Free Internet Access for those on Benefit/ Low Income

spen666

N4PALM wrote:

Where u get the 360 number from? No one on jsa gets 360 per month. That would be 90 a week thats way more than long term sick pay.

Typo - meant to say £60 forgot the shift key

Big Red S

spen666 wrote:

The internet is NOT a necessity- it is aluxury. There are divides in this country. Some people have mansions and rolls royces - others don't. It doesn't make them necessities.

They may be items you desire. They are not under any sense of the word necessities

Is a phone a necessity?

And, given the huge bulk of jobs that require at least some familiarity with some software costing a fair bit over £150 (thanks in no small part to the nation's IT education being more than slightly bent), how are these workshy people to get jobs without ready access to a computer?

i repeat my original question what is the incentive to work andearn a living if you can get the same luxuries without working.

I wasn't aware it was aimed solely (or even at all) at those families with members who can work but don't. Is it?
If it isn't, is it not fair to presume that at least some of these will go to deserving households, and rather than rubbish the scheme argue for some kind of control over who is and isn't eligible? I know as well as you do that this wont happen with the current government, but I don't think anything in that article's likely to happen - it's just handy popular-support-gaining rhetoric.

N4PALM

So what about all those other benefits, u think someone that is forced to stay at home and care for a sick relative, someone that is house bound from sickness etc, you think they should be denyed all luxury?

"oh you might be ill but can you be ill quietly, here some money for some food, shut up and like it"

??

spen666

I repeat my original question what is the incentive to work andearn a living if you can get the same luxuries without working.

Its funny how you start going on about people on other forms of benefit and ignore the simple question.

N4PALM

Why are u focusing on JSA?

I'm not ignoring anything, I know exactly what u are saying. And you are missing the point. No one is advocating giving workshy people everything they desire. Not one person here is saying that.

I think you are deliberately on a wind up now. Seriously wtf dude!??

N4PALM

Personally I think technology is fantastic! There are a lot of sick people out there trapped in home except for those visits to/from the doctor/carer/nurse. And what has the internet given those people?

Freedom, a window to the world, a connection to other people, people they wouldnt otherwise have been able to connect with, a lifeline.

The internet is a truely fantastic tool, its brings us all closer.


If the free internet that a childs single parent minimum wage mother couldnt afford themselves helps that child gain a decent qualification and turn into a well rounded individual then isnt it worth it?


If I ever get to the point where I'm running my own business I would make sure that all of my staff can afford these things. Minimum wage employers are the scum of the earth. Nothing more than modern day slave drivers.

alfablue

What assertions?

I never said people wouldn't work.

Spen, you asserted that

If you continue to provide more and more to those who don't work the luxuries that those who are in work pay for, then you reduce the incentive for people to work.

That sounds to me like an assertion that people are less likely to work.

Or are you saying they are less likely to work, but actually they would work? Hmmmm, very subtle Oh well, you've got the better of me!

alfablue

spen666 wrote:

I repeat my original question what is the incentive to work andearn a living if you can get the same luxuries without working..

Well, maybe there are other luxuries that people aspire to, or maybe there is a work ethic. I mean, if this life of unemployment is SO good, why doesn't everyone do it? Sorry,.this needs to rise above the Daily Mail level Spen! Try harder.

Big Red S

spen666 wrote:

I repeat my original question what is the incentive to work andearn a living if you can get the same luxuries without working.

There isn't one.
How does this affect people who are unable to work?

Its funny how you start going on about people on other forms of benefit and ignore the simple question.

Similarly, funny how you start going on about people on this particular form of benefit and ignore the simple points.

rapid_uphill

thats the parents fault not the childrens fault. and its the children who will end up on the dole if they have no education. use a bit of common sense ffs.

fast as fupp wrote:

theyre only disadvantaged because their lazy fat-arsed workshy dole bludging parents wont get off their fat arses and get a job

doleites breed more doleites

spen666

Big Red S wrote:

spen666 wrote:

I repeat my original question what is the incentive to work andearn a living if you can get the same luxuries without working.

