Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Premier League' started by Tel, Oct 22, 2020.
Aye, it wasn't a poxy crab apple that started the whole gravity thing with Newton
Most likely because the welfare state is there to provide food via benefit payments.
Some people would also rather keep themselves in tabs booze or drugs than feed their kids.
Some people are ****s.
I'm not going to get into the politics of all this, other than say, the craziest part of it all is that this would probably have been, one of the cheapest budget things to resolve during COVID, yet could potentially be the biggest vote loser, it's nuts.
They did it mate. Universal credit was bumped up along with tax credit payments.
Does anyone else feel that Rashford's statements are not his words? He has some pr person or a lawyer writing that **** for him.
When did they bump them UC payments mate, I honestly don't know, was it due to Covid or were those payment bumps as part of an already planned increase. I've a feeling this is wriggle room they are trying to play here, I wouldn't be surprised if the increases were part of a planned budget increase. I'm happy to be proved wrong.
Bumped them up right at the beginning. April, had the regular uprating and a further increase because of covid.
This is why I didn't get the Rashford thing. They've basically bowed to pressure, given him an MBE and told him to **** off.
I'm sure these increases were already planned, not as an addition, on an already low UC payout, hence why they were increased. I voted Tory mate, and I'm not believing a word of it from them. They are using already planned increases as a yarn.
No, they weren't. Benefits only ever go up once a year in April. This second increase is unprecedented.
UC had been frozen, it was NOT going up once a year. This year was the first increase in however long. Sorry mate, but you've not shown me anything, that makes me believe any different than the Tories trying to pull a fast one here. What they did do was give local authorities an additional emergency funding to hand out as payments at their discretion, to assist people, but that has nothing to do with UC nor does it have anything to do with feeding hungry kids. The Tories have fooked this up big time.
Schlem I can only think what you might be referring to is payments for working people being made up by UC or other benefits, but again this is a completely seperate entity (to make up loss of wages), because a lot of people on low income (benefits), will not fall into that bracket.
This is what I don't understand. People who only claim benefits get money to look after and feed their their kids, their payments don't stop during the holidays. Pretty sure I never got my free meals during school holidays, I did when I attended school, though.
Families who have been hit hard by Covid, reduced hours, job losses, less money. I can see the need to stand in and support them. Absolutely.
There needs to be a debate about parents taking responsibility. Whether that's missing parents stepping up, a parent not paying for the child or parents learning that you can't complain about your kid not having no food in it's belly when he/she is running about in nike air trainers and playing on the latest playstation. I had my clothes handed down to me, it seems like that's a forgotten art with a lot of parents now. I see with my own eyes families complaining about not getting enough money but I see them spending it on alcohol, cigarettes, sky/virgin/bt, kids have always got the expensive stuff on.
I wouldn't have voted against this and neither should the Tories. It's a massive OTT reaction, though.
Still though, bit harsh on the kids in those instances.
I'll be honest, I wasn't aware of the freeze.
Bit of a ****s trick bringing in a benefit and not uprating it.
But then all politicians are ****s. They are my employer and our pay and benefits have been eroded so much since the banks went tits up its quite incredible.
Never makes the news.
People are given enough money to live on.
Many people are piss poor at managing that money.
Definitely true on the second point but then some people will have had a huge drop in income they could never have budgeted for or saved for just in case. Even if every single parent of every free school meal recipient was pissing their money on scratchcards and Glen’s, it doesn’t stop the basic idea of extending FSM to kids who would benefit being a sound idea. Even if you take out the idea that it’s the basic right thing to do, it’s a decent investment in society compared to most.
All I am saying is that the reason the government voted against it is because the welfare state already provides.
It’s the usual slight of hand mate. 46% of claimants of UC will be worse off than they were before under previous benefits and tax credits.
They increased the benefit by £20 a week, but that doesn’t even put it back to 2015 levels and it ends next April, when it’ll go back down to where it was.
People hear the word benefit and assume that this only affects people not working, but the changes affect over 6M people and over 70% of them are working. Nearly 1 in 3 households in the northern Tory seats are affected by this, and will see their income drop by £20 a week again next April.
As for the austerity measures after the banking crisis, benefits were slashed for the poorest in our society whilst they simultaneously reduced the highest rate of income tax by 5%. We’re all in it together though was the mantra.
Further to Tobes post it always makes me smile when people go on about "people on benefits" as either they or someone close to them has a very high chance of being in receipt of a State Benefit never mind the additional benefits such as free child care they just never mean the benefits they receive .