Household debt is soaring !!! 3.9 million families in debt......

First topic message reminder :

The centre for social justice has published a report showing 3.9 million families do not have enough savings to cover the rent or mortgage...

Personal debt in the UK is approaching 1.4 trillion.......

Falling incomes and rising costs are meaning more families are falling into debt..

Surely "Austerity" should be aimed at reducing household debt not increasing it ???

Or are we stuck with guys that want to be PM and Chancellor but don't want to do the job............No ideology whatsoever.......Thatcher love her or hate her had a plan !!!

On a side note.........If you take out Inflation Osbourne has borrowed more in 4 years than Labour did in 13..........

SOURCE - Political betting................

DAVE667 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

Rowley wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:I'm hardly a picture of financial fragility.

Only because Greggs do not offer credit.

I sense a great regret behnd that statement rowley

Whereas as I sense a business opportunity...

And I sense a great source of amusement - watching two yorkshiremen attempt to spend money for the first time

You have a credit system at Greggs and people will automatically think it's "free food" cos they don't have to hand over any money (see my true story/flagrant disregard for the true crux of the matter re cruise ships and dresses)

Even more fishy - ever see a yorkshireman giving credit? Rowley would have you believe yoga was invented by geoff boycott

ShahenshahG wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

Rowley wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:I'm hardly a picture of financial fragility.

Only because Greggs do not offer credit.

I sense a great regret behnd that statement rowley

Whereas as I sense a business opportunity...

And I sense a great source of amusement - watching two yorkshiremen attempt to spend money for the first time

You have a credit system at Greggs and people will automatically think it's "free food" cos they don't have to hand over any money (see my true story/flagrant disregard for the true crux of the matter re cruise ships and dresses)

Even more fishy - ever see a yorkshireman giving credit? Rowley would have you believe yoga was invented by geoff boycott

Do you mean "financial credit" or "credit where it's due"?

The answer is still no, whichever you choose.

Gentleman01 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:French Prime minister is a socialist??.........People voted for Obamacare last time out in 2012.......

Very clear..........people don't want left leaning.......  

I was referring specifically to the U.K. - South American countries routinely vote for left-leaning political parties

However, it is interesting you've cited Obama as an example of a left-leaning government. The U.K. had a New Labour Government for 13 years, however I explicitly mentioned that I do not consider New Labour a left-leaning social democratic party. The Democrats are in the same vein. In fact, it is widely acknowledged that the 'progressive', 'third way' political policies pursued by Blair were directly inspired by Clinton.

If there is one advanced capitalist country in which small-state, free-market, anti-socialist rhetoric has huge currency, it is the USA.  

Left wingers voted for Blair.............Whilst he stayed in the centre and crossed the line.............Minimum wage and other left wing policies got put through...........

Add together the Labour and liberal vote then you'll see Britain is a centre-left country........

Blair couldn't have won without his core support.......So it's a redundant argument you make..

I think you're still missing the point, Truss.

Gman is talking about staunch-left (i.e. the position that had kept Labour in the political wilderness for the best part of two decades) versus centre-left which is the Clinton inspired, Blairite, Obama-esque position of being mildly left wing with left leanings and policies but not belligerently socialist.

Gman is saying the country has shown no appetite for socialism for decades. What it wants is equitable capitalism with a conscience - which is what Blair & co claimed to offer.

There hasn't been a traditional left party in power in the UK since Thatcher booted out Callaghan in '79, so that's 36 years come next GE (presuming Red Ed gets in).

Probably never will be either.........From what I've read about Wilson ...He was a middle-ish ground guy.........Don't know much about Callaghan..

no one wants a left wing government.........I certainly don't...........I'm fiscally more on the right, security wise on the right..........But socially left............

No one wants to hold people back ..........Prosperity is a great thing and should be encouraged....FOR EVERYBODY........Not the chosen few...

Individuality and entrepreneur - ship should be applauded.......Not at the expense of taking care of ones own people though..........

Don't get like America..........

TopHat24/7 wrote:'unexpected' but with a 9 month lead in.....

of course it is unexpected because unless you plan it then when the girl is PRegnant that is unexpected and buying baby items starts when the girl is pregnant. lack of income also starts when the girl is pregnant due to taking time off work and not getting a wage. a woman becoing pregnant can result in debt due to lack of income due to taking time off work.