There isn't one.
How does this affect people who are unable to work?

Its funny how you start going on about people on other forms of benefit and ignore the simple question.

Similarly, funny how you start going on about people on this particular form of benefit and ignore the simple points.

Again you seem to ignore the original question and try to twist this thread off at tangents to avoid the unpalatable ( to you it seems) truth that providing free to people luxuries that others have to work for reduces the incentives to work

Lets take it further. is it right that children of unemployed people do not get to see the wqorld and expand their world knowledge and that of different cultures? So why not provide luxury holidays for all those out of work every year.

now what about luxury cars? large houses etc

If you give those who are not working the luxuries that others work to afford, then where is the incentive to work?

Big Red S

spen666 wrote:

Big Red S wrote:

spen666 wrote:

I repeat my original question what is the incentive to work andearn a living if you can get the same luxuries without working.

There isn't one.
How does this affect people who are unable to work?

Its funny how you start going on about people on other forms of benefit and ignore the simple question.

Similarly, funny how you start going on about people on this particular form of benefit and ignore the simple points.

Again you seem to ignore the orifginal question and try to twist this thread off at tangents to avoid the unpalatable ( to you it seems) truth that providing free to people luxuries that others have to work for reduces the incentives to work

I'm not ignoring that question. I answered it _in_the_post_you_quoted_. See where I said "there isn't one" just after quoting your question? That's my answer right there.
I've not argued that free computers and internet and the like should be given to the lazy dole-takers. I've pointed out that not everyone who is poor is able to earn any more than they are earning - there are, believe it or not, people in this country who for one reason or another are never likely to find paying work, however hard they look (without their job being subsidised as mentioned elsewhere).
For these people, I think this is a good idea.
For the people who are on the dole through laziness, no, of course it isn't. There's a previous post where I've mentioned the idea that there is some scope for the introduction of control over who is eligible for this, and that supporting this scheme and that control would make more sense to me than rubbishing the scheme outright.

Lets take it further. is it right that children of unemployed people do not get to see the wqorld and expand their world knowledge and that of different cultures? So why not provide luxury holidays for all those out of work every year.

There are already trips round the UK and abroad that do precisely this. They're not funded (in the main) by the taxpayer, but there exist charitees which take children on holidays so they get to see places they couldn't otherwise afford to go, and their parents get a bit of a break.

now what about luxury cars? large houses etc

There already exist schemes for cheaper transport and for housing.

If you give those who are not working the luxuries that others work to afford, then where is the incentive to work?

There isn't one.

N4PALM

Spen666 is clearly just trying to wind people up here. No one is that ignorant surely?

spen666

N4PALM wrote:

Spen666 is clearly just trying to wind people up here. No one is that ignorant surely?

What is there about asking a question that is either a wind up or ignorant?

The ignorant people are those who resort to name calling when they can't think of any way to ask the question.

You may care to note that the previous poster has answered the question asked- ie confirming that it removes the incentive to work if you provide those who are unemployed with luxuries that those in work have to pay to get.

If one is unable to debate an issue, then it would be far better to avoid the thread rather than trying to stifle open debate by name calling and abuse.

spen666

Big Red S wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Big Red S wrote:

spen666 wrote:

I repeat my original question what is the incentive to work andearn a living if you can get the same luxuries without working.

There isn't one.
How does this affect people who are unable to work?

Its funny how you start going on about people on other forms of benefit and ignore the simple question.

Similarly, funny how you start going on about people on this particular form of benefit and ignore the simple points.

Again you seem to ignore the orifginal question and try to twist this thread off at tangents to avoid the unpalatable ( to you it seems) truth that providing free to people luxuries that others have to work for reduces the incentives to work

I'm not ignoring that question. I answered it _in_the_post_you_quoted_. See where I said "there isn't one" just after quoting your question? That's my answer right there.
I've not argued that free computers and internet and the like should be given to the lazy dole-takers. I've pointed out that not everyone who is poor is able to earn any more than they are earning - there are, believe it or not, people in this country who for one reason or another are never likely to find paying work, however hard they look (without their job being subsidised as mentioned elsewhere).
For these people, I think this is a good idea.
For the people who are on the dole through laziness, no, of course it isn't. There's a previous post where I've mentioned the idea that there is some scope for the introduction of control over who is eligible for this, and that supporting this scheme and that control would make more sense to me than rubbishing the scheme outright.

