egafd.com

Troll somewhere else please if you can't come up with anything sensible to post.

D

It's a simple enough question I am asking.

If you don't want to or can't answer it, then that's your prerogative.

Maybe to avoid wasting my time and other forumites, you could put something like

N/R - Having a general whine

as the subject of your post?

Cheers
D

A single person with no dependents and savings will get next to fuck all.

I know, and know of, people with kids who have never and probably will never work.

Nor do they show any interest in working.

They have more comforts and a better standard of living than friends of mine who are on low incomes.

You seem to basing your assumption that this is a myth on one of your mates experiences.

"perhaps you can come up with some info that backs up this argument"

Difficult as each set of circumstances is different.

The system is there and plenty of people work it.

"These posts seem to be made by people who are not actually unemployed themselves"

Thats because we're out there flogging our bollox off to provide for our families and ourselves and are sick of being taxed to death to pay for the lazy fuckers who do nicely without turning a tap.

Pretending it's not real doesn't make it so.

You said a mate of your, "Has worked all his life and has savings". Under New labour, this kind of person was considered to be SCUM! There are 2 words that would have struck terror into any NL Mp, that is, "Worked" and "Savings", sounds very much like Tory values to me and hence your mate is not privy to the "Golden Chest" that is the Welfare State.

Of course I'm being a little unfair, but if your mate had, been a lazy waster and added a gammy leg into the equation and had 6 kids, he'd be on about ?300 or more per week, you can correct me if I'm wrong.

The unfortunate thing is your mate WAS EXACTLY the type of person that the Welfare State was designed to protect.

I had the same problem in 1997, no income etc, was booted out of the DSS office, as a clerk yelled, "We don't want your sort here!"

The daily mai,sun,express,sky news,bbc..any kind of media outlet would love us all to believe that those on benefits are living the high life. The truth is its a pitiful existance.

When I retired from the Army in 1986 and looking for work I was awarded ?29 a week dole, or jobseekers allowance.
My wife had a job and as a recipient of a service pension I got fuckall else.
I eventually found employment untill 11 years ago I was made redundant and not allowed to claim fuckall as my pension was then greater than the dole. I was out for 6 weeks and then got the best job of my entire life and am still in it and will be, by choice, until I am 70.
Benefits are NOT for workers who have paid taxes all their working life.
They have been hijacked by social luvvies and are favoured for those who have contibuted fuckall.
That's the way I see it and I need some powerful argument to convince me otherwise.
Labour luvvies need not waste their time trying to convert me. I am a Socialist, but no longer a Labour believer.

"A single person with no dependents and savings will get next to fuck all."

Agreed based on what I know from a mate.


"You seem to basing your assumption that this is a myth on one of your mates experiences.

"perhaps you can come up with some info that backs up this argument"

No. I am not assuming it's a myth. I don't know what the situation is with regard to means tested benefits. This is why I am asking the question.

I repeat, does anybody out there know what a single person, no savings, gets on income support? I know this is variable depending on amount of council tax and rents etc people pay, but there is a basic, fixed component isn't there?


"Pretending it's not real doesn't make it so."

I am not pretending it isn't real. I am just trying to understand how much a single person and say a couple with a single child, no savings would get as their standard weekly component. To repeat I understand that council tax/rent will vary from case to case.

Cheers
D

"You said a mate of your, "Has worked all his life and has savings". Under New labour, this kind of person was considered to be SCUM!"

Fair comment, but was it any different under Margaret Thatcher when people went to sign on in a similar situation?

I don't think so.

Cheers
D

"Benefits are NOT for workers who have paid taxes all their working life."

Agreed.

"They have been hijacked by social luvvies and are favoured for those who have contibuted fuckall.
That's the way I see it and I need some powerful argument to convince me otherwise.
Labour luvvies need not waste their time trying to convert me".

Same point as to Jimslip. It was the same situation under Thatcher wasn't it, which is why you comment

"When I retired from the Army in 1986 and looking for work I was awarded ?29 a week dole, or jobseekers allowance.
My wife had a job and as a recipient of a service pension I got fuckall else."

1986 was the time when the Blessed Maggie was in charge.

Cheers
D