Any fine is unexpected as well, you don't plan your monthly budget and say on the 20th day I need to budget for a speeding fine and on the 22nd a parking fine and on the 27th I need to budget for a roadside recovery because my car is old and will break down.

Let me guess tophat you think people with HIV probably plan that as well if they have unprotected sex.....

Loss of income due to redundancy.

Probably the most common reason for people to fall into debt is loss of income.

A Family Addition

Most families today have two incomes coming into the household that support their current style of living. Even if you plan for a baby, the additional expense of bringing a new life into the world can take a toll on your finances, especially if the mother has to stop working early due to complications. Plus, maternity leave benefits are usually only a portion of what the mother normally brings in.

Divorce or Separation

Going from a two person household to a one person household is hard on both parties, and unfortunately it happens very often that one person is left with more debt than the other.

Ill Health

If people are too ill to work they will not get their wages and will only be entitled to receive sickness payments, but like maternity leave, the payments are usually a lot smaller than the normal wages.

Death is another problem that can leave you in unexpected debt.

Reading this thread from end to end has been a fascinating experience. There is a lot of very astute opinion out there in 606 land and I find myself nodding in agreement with, if not every post, then at least something in every post.

I'd like to ask the forum what you all think of Mr Osborne's rather hyperbole spattered Autumn Statement, yesterday.

Whilst listening to it I cast my mind back just six months or so to shortly after the Budget, when all the indicators and forecasts were gloom and doom. It seems almost impossible to imagine how the country could have achieved this upsurge in fortunes so quickly.

Then, after the statement was over and Ed Balls had survived a state of near-apoplexy whilst making his response, the various economists, analysts and city soothsayers gave somewhat more reserved verdicts.

Where did this recovery come from..? How has it happened..? What has been the difference between now and six months ago..?

One analyst (can't remember who) suggested that this recovery is not all it seems. He seemed to think the Chancellor's projections for the next several years are founded on suspect data. He suggested that small businesses and the general population are now past the point where they manage or get by on income alone and are now having to release savings...... and their doing it on a very large scale.

This is a dangerous state of affairs for the country.

If it is indeed true, then all of George Osborne's projections about future spending patterns will be null and void, because once savings are gone, they're gone. What that analyst was suggesting was that the small amount of growth we are seeing at the moment could be the final, desperate throw of the dice for many. The last gasp of a dying man.

I don't know whether he is right or wrong, but it could just be that he has his finger on the pulse (no pun intended). What do you all think.

It's all words with these guys........They are big Blair fans and believe that spin is everything !!.....Whilst Blair was the master spinner he did have an IDEOLOGY.....Albeit a little too right wing in some areas....

Cameron/Osbourne world If you say something often enough people will believe it.....

"We are all in it together..............."
"The Big Society"
"Vote blue go green"
"Policies for hardworking families"
"Miliband is weak".................
"They left a letter saying ... sorry no more money in the treasury"

Problem is when you get your policy by reading The Sun newspaper every day.....After nearly four years people catch on........

Like I said I never liked Thatcher..........But she had a vision..........

The Fourth Lion wrote:Reading this thread from end to end has been a fascinating experience.  There is a lot of very astute opinion out there in 606 land and I find myself nodding in agreement with, if not every post, then at least something in every post.  

I'd like to ask the forum what you all think of Mr Osborne's rather hyperbole spattered Autumn Statement, yesterday.  

Already got there 4L, and nobody seems in the remote bit interested.

https://www.606v2.com/t50261-chancellor-gideon-s-autumn-statement

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:'unexpected' but with a 9 month lead in.....

of course it is unexpected because unless you plan it then when the girl is PRegnant that is unexpected and buying baby items starts when the girl is pregnant. lack of income also starts when the girl is pregnant due to taking time off work and not getting a wage. a woman becoing pregnant can result in debt due to lack of income due to taking time off work.

Any fine is unexpected as well, you don't plan your monthly budget and say on the 20th day I need to budget for a speeding fine and on the 22nd a parking fine and on the 27th I need to budget for a roadside recovery because my car is old and will break down.