Lets take it further. is it right that children of unemployed people do not get to see the wqorld and expand their world knowledge and that of different cultures? So why not provide luxury holidays for all those out of work every year.

There are already trips round the UK and abroad that do precisely this. They're not funded (in the main) by the taxpayer, but there exist charitees which take children on holidays so they get to see places they couldn't otherwise afford to go, and their parents get a bit of a break.

now what about luxury cars? large houses etc

There already exist schemes for cheaper transport and for housing.

If you give those who are not working the luxuries that others work to afford, then where is the incentive to work?

There isn't one.

I wasn't meaning to quote you in my previous posting BRS - I think I hit quote rather than reply by mistake

N4PALM

spen666 wrote:

You may care to note that the previous poster has answered the question asked- ie confirming that it removes the incentive to work if you provide those who are unemployed with luxuries that those in work have to pay to get.

Ok you got you answer... Now whats your point?

Big Red S

spen666 wrote:

N4PALM wrote:

Spen666 is clearly just trying to wind people up here. No one is that ignorant surely?

What is there about asking a question that is either a wind up or ignorant?

It's not the asking of the question, it's the repeatedly asking it even when having been presented with an answer.
I'd told yo what I thought the incentive would be, and you quoted me telling you when you asked me again. If this is neither ignorance nor a wind up, I'd be interested to know what it is.

The ignorant people are those who resort to name calling when they can't think of any way to ask the question.

If you need to ask a question twice, it is perhaps you who needs to be asking questions differently.

You may care to note that the previous poster has answered the question asked- ie confirming that it removes the incentive to work if you provide those who are unemployed with luxuries that those in work have to pay to get.

You might note that I already had when you asked me again. This is a point you seem quite intent on missing.

squired

Taken from a post on the BBC website:

To those stating how bad unemployment is, I worked out what I would get,

1) Me + Wife £93, 3 children £135 (income support) =£228
2) Petrol to work saving (can stay in bed) £50
3) Free rent (housing benefit) £80
4) No CSA to ex £75
5) free council tax £26

Net total = £459 per week, add PAYE and NI, = Top line wage of £612 or £31870 per year.

How many benefit scroungers can justify that wage.

No, i am not worried about losing my job, I am worried about keeping it!!!!!

---

Growing up in a single parent family we had absolutely no money. Mum worked for a low wage and we struggled with everything. I specifically remember buying a printer for my homework. I saved every single penny of my pocket money (about £2 a week) for 8 months, then asked for money for birthday (in December) and Christmas from the whole family. My twin brother did exactly the same. The result was that we just about had enough money to buy it. So, if people struggling want something they will find an honest way to get it, even if it takes sacrifice. The problem is that most people don't want to make such sacrifices now.

People hit genuine hard times, but the whole benefits system doesn't seek out the people who deserve help, it just provides for everyone (as long as you haven't been sensible with your money and have savings). That is why there is clearly so much resentment among the masses. If I was made redundant tomorrow I would be due nothing. The reason is that I pay my mortgage and save the vast majority of what is left over. No car, no alcohol or cigarettes, no lavish holidays. If I was to be irresponsible, spend all my cash and be made redundant the state would suddenly be ready to pick up the pieces. Even better, if I was female I could get pregnant with a random guy I meet on a night out and be given a nice place to live.... then I really would be on the money train.

spen666

squired wrote:

Taken from a post on the BBC website:

To those stating how bad unemployment is, I worked out what I would get,

1..
4) No CSA to ex £75
.....

