egafd.com

I watched episode one of this on catch-up last night and there was a lot of talk about the residents in the street being on Benefits, something not mentioned much during episode 2 like I said. There was one woman who had probably the biggest flatscreen TV I've ever seen - if you lay it on the floor it would be almost as big as a double bed. All this can afforded but apparently it is a struggle to buy food. Most of them smoked, fags are now about ?8.50 for 20, the money for that can easily be found but finding money to buy cans of soup is a struggle. None of this makes any sense.

Then there was the "50p man", the man who goes round selling items to the skint residents - all items cost just 50 pence. He seemed like a nice guy but he apparently struggled financially and making 50p here and there helped him as times, for him too, were hard. How the hell could this guy afford to run a car if he was broke? He drove round in his motor selling stuff. It's all very weird and nonsensical.

The poorest areas are the ones who rely on food banks the most but if someone went to a supermarket in one of these places and asked the manager whether cigarette or alcohol purchases had reduced they would find they hadn't, yet people apparently have to go to food banks as they can't afford food.

"The programme was about one street not the whole country."

Agreed, but as you know, many viewers will assume this is typical of the unemployed which in my experience it certainly is not. Where are all the "hard working" people who live in the street? Do they feature?

"I noticed that no money to live on but enough to smoke, drink, expensive mobile phones and plasma tv's."

Well if you are on job seekers allowance, single person, you get abou6 ?70 a week. Perhaps you could explain how the unemployed single person has the good life on that?

"This is not the majority but there are a percentage who bleed the system to the limit to suit their "personal" needs."

Agreed. But where are the programmes about the people who worked for decades, got made redundant and couldn't cope with being out of work? Where are all the programmes about the buy to letters coining it in in housing benefit from the state? By concentrating ad infinitum on the unemployed who milk the system, the government and the likes of Channel 4 want to give the impression that this is the norm. It isn't.

"I am a pensioner and cannot afford to drink everyday, have a plasma tv but i dont moan or become a trotskyite to moan about this country like some."

Who is a Trotskyite?

"Ps I am not homophobic Mr Johnson"

Never said you were of course. However Argie has a track record going back years of making homophobic comments on this forum.

Have a good day.

Well people aren't as well behaved and disciplined as you, Max you know. Believe it or not but some people get addicted to cigarettes and spend years trying to come off. Booze in supermarkets is probably a helluva lot cheaper than orange juice.

The bottom line is that this programme is not representative of the unemployed. Like I said making a programme about people who were say in the public sector, had got sacked after decades of work and then ended up having breakdowns because they couldn't cope is not suitable telly is it? Nor is the hundreds of thousands of kids leaving school desperate for some kind of decent job.

What the Great British public seem to want is benefit porn where we can despise the people on there like some 19th century touring circus freakshow. Roll up, roll up, let's laugh and mock the freaks.

...but as far as I am aware the basic component for living on the dole is ?70 approx. a week. About ?55 a week if you are under 25.

If you are renting you would get help with rent and council tax which should go straight to someone else. If you have kids, the amount you get is about ?20 a week for the eldest and ?13 a week for any other kids.

Now how on earth can anyone sensibly argue that families on the dole have children as a money-making activity? How on earth can anyone argue that people are doing well on these benefits?. Jeez.

Not sure who your comment was aimed at. I never commented on the issue of people having kids to get Benefits, but as it's been raised I'll say that I too was always under the impression that people got more than just the basic Child Benefit for kids, if they had children and were on the dole or on Lone-Parents Benefit (or whatever it's called). If someone is working, therefore has an income, and they have children, then then get Child Benefit in addition to their earnings - a certain amount for each kid. I don't know as I don't have any kids, I'm also not that familiar with Benefits as I work full time, but I thought people on Benefits who have children also get another Benefit to pay for feeding and clothing their child, in other words not JUST the Child Benefit that everyone gets but something additional too. Is that not correct?

As far as I am aware there is also a benefit called Child Tax Credits which people get whether they are employed or not employed.

You get ?10 a week as a family element and ?50 a week for each child.

SO I may well be wrong, but if a 20 year old woman with 2 kids on the dole would actually get in their pocket

?56 a week JSA
?33 a week for child benefit for two kids
?110 a week child tax credits for two kids

So about ?200 a week. Now that does not appear to be a lot to feed, clothe, heat, entertain an adult and two kids as well as replacing stuff like furniture, bedding, cooker etc. etc. when they are knackered.

THe attraction arises when on top of that council tax benefit and rent goes to Council and landlord.

Some facts. Basic JSA for an 18 year old is about ?57. Child Benefits and Child Tax Credits for 1 child approx ?80 a week. Or 150% of the Dole. That is net. You would need to work full time on an 18 year old's min wage to get that level of income. Add in ?80 a week housing benefit and ?20 a week Council Tax benefit and hey presto you are up to ?12k a year for watching Jeremy Kyle. All paid for by Mr Tax Payer.

Oh what would you know, you only work in the system!!.

Honestly mate, why bother. We have been over this old topic time and time again. You know who's always got to have the last word!!

Well the figures that I gave to Max are more or less the same as you give, aren't they?



I would make the following comments:

1. As I stated ?200 a week is not a lot to feed, clothe, entertain, heat an adult and two kids along with replacing stuff like bedding, white goods etc etc. Is it?

2. If you take away say housing benefit and council benefit of ?100 per week and expect that to paid from the remainder, kids will start to suffer. Is that what you want?

3. Given child benefits and child tax credits are available to workers I can see no reason to take this away from the unemployed. If you do, the kids will start to really suffer. Is that what you want?

The basic problem is that it is not that benefits are high (see point 1 above) but that millions in the UK are on pathetically low wages in an environment in which rent is often very high and house purchase is completely beyond their means.

And the answer to these problems:

1. Build social housing in large numbers to replace the catastrophic sell-off of taxpayer owned housing to private individuals and property speculators.

2. Increase the minimum wage so that employers are not being subsidised by the taxpayer via working tax credits.

3. Introduce rent controls which many European countries have and Britain also had at one time. Landlords have profiteered and the housing benefit bill has spiralled out of control.

4. Firm handling of those unemployed who are swinging the lead.

Stop being so childish. If you have nothing to contribute, don't waste other forumites' time with content-free crap.