Let me guess tophat you think people with HIV probably plan that as well if they have unprotected sex.....

So, in other words, we're predictably back to personal responsibility again. You think the concept doesn't/shouldn't exist whereas I think it is extremely important.

Actions have consequences, it's as simple as that.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Probably never will be either.........From what I've read about Wilson ...He was a middle-ish ground guy.........Don't know much about Callaghan..

no one wants a left wing government.........I certainly don't...........I'm fiscally more on the right, security wise on the right..........But socially left............

No one wants to hold people back ..........Prosperity is a great thing and should be encouraged....FOR EVERYBODY........Not the chosen few...

Individuality and entrepreneur - ship should be applauded.......Not at the expense of taking care of ones own people though..........

Don't get like America..........

So you agree, then?

Took a while, didn't it?? LOL

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:French Prime minister is a socialist??.........People voted for Obamacare last time out in 2012.......

Very clear..........people don't want left leaning.......  

I was referring specifically to the U.K. - South American countries routinely vote for left-leaning political parties

However, it is interesting you've cited Obama as an example of a left-leaning government. The U.K. had a New Labour Government for 13 years, however I explicitly mentioned that I do not consider New Labour a left-leaning social democratic party. The Democrats are in the same vein. In fact, it is widely acknowledged that the 'progressive', 'third way' political policies pursued by Blair were directly inspired by Clinton.

If there is one advanced capitalist country in which small-state, free-market, anti-socialist rhetoric has huge currency, it is the USA.  

Left wingers voted for Blair.............Whilst he stayed in the centre and crossed the line.............Minimum wage and other left wing policies got put through...........

Add together the Labour and liberal vote then you'll see Britain is a centre-left country........

Blair couldn't have won without his core support.......So it's a redundant argument you make..

I think you take a very 'American' view of what constitutes left-leaning.

TopHat has summarised my point very well.

I didn't say there was no support for contemporary 'centre-left' parties like New Labour, they held power for 13 years! I am saying that, the traditionally socialist Labour party radically altered their ideology, to avoid further crushing defeats similar to 1992, due entirely to the lack of support for traditional democratic socialist politics.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

The Fourth Lion wrote:Reading this thread from end to end has been a fascinating experience.  There is a lot of very astute opinion out there in 606 land and I find myself nodding in agreement with, if not every post, then at least something in every post.  

I'd like to ask the forum what you all think of Mr Osborne's rather hyperbole spattered Autumn Statement, yesterday.  

Already got there 4L, and nobody seems in the remote bit interested.

https://www.606v2.com/t50261-chancellor-gideon-s-autumn-statement

Thanks for the link, Toppers. I shall nip over and have a look.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:'unexpected' but with a 9 month lead in.....

of course it is unexpected because unless you plan it then when the girl is PRegnant that is unexpected and buying baby items starts when the girl is pregnant. lack of income also starts when the girl is pregnant due to taking time off work and not getting a wage. a woman becoing pregnant can result in debt due to lack of income due to taking time off work.

Any fine is unexpected as well, you don't plan your monthly budget and say on the 20th day I need to budget for a speeding fine and on the 22nd a parking fine and on the 27th I need to budget for a roadside recovery because my car is old and will break down.

Let me guess tophat you think people with HIV probably plan that as well if they have unprotected sex.....

So, in other words, we're predictably back to personal responsibility again.  You think the concept doesn't/shouldn't exist whereas I think it is extremely important.

Actions have consequences, it's as simple as that.

Not at all, many of the key things I posted were neccessary items eg, heating, clothing, food, travel costs to work etc etc.

If you are made redundant and fall into debt as a result how is that self-control? you have no control over the situation and you are forced into debt through borrowing to survive until you find a new job which in this economy is no easy thing.

If you have a death in the family (made worse if it is your parnet who is the main income earner) and you fall into debt because your household has less income how is that all about personal responsibility. The bills, the mortgage, the food on the table, the travel expenses don't all stop because your husband died.

Same can be said about a divorce or any other unforseen circumstance.