I am not sure this is correct. I think even those on benefit are liable to pay maintenance alvbeit at a minimal rate

I'm sure a family lawyer will confirm or deny this

N4PALM

squired wrote:

Taken from a post on the BBC website:

To those stating how bad unemployment is, I worked out what I would get,

1) Me + Wife £93, 3 children £135 (income support) =£228
2) Petrol to work saving (can stay in bed) £50
3) Free rent (housing benefit) £80
4) No CSA to ex £75
5) free council tax £26

Net total = £459 per week, add PAYE and NI, = Top line wage of £612 or £31870 per year.

How many benefit scroungers can justify that wage.

No, i am not worried about losing my job, I am worried about keeping it!!!!!

---

Growing up in a single parent family we had absolutely no money. Mum worked for a low wage and we struggled with everything. I specifically remember buying a printer for my homework. I saved every single penny of my pocket money (about £2 a week) for 8 months, then asked for money for birthday (in December) and Christmas from the whole family. My twin brother did exactly the same. The result was that we just about had enough money to buy it. So, if people struggling want something they will find an honest way to get it, even if it takes sacrifice. The problem is that most people don't want to make such sacrifices now.

People hit genuine hard times, but the whole benefits system doesn't seek out the people who deserve help, it just provides for everyone (as long as you haven't been sensible with your money and have savings). That is why there is clearly so much resentment among the masses. If I was made redundant tomorrow I would be due nothing. The reason is that I pay my mortgage and save the vast majority of what is left over. No car, no alcohol or cigarettes, no lavish holidays. If I was to be irresponsible, spend all my cash and be made redundant the state would suddenly be ready to pick up the pieces. Even better, if I was female I could get pregnant with a random guy I meet on a night out and be given a nice place to live.... then I really would be on the money train.

I know exactly what you are saying but your maths is faulty. You cant count that £50 petrol money. Benefits doesnt pay into national insurance. Based on the information you supplied its more like £409 top line wage. Thats for you, your wife and your 3 kids. Minus the rent money, the child support and council tax. Because otherwise you and your family would be homeless and your kid form that previous relationship would suffer. Really your left with £45 per head in your household. Its all good for you to sit there and stack it all up and come up with some number which you think is outrageous but thats not the bottom line in the real world. If the system wasnt in place and you lost your job, you'd be up shit creek without a paddle.

Benefits dont cover your other expenses that you might have like credit cards and what not that you had when you were employed. Benefits dont pay your water, gas and electric bills. So all of that is coming out of that £45 per head. Thats before you even buy food.

It always seems to black and white to some people. Single people dont get it so easy. Parents obviously get more money and that makes sense. Sick people deserve the help. Disabled people too. Carers deserve help too. And I've no problem with low income families getting help for minimum wage is pitiful.

rapid_uphill

how many kids do you need?

spen666

spen666 wrote:

squired wrote:

Taken from a post on the BBC website:

To those stating how bad unemployment is, I worked out what I would get,

1..
4) No CSA to ex £75
.....

I am not sure this is correct. I think even those on benefit are liable to pay maintenance alvbeit at a minimal rate

I'm sure a family lawyer will confirm or deny this

If you are on Income based JSA and are not the parent with care, then you pay a flat rate of £5 per week irrespective of whether you have 1 or 100 children

squired

N4PALM - not my maths. As I said, this was taken from a post on the BBC website. This is not my information, just an example pre-written by someone else....

I think the guy was saying that by not working he would be saving £50 a week in petrol costs for his commute to work. That's a fair enough comment to make.

His reference about NI related to the fact that you can't just look at benefits in terms of £x per week. You have to look at them in terms of what wage (i.e. before tax and NI) would be required to get that income after tax. A lot of people seem to ignore that fact. i.e getting £100 per week isn't the true story as someone in a job earning £100 a week wouldn't actually get that much in their pay packet.

I find the breakdown you gave about how much it actually leaves quite interesting. I'm firmly of the belief that if you can't afford children you shouldn't have them. I have none and don't plan on having any. If the guy who posted the original breakdown needs an effective wage of over £30K to support a wife and three children and the average wage in the UK is nearer £20K it shows how many people are having too many children...

N4PALM

squired wrote:

N4PALM - not my maths. As I said, this was taken from a post on the BBC website. This is not my information, just an example pre-written by someone else....

