be unfair about that and how can you possibly disagree with it after everything you have had to say on the subject.

Originally Posted by martyh

How the hell is not fair .You and others maintain that IDS and his ilk cannot and would not survive on the money benefits give people ,so to prove the point put IDS on exactly the same money as a bloke in a bedsit on the dole what can possibly be unfair about that and how can you possibly disagree with it after everything you have had to say on the subject.

but that is not what he said

you are saying something different to Chris

---------- Post added at 19:52 ---------- Previous post was at 19:50 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Let's not forget in all of this that IDS did not stand up and make a claim about anything. He was ambushed by someone who was pretty soon afterwards discovered to be lying.

He answered a direct question and said "If I had to, I could". Within that short sentence there is room for endless interpretation, and it seems to me that a lot of people are interpreting it a little generously, making very long lists of 'essentials' and then proving with paper and pencil that you can't live that list of 'essentials' on £53.

A fairer way of looking at it would be to see IDS affirming he would be able to cope on equal terms with the man in question (terms which, as we now know, are a little less straitened than £53). Or, better still, you could take his words at naked face value. Yes, you *could* live on £53 for a week, if you *had* to, because if you *had* to, then you would simply prioritise what you need to stay alive and buy that first. Everything else, even some of the things you might class as 'essential' such as internet access, become extras that you may or may not be able to afford.

I have no doubt that someone as intelligent and resourceful as IDS, especially with his military training, *could* live on £53 if he *had* to.

---------- Post added at 18:46 ---------- Previous post was at 18:45 ----------

Incidentally, I've been going back over our online grocery receipts (as we get everything delivered) and a fair estimate of our average weekly grocery bill, ie. all our eating and cleaning, is somewhere between £80 and £90 for a family of five.

sorry but I missed this bit .I would steal I would not go cold or without electric I would get extra cash another way as a lot would

bare in mind Chris if you can not do what the DWP say they will take that money off you

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

but that is not what he said

you are saying something different to Chris

OK then ,put IDS on equal terms as the bloke, still fair and still something you cannot argue with given everything you have said .

Originally Posted by martyh

OK then ,put IDS on equal terms as the bloke, still fair and still something you cannot argue with given everything you have said .

yes I can because that is not what IDS said. I would back him seeing how hard it is on JSA though as a compromise I know he could do it but it would still be a shock

[peanut]

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

yes I can because that is not what IDS said. I would back him seeing how hard it is on JSA though as a compromise I know he could do it but it would still be a shock

I reckon I could live on that for at least around 3 weeks quite easily.

If I was going back to my millions straight after that is. So any 'test' he does would be pointless.

I'm also sure he knows full well how difficult it is to live on £53 a week, but I don't think he gives a poop.

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

I agree with this 100 %

When you get any form of benefit award you get a sheet of paper stating "the minimum amount of money you need to live on" this figure has come from the government . So the council benefit cuts come on top of this so what you get in effect is the minimum amount of money you need minus the cash you lose to the council making the money you get less than what the government say you need. These figures have stayed the same ie not increase for inflation they have not been dropped by the government so people are now getting less than the government say they need

No ,it's what some of the correspondence says ,it depends on the benefit and the actual wording is (and it is very important) "The law states this is the minimum amount you need to live on" .The wording is important because the law changes every year when inflation is taken into account .In all cases and all benefits the money is given and the recipient is free to dispose of it how they see fit if they choose to have a few cans once a week then that is up to them but that is not included in what the law says you need to live on .Simply put what the law says you need to live on is exactly what you get


JSA wording is different because by law the claimant has obligations it reads

"by income based job seekers allowance we mean the money you can get based on how much the law says you are allowed based on your means"

The devil is in the detail

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...xuD5kPx7QBTIEA

---------- Post added at 20:33 ---------- Previous post was at 20:25 ----------

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

yes I can because that is not what IDS said. I would back him seeing how hard it is on JSA though as a compromise I know he could do it but it would still be a shock

LOL no you can't and you know you can't .you have completely back tracked on your reply to Chris .

You know perfectly well that IDS or anyone would be able to live on the same money that bloke has because thousands do it every single day and they will continue to do it ,not easily i accept ,but they will do it

[Gary L]

What do we mean by 'do it' exactly?

if you can't 'do it' what is supposed to happen?
are you supposed to die?

of course people can do it. some have no choice.
you might get ill. you may end up in hospital, you might be made homeless. but you can do it.

unless you die from doing it. then you have done it.