Something as simple as heating your home in the winter can force people into debt, to borrow in order to heat their rooms. 31,000 pensioners died last year because of not being able to heat their homes in the winter and dying of the cold. Those people would still be alive if they heated their homes and took a loan from somewhere etc to cover the costs.

We are living in the reality where people will die unless they get into debt to pay for neccessary items, you can talk about personal responsibility but it is life and death for many people who live on the poverty line.

Life is full of little surprises and in an ideal world, we would all be able to plan and put some money by for a rainy day.

But with wages squeezed and prices rising way beyond pay increases (and many workers are suffering a pay freeze), the value of wages has deteriorated to such a level that there is no disposable income to save.

More and more people are living a hand-to-mouth existence. This is a precarious balance which requires only the slightest tilt to send people over the edge and into debt.

I lost my job in the recession two years ago.... the first time in my life I had ever been out of work. I cannot describe how I felt about that. It was the most debilitating, awful experience. I was fortunate in as much as I had already finished my mortgage and had an armed forces pension to fall back on, but even with those securities, the sheer feeling of being on the scrap heap..... after giving my entire working life to the service of my country..... is indescribable.

I've rebuilt my life, retrained and now work for myself. But I didn't do it with any help from the state. I was helped by the Royal British Legion. I am one of the lucky ones. Others don't have that kind of support and I can understand their feelings of despair, when every month the bills just keep on coming.

Glib comments that trivialise unemployment and destitution illustrate the deterioration of social values and mores in this country. There is a growing section in our society that has a dismissively cruel and callous attitude towards the unemployed and needy. An attitude that is being actively promoted by our present government.

It is something we should be ashamed of.

Spot on.......Tends to be guys who have never really lived in the real world who don't get it..

One of the reasons this government is behind......and yet Labour is still blamed for the economy..

Well I'm unemployed presently, and live in the real world (I presume), and I "get it".

Labour bankrupted this country, and the Conservatives are rebuilding it.

Just like 1979 onwards.

Duty281 wrote:Well I'm unemployed presently, and live in the real world (I presume), and I "get it".

Labour bankrupted this country, and the Conservatives are rebuilding it.

Just like 1979 onwards.

But the Conservatives are trying to rebuild it by getting the poor to pay for it.

Duty281 wrote:Well I'm unemployed presently, and live in the real world (I presume), and I "get it".

Labour bankrupted this country, and the Conservatives are rebuilding it.

Just like 1979 onwards.

Labour didn't bankrupt the country. It isn't 'bankrupt'. Both the national debt and the deficit have been much higher as a % of GDP in the past. And even if the country IS bankrupt, the main culprit was the global financial crash. Remember that?
As for the 1970s, Labour didn't bankrupt the country then either. In fact, the Wilson government in 1974 took over an economy suffering from extremely high inflation resulting from the Heath governments failed experiment with monetarism allied with the oil crisis (and managed to half that inflation by 1979). Many of the problems associated with the 70s, including a great deal of Union militancy was the result of this high inflation which was the result of Tory policy.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Spot on.......Tends to be guys who have never really lived in the real world who don't get it..

Nice, more evidence of the reverse snobbery and faux-normality shtick I mentioned the other week.

The Fourth Lion wrote:
Glib comments that trivialise unemployment and destitution illustrate the deterioration of social values and mores in this country.  There is a growing section in our society that has a dismissively cruel and callous attitude towards the unemployed and needy.  An attitude that is being actively promoted by our present government.

It is something we should be ashamed of.

Do you think people just woke up one day and decided to adopt that attitude?

Or do you think it was borne out people busting a gut to make ends meet only to be handled the insult of the government taking 20-30% of their pay in order to hand it to a lot of people with seemingly little or no intent of earning it?

Yes there is some unfair stigmatisation going on, but equally there's a lot of truth out there that some refuse to recognise. My personal opinion was shaped by what I encountered working as a social housing inspector/valuer. Day in day out going into social housing units (either whole schemes or just individual properties) and seeing how poorly treated the properties were and how careless and disrespectful the attitudes of their occupiers were (not all, but a vast majority). I was on a grad salary (not meagre, but not great) living in a shared house that cost over 50% of my take home pay and watching a 10 yr old 20in tele. I'd walk into the homes of people living lives of luxury in comparison - and doing so at little to no cost and without having to spend 12 hrs a day out at work.