I think the guy was saying that by not working he would be saving £50 a week in petrol costs for his commute to work. That's a fair enough comment to make.

His reference about NI related to the fact that you can't just look at benefits in terms of £x per week. You have to look at them in terms of what wage (i.e. before tax and NI) would be required to get that income after tax. A lot of people seem to ignore that fact. i.e getting £100 per week isn't the true story as someone in a job earning £100 a week wouldn't actually get that much in their pay packet.

I find the breakdown you gave about how much it actually leaves quite interesting. I'm firmly of the belief that if you can't afford children you shouldn't have them. I have none and don't plan on having any. If the guy who posted the original breakdown needs an effective wage of over £30K to support a wife and three children and the average wage in the UK is nearer £20K it shows how many people are having too many children...

Yeah thats true people are breeding too much!

That example would be the equivalent household income of 20k after nat ins and income tax deductions. But assuming that 2 people working decent wage jobs, (lets use that 20k average) their household income would be more like 30k after deductions. So its not like that household is even close to being better off by them both being unemployed. They are only getting that much via benefits due to the fact they have children. It would make sense to say that people on benefits shouldnt breed for they cant afford to have kids, but thats a very difficult thing to police. If you deny the extra benefits for parental household, what happens when a household becomes unemployed due to circumstances beyond their control?

I've no problem with my tax money being spent to help those less fortunate than myself. You have to see all the good things that the whole benefits system does for people. Of course its open to abuse, like all things. But there are systems in place meant to catch the frauds and the lazy etc. JSA has a time limit on it, you cant claim it forever and not look for work. Sickness benefits are being really heavily policed nowadays. People are sent to independant health assesments to make sure they really are ill. It is a much better system than a lot of people give it credit for.

spen666

squired wrote:

...

I find the breakdown you gave about how much it actually leaves quite interesting. I'm firmly of the belief that if you can't afford children you shouldn't have them. I have none and don't plan on having any. If the guy who posted the original breakdown needs an effective wage of over £30K to support a wife and three children and the average wage in the UK is nearer £20K it shows how many people are having too many children...

I saw figures this week suggesting average wage in Uk is now £27500.

It of course depends how you calculate it. Do you just include those in work or those in work and those seeking work

N4PALM

spen666 wrote:

I saw figures this week suggesting average wage in Uk is now £27500.

Does that put it into perspective for you?

40hours at minimum wage is £11,481 before deductions.

spen666

N4PALM wrote:

spen666 wrote:

I saw figures this week suggesting average wage in Uk is now £27500.

Does that put it into perspective for you?

40hours at minimum wage is £11,481 before deductions.

no

OffTheBackAdam

I wonder if these computers will be classed as "Benefits in kind" & subject to tax?
The minimum wage is OK, what's wrong is the low level that the nil-tax band is set at.

spen666

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

I wonder if these computers will be classed as "Benefits in kind" & subject to tax?
The minimum wage is OK, what's wrong is the low level that the nil-tax band is set at.

The computers won't be coming from employers ( I don't think) but from the govt via your taxes. They will therefore not count as benefits in kind and not be taxable

N4PALM

spen666 wrote:

N4PALM wrote:

spen666 wrote:

I saw figures this week suggesting average wage in Uk is now £27500.

Does that put it into perspective for you?

40hours at minimum wage is £11,481 before deductions.

no

A bigger incentive to working would be an increase in the minimum wage, or a significant cut to the low tax band, or yet more benefits for low income earners. The support systems in place for low income households are essential for its near impossible to live on minimum wage alone without help.

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

I wonder if these computers will be classed as "Benefits in kind" & subject to tax?
The minimum wage is OK, what's wrong is the low level that the nil-tax band is set at.

Personally I think they should be paid for out of social fund money. Which is repayable and deducted out of benefits at a managable rate. Same as it already is for crisis and budgeting loans. But this brings a few issues such as budgeting loans are not available for everyone I believe. The budgeting loans I think they are for people on long term sick so that they can afford to buy the more expensive things they need and then repay it out of the benefit.