The woman couldn't afford to buy food. She wasn't working, she had a garden, she could have grown vegetables and fed herself almost for free. That's what my mother did when she was a struggling single parent. Some people refuse to take any responsibility for their own lives. Where were the son and daughter? Sooner see their own mother starve than take her round a bag of groceries. Then blame the government.
No, you're missing the point. I didn't say people shouldn't have to move house. I've made that clear in a couple of posts. All I'm saying is that it should be done with compassion and decency and should take into consideration the individual's situation instead of just imposing a one-size-fits-all policy. You keep dragging up examples from your own life as a way to justify why others should be treated like ****e. I don't really give a **** what happened to you to be honest.
I'll try to be respectful MD, but at the moment it is not your house, which is the issue - and until that issue is resolved you'll always be susceptible to some government policy change. At some point in the future I am guessing that you will get on your feet and try to buy that house or another and then you will be a success story of the system.
Right well imagine this. I need electricity, food and gas to run my house. I'd get £225 a month from my Jobseekers, off of that I'd need to take £84 off just to pay the extra room. So that leaves me with £141 to spend on heating and having electricity on my house as well as eating and any other **** the world decides to throw up. I challenge any of you ****s saying "It's only £20 a week" to live off that. You'd all ****ing fail. When I signed my lease there was nothing to say that I should have to move into a smaller house because some 16 year old with 4 wee anes needed it. Naw what she ****ing needed was contraception. I can't buy this house. That doesn't mean I need to live without carpets.
If both cars are provided by the state, then of course. When the state provides you with a house with enough bedrooms to bring up your children, then you should be grateful for such a privilege. When you are asked to move to another home so that the house you stay in can be provided to another family, so the state can afford them with the same privilege that they afforded you, then the decent thing should be that you allow this family the luxury of having a 3 bed house.
Hmmm. In the private sector, if ye canny afford the hoose ye canny stay there. Ye move. In the public, if ye canny afford the hoose it's gets subsidised for ye. Seems fair.
The state is targeting its citizens In this circumstance In this modern civilisation we live in, the bare minimum we should be entitled to if we are to agree to live by the rules of the state are a home, water, food and healthcare. This does not mean the state should set the bar at this level of entitlement
Getting into debt with a bank is your decision. Banks always have the power to take everything you own off you. No doubt moaning about the ****ey ****ing bedsit you're stuck in.
Ask any 65 year old hitting retirement right now whether or not their paid off mortgage is a failure.
Why not? By taking out a mortgage to pay for your home so that one day you own it is an aspiration of success.
Getting into a couple hundred grandson worth of debt is the point...the millionaires are supposed to run the country...how can they stay millionaires if the plebs don't fear losing the god awful jobs thrown their way?
So all you need to do is, one day, think 'I'd like to own a home' and you're automatically a success? I'm looking forward to this, I'll do it after lunch and ring my parents up to tell them how successful I am.
If you live on your own, and live off the state, you should be given a 1 bedroom flat to to stay in. No arguements.
Well done Tobes All you need now is a car big enough to transport an army unit for you, your wife and your 2.3 kids and you're set for life