The social rot is as much bottom up as it is top down.

Duty281 wrote:Well I'm unemployed presently, and live in the real world (I presume), and I "get it".

Labour bankrupted this country, and the Conservatives are rebuilding it.

Just like 1979 onwards.

Factually incorrect.

As I've explained before, (although on a thread which appears to have been deleted?) the UK has always had debt. Significant debt was accrued during WWI and was significantly increased during, and immediately in the wake of, WWII. Labour made mistakes in power, anybody who has read my posts in the Off Topic section will know I am not an arch New Labourite. However, the national debt, as a percentage of GDP is now lower than when Labour won power in 1997.

By 2002 Labour has significantly reduced the national debt and were actually running a budget surplus. It is my opinion that, it was a mistake to increase public spending in 2003 and run a small deficit, in the naive hope that GDP growth would just continue forevermore. However, even despite this mistake, by the time the 2010 elections came around, and the global economy had gone in to meltdown as a result of the 2008 crisis, the UK was still in a better position than it was in 1997 when Blair initially won power.

Labour clearly inherited a very debt-ridden country in 1997 after 18 years of Conservative rule. However, and despite my deep dislike for Thatcherism, I don't glibly blame the Conservatives for the debt as, as I already mentioned, the UK has been saddled with debt for many decades. It is not the fault of one single party. In fact, the debt which the UK has is, relatively speaking, very manageable. Look at Japan for an example of a more serious debt crisis.

The idea the Labour bankrupted the country, or that debt only began under Blair / Brown is pure Conservative propaganda. I would advise against swallowing it all so readily.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

The Fourth Lion wrote:
Glib comments that trivialise unemployment and destitution illustrate the deterioration of social values and mores in this country.  There is a growing section in our society that has a dismissively cruel and callous attitude towards the unemployed and needy.  An attitude that is being actively promoted by our present government.

It is something we should be ashamed of.

Do you think people just woke up one day and decided to adopt that attitude?

Or do you think it was borne out people busting a gut to make ends meet only to be handled the insult of the government taking 20-30% of their pay in order to hand it to a lot of people with seemingly little or no intent of earning it?

Yes there is some unfair stigmatisation going on, but equally there's a lot of truth out there that some refuse to recognise.  My personal opinion was shaped by what I encountered working as a social housing inspector/valuer. Day in day out going into social housing units (either whole schemes or just individual properties) and seeing how poorly treated the properties were and how careless and disrespectful the attitudes of their occupiers were (not all, but a vast majority).  I was on a grad salary (not meagre, but not great) living in a shared house that cost over 50% of my take home pay and watching a 10 yr old 20in tele.  I'd walk into the homes of people living lives of luxury in comparison - and doing so at little to no cost and without having to spend 12 hrs a day out at work.

The social rot is as much bottom up as it is top down.

Just to inform you that not all social housing properties are occupied by the unemployed, many people who are working live in social housing, many people who have retired live in social housing and many people who are disabled live in social housing.

But now I know why you hate the unemployed so much, because you are jealous of their 'luxury' lifestyle. Unemployment benefit is just over £50 a week, no way anyone can live on a luxury lifestyle with that.

'just to inform me' - don't worry, I am fully aware of the absurdity of current social housing policy which currently means Bob Crowe can earn £150k pa and still be allowed to live in a council house.

Also, nobody lives on JSA, I've said that already. But again, keep reading what you want to read as they clearly makes you feel better and helps justify your patronising hypocritical lecturing.

TopHat24/7 wrote:'just to inform me' - don't worry, I am fully aware of the absurdity of current social housing policy which currently means Bob Crowe can earn £150k pa and still be allowed to live in a council house.

Also, nobody lives on JSA, I've said that already.  But again, keep reading what you want to read as they clearly makes you feel better and helps justify your patronising hypocritical lecturing.

It is true that Bob Crowe earns good money. Obviously though, as council tenants go, he is in a very minority bracket.

The vast majority of people who live in council housing are employed, but earn significantly less than £150,000 p/a.

TopHat24/7 wrote:'just to inform me' - don't worry, I am fully aware of the absurdity of current social housing policy which currently means Bob Crowe can earn £150k pa and still be allowed to live in a council house.

Also, nobody lives on JSA, I've said that already.  But again, keep reading what you want to read as they clearly makes you feel better and helps justify your patronising hypocritical lecturing.

If you think no one lives on JSA and that they are committing benefit fraud then collect your evidence and contact the fraud department of your local council. If you have no evidence (which I suspect) then stop making wild accusations that all tpeople who claim jobseekers allownce are benefit fraudsters.

If you are aware that the majority of people living in social housing are not unemployed then why did you state that you have been in many social housing homes and seen the life of luxury the unemployed occupants had who lived there with their big tvs? Those people probably bought that tv from their wages.

And just to inform you the Localism Act (research it) has changed social housing rules meaning that tenants are given a fixed term tenancy that can be renewed based on circumstances (income being a circumstance taken into account). But regardless of the change in law, Bob Crowe was obviously a minority.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:'just to inform me' - don't worry, I am fully aware of the absurdity of current social housing policy which currently means Bob Crowe can earn £150k pa and still be allowed to live in a council house.

Also, nobody lives on JSA, I've said that already.  But again, keep reading what you want to read as they clearly makes you feel better and helps justify your patronising hypocritical lecturing.

If you think no one lives on JSA and that they are committing benefit fraud then collect your evidence and contact the fraud department of your local council. If you have no evidence (which I suspect) then stop making wild accusations that all tpeople who claim jobseekers allownce are benefit fraudsters.

If you are aware that the majority of people living in social housing are not unemployed then why did you state that you have been in many social housing homes and seen the life of luxury the unemployed occupants had who lived there with their big tvs? Those people probably bought that tv from their wages.

And just to inform you the Localism Act (research it) has changed social housing rules meaning that tenants are given a fixed term tenancy that can be renewed based on circumstances (income being a circumstance taken into account). But regardless of the change in law, Bob Crowe was obviously a minority.

Still missing you point exquisitely I see (would guess on purpose). I don't think anyone lives on JSA because I don't think anyone receives JUST JSA as their only means of income and/or support. This doesn't mean they are committing crime or acting fraudulently (although obviously some are). If it wasn't possible to get more than paltry JSA then why would the £26k pa cap be relevant or an issue?

The Localism Act is a good idea and good Tory policy, pity it doesn't apply retrospectively for it to be truly worthwhile.

But yes, keep deriding every example and anecdote that counters your belief-system as a 'fluke' and a 'minority'.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:'just to inform me' - don't worry, I am fully aware of the absurdity of current social housing policy which currently means Bob Crowe can earn £150k pa and still be allowed to live in a council house.

Also, nobody lives on JSA, I've said that already.  But again, keep reading what you want to read as they clearly makes you feel better and helps justify your patronising hypocritical lecturing.

If you think no one lives on JSA and that they are committing benefit fraud then collect your evidence and contact the fraud department of your local council. If you have no evidence (which I suspect) then stop making wild accusations that all tpeople who claim jobseekers allownce are benefit fraudsters.

If you are aware that the majority of people living in social housing are not unemployed then why did you state that you have been in many social housing homes and seen the life of luxury the unemployed occupants had who lived there with their big tvs? Those people probably bought that tv from their wages.

And just to inform you the Localism Act (research it) has changed social housing rules meaning that tenants are given a fixed term tenancy that can be renewed based on circumstances (income being a circumstance taken into account). But regardless of the change in law, Bob Crowe was obviously a minority.

Still missing you point exquisitely I see (would guess on purpose).  I don't think anyone lives on JSA because I don't think anyone receives JUST JSA as their only means of income and/or support.  This doesn't mean they are committing crime or acting fraudulently (although obviously some are).  If it wasn't possible to get more than paltry JSA then why would the £26k pa cap be relevant or an issue?

The Localism Act is a good idea and good Tory policy, pity it doesn't apply retrospectively for it to be truly worthwhile.

But yes, keep deriding every example and anecdote that counters your belief-system as a 'fluke' and a 'minority'.

What other support do people who claim JSA live on? The only other benefit is Housing benefit but that is just to pay rent and not everyone is entitled to housing benefit. You keep saying people on JSA re living the life of luxury and I am asking how. HB is for your rent so cannot be used to pay for a TV so the only benefit they receive is just over £50 a week JSA. Tell me how someone lives the life of luxury on £50 a week (the original question).

So you think JSA and HB are the only payments that can be derived from the welfare system??

TopHat24/7 wrote:So you think JSA and HB are the only payments that can be derived from the welfare system??

Tell me all these other benefits that an unemployed person can claim so that he can live the life of luxury as you put it.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:So you think JSA and HB are the only payments that can be derived from the welfare system??

Tell me all these other benefits that an unemployed person can claim so that he can live the life of luxury as you put it.

If you're unsure you can try these resources:

https://www.gov.uk/browse/benefits

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/benefits_e/benefits_benefits_introduction_ew/what_benefits_can_i_get.htm

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:So you think JSA and HB are the only payments that can be derived from the welfare system??

Tell me all these other benefits that an unemployed person can claim so that he can live the life of luxury as you put it.

If you're unsure you can try these resources:

https://www.gov.uk/browse/benefits

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/benefits_e/benefits_benefits_introduction_ew/what_benefits_can_i_get.htm

so you think every unemployed person is also claiming disability benefit or a state pension   

Nope, did I say that?

TopHat24/7 wrote:Nope, did I say that?

Well what was the point in posting it then? you just posted all the benefits available to pensioners or the disabled or to children in a discussion about whether JSA claimants can survive on £50 a week.

You said that people don't just survive on JSA because they all claim other benefits (of course we all know you were talking about them committing benefit fraud but you squirmed out of it) and then you posted a link to a website which discussed benefits for pensioners or the disabled or for parents. So that must mean you think all jsa claimants are either over 65, disabled or all have kids haha

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Nope, did I say that?

Well what was the point in posting it then? you just posted all the benefits available to pensioners or the disabled or to children in a discussion about whether JSA claimants can survive on £50 a week.

You said that people don't just survive on JSA because they all claim other benefits (of course we all know you were talking about them committing benefit fraud but you squirmed out of it) and then you posted a link to a website which discussed benefits for pensioners or the disabled or for parents. So that must mean you think all jsa claimants are either over 65, disabled or all have kids haha

Nope, I didn't.

See, this is the kind of problem you run into when reading what you want to read not what's actually written.

Nobody can get by comfortably on just JSA, it simply isn't enough, therefore those that DO live comfortably must, by definition, have other forms of income. Whether legal, illegal, justifiably or fraudulently claimed, or in receipt of other forms of support e.g. living for free with a family member.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Nope, did I say that?

Well what was the point in posting it then? you just posted all the benefits available to pensioners or the disabled or to children in a discussion about whether JSA claimants can survive on £50 a week.

You said that people don't just survive on JSA because they all claim other benefits (of course we all know you were talking about them committing benefit fraud but you squirmed out of it) and then you posted a link to a website which discussed benefits for pensioners or the disabled or for parents. So that must mean you think all jsa claimants are either over 65, disabled or all have kids haha

Nope, I didn't.

See, this is the kind of problem you run into when reading what you want to read not what's actually written.

Nobody can get by comfortably on just JSA, it simply isn't enough, therefore those that DO live comfortably must, by definition, have other forms of income.  Whether legal, illegal, justifiably or fraudulently claimed, or in receipt of other forms of support e.g. living for free with a family member.

So in other words you are agreeing with my original post where I said that no one can live the life of luxury on JSA

I've never said anyone can live on JSA as a sole form of income and/or support.

TopHat24/7 wrote:I've never said anyone can live on JSA as a sole form of income and/or support.

So then we can stop all this nonsense you've been posting about how the unemployed (JSA claimants) are living the life of luxury with their 56 inch tvs whilst you are out working for 12 hours a day (yet you are on here postoing comments every weekday and just today you have been on here constantly for the past 2 hours).

Who'd you pay off for your multitude of degrees?

Because your lack of comprehension is staggering.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

The Fourth Lion wrote:
Glib comments that trivialise unemployment and destitution illustrate the deterioration of social values and mores in this country.  There is a growing section in our society that has a dismissively cruel and callous attitude towards the unemployed and needy.  An attitude that is being actively promoted by our present government.

It is something we should be ashamed of.

Do you think people just woke up one day and decided to adopt that attitude?

Or do you think it was borne out people busting a gut to make ends meet only to be handled the insult of the government taking 20-30% of their pay in order to hand it to a lot of people with seemingly little or no intent of earning it?

Yes there is some unfair stigmatisation going on, but equally there's a lot of truth out there that some refuse to recognise.  My personal opinion was shaped by what I encountered working as a social housing inspector/valuer. Day in day out going into social housing units (either whole schemes or just individual properties) and seeing how poorly treated the properties were and how careless and disrespectful the attitudes of their occupiers were (not all, but a vast majority).  I was on a grad salary (not meagre, but not great) living in a shared house that cost over 50% of my take home pay and watching a 10 yr old 20in tele.  I'd walk into the homes of people living lives of luxury in comparison - and doing so at little to no cost and without having to spend 12 hrs a day out at work.

The social rot is as much bottom up as it is top down.

Just to inform you that not all social housing properties are occupied by the unemployed, many people who are working live in social housing, many people who have retired live in social housing and many people who are disabled live in social housing.

But now I know why you hate the unemployed so much, because you are jealous of their 'luxury' lifestyle. Unemployment benefit is just over £50 a week, no way anyone can live on a luxury lifestyle with that.

Yes, Toppers, it is so unfair isn't it, that you work like a slave for a pittance while others live like kings off your taxes.

I know where you're coming from.  Let me tell you a little story going back to 1979.   When I was a young(well, youngish) Leading Seaman in the RN, the armed forces were, shall we say, not paid too well.   Before the general election that year, Callaghan (the then Prime Minister and an ex-RN man himself) gave the armed forces a 20+% pay rise.  If it was supposed to buy Labour some votes it didn't work.   When Margaret Thatcher came to power, one of the first things she did was to give the armed forces another 15 or so % on top.   Nearly a 40% pay rise in total.  And even with that, we were still about 12% behind the national average wage.  

I think I know a bit about cr*p wages, mate.

The first married quarter the Me'm Sahib and I lived in was about half the size of the average council flat but it cost just the same.  We lived in military quarters, even when we had children, and we were grateful for what we had until we had saved enough for a deposit on our own house.

I think I know a bit about being at the lesser end of the accommodation spectrum, too.

But that's all in the past now.


It's easy to see people in their present predicament and think that that is all there is to them.  Go back and see them in ten years time and you may find industrious, hard working people who have climbed out of their slough.... perhaps they got that one lucky break that they needed..... and have changed their lives for the better.  People are basically good if you give them the chance to be.  That's something I believe.  You may call me a fool, but I'm comfortable with my view.

Yes, there are some who exploit the system, but as I and others have said, on this and other threads, they are not exclusive to Britain and they are not in a majority.  Such individuals as there are, are the unfortunate by-product of a tolerant, compassionate society that cares and gives support to the needy, the sick, the elderly and the plain "down-on-their-luck."

And given a choice between that and the sort of dog-eat-dog, corporate exploitation driven country that Cameron and his cohorts are leading us towards, I'd settle for a putting up with a relatively small number of social ne'er do wells any day.

They can be dealt with in time.  They'll keep.

Rent arrears are becoming the fastest-growing debt problem in the UK, according to the Money Advice Trust charity.

In the first nine months of this year, its telephone helpline received nearly 20,000 calls from people behind with their rent.

That is a rise of nearly 13% on the same period in 2011.

More than half the calls to the National Debtline service are now from people who are renting their home.

A recent survey by LSL property services suggested that rents across the country have risen to an all-time high.

"Rent arrears are now the fastest growing debt problem we help people with at National Debtline," said Joanna Elson, the chief executive of the Money Advice Trust.

"We are in danger of falling into a rent debt crisis," she said.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics this week show that the proportion of people renting their homes has increased.

In 2012, more than a third of households were renting.