Online petition for IDS

[sydney greenstreet]

So he says he can get by on £53 a week, I have signed to see if he will prove it.
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week

 

[brendy]

He was asked if he could, he replied "I would if I had to", so would I, or anyone else for that matter.
That is black and white so why are people challenging it? This really sounds like a red top mentality challenge.

 

[Cherry13]

I think we know the answer to this!!

Anyways, the issue isnt the amount of money, (or at least shouldn't be) its the mindset that goes with it, I can't begin to imagine the feeling of holding very little hope that you may never get out of such a predicament.

IDS doing this for a week then coming out 'enlightened' would be a bit of a cheap political shot.

 

[sydney greenstreet]

He was asked if he could, he replied "I would if I had to", so would I, or anyone else for that matter.
That is black and white so why are people challenging it? This really sounds like a red top mentality challenge.

Lead by example !

 

[BrizoH71]

Gideon Osborne has also stated that '£71 a week JSA is 'generous'.

 

[brendy]

JSA is not generous but I know that when I was a lad living at home, I got JSA for around a month while I got myself a full time job, I gave a third to my parents as housekeeping, the rest I spent on luxuries as it were.
Probably sounds rather patronising but moving out of home to start a new one is not a god given right, you have to work for it, while at your parents home and not working, you do not have anywhere near the same bills.
It all depends on the individual and their circumstances but Id dare say those already away from the family home and are on JSA probably get other allowances too.

 

[chrisd]

Of course he could live on £53 a week, he's got a Mastercard as well!

 

[brendy]

Minimum repayment £21 per month then go bankrupt!

Of course he could live on £53 a week, he's got a Mastercard as well!

 

[scratch]

£53 a week?

Hmmm tough one...... £12 for a sleeve of ProV's leaves £41 to get to a course, pay green fees, have coffee and bacon roll then get home again.

You can't play decent courses for that.....the guy has my sympathy.

 

[SocketRocket]

A lot of the left wing howling is propaganda. It's not that he is even cutting down on the welfare bill, they are only reducing the increase to beter reflect what people in jobs have to put up with.

Hardly anyone lives solely on JSA, most people get housing benefits, council tax relief, tax credits, family allowance etc. I cant see whats wrong with a young person living with their parents living on JSA, the objective is for them to get out ann do a job, there are jobs out there if you are prepared to do them, just see what happens when people come here from Romania, they will manage to find work.

Labour are spouting a lot of hot air, how would they del with the National debt, they have voted against every cost reduction so far. They were the ones not long ago talking about forcing old people to move to smaller properties to open room for young pople, now they are bleating about the so called Bedroom tax which isn't a tax at all.

 

[SyR]

I'd like to see live for a year on £53 a week. I think it's a shame the condems have brought in a 5% tax reduction for the top rate given the situation in our economy isn't improving and they are cutting spending all over the place.

 

[stevie_r]

A lot of the left wing howling is propaganda. It's not that he is even cutting down on the welfare bill, they are only reducing the increase to beter reflect what people in jobs have to put up with.

Hardly anyone lives solely on JSA, most people get housing benefits, council tax relief, tax credits, family allowance etc. I cant see whats wrong with a young person living with their parents living on JSA, the objective is for them to get out ann do a job, there are jobs out there if you are prepared to do them, just see what happens when people come here from Romania, they will manage to find work.

Labour are spouting a lot of hot air, how would they del with the National debt, they have voted against every cost reduction so far. They were the ones not long ago talking about forcing old people to move to smaller properties to open room for young pople, now they are bleating about the so called Bedroom tax which isn't a tax at all.

I think we are all aware that what is referred to as the Bedroom Tax isn't actually a tax, it is however an unfair reduction in housing benefit for a lot of people.

By way of example:

A couple (no kids) require somewhere to live and register for council/ housing association property. I'll point out at this stage that occupying a council house isn't actually a criminal offence. They are eventually offered a two bedroom property which they accept rather than being penalised for not doing so. Due to redundancy, business going bust, long term incapacity and any other no fault of their own reason they end up in receipt of housing benefit. As of yesterday this benefit would have been reduced due to having a bedroom more than they need - through no great fault of their own.

Not wholly fair in my opinion.

 

[SocketRocket]

I'd like to see live for a year on £53 a week. I think it's a shame the condems have brought in a 5% tax reduction for the top rate given the situation in our economy isn't improving and they are cutting spending all over the place.

Thats another Labour sound bite. They kept the top rate of tax at 40% all through their term in office and only introduced the 50% rate one month before the election. Regarding them cutting spending all over the place they are borrowing more each year, would you like us to be facing the same problems as Greece and Cyprus? Just how do you expect us to survive if we dont cut the deficit, if it's not done now we will be leaving it for our children to pay for it.

Please tell me how the country can keep spending at the present rate without going bankrupt?

 

[SocketRocket]

I think we are all aware that what is referred to as the Bedroom Tax isn't actually a tax, it is however an unfair reduction in housing benefit for a lot of people.

By way of example:

A couple (no kids) require somewhere to live and register for council/ housing association property. I'll point out at this stage that occupying a council house isn't actually a criminal offence. They are eventually offered a two bedroom property which they accept rather than being penalised for not doing so. Due to redundancy, business going bust, long term incapacity and any other no fault of their own reason they end up in receipt of housing benefit. As of yesterday this benefit would have been reduced due to having a bedroom more than they need - through no great fault of their own.

Not wholly fair in my opinion.

I see your point and it can be hard for someone living in a house for many years to give it up when their children move out, but what about a family with two children living in a one bedroomed flat when there is a three bedroomed next door with one person in it. We must also remember this accommodation is tax payer subsidised.

 

[FairwayDodger]

I see your point and it can be hard for someone living in a house for many years to give it up when their children move out, but what about a family with two children living in a one bedroomed flat when there is a three bedroomed next door with one person in it. We must also remember this accommodation is tax payer subsidised.

So how about you only get your benefit reduced if offered a smaller property which you decline? Pretty tough at the moment if no smaller property is available.

 

[SyR]

Thats another Labour sound bite. They kept the top rate of tax at 40% all through their term in office and only introduced the 50% rate one month before the election. Regarding them cutting spending all over the place they are borrowing more each year, would you like us to be facing the same problems as Greece and Cyprus? Just how do you expect us to survive if we dont cut the deficit, if it's not done now we will be leaving it for our children to pay for it.

Please tell me how the country can keep spending at the present rate without going bankrupt?

How can they give a tax cut to the richest earners at this moment in time? No sound bite needed, no cheat sheets required about what labour did on their watch. It's simply outrageous that they have the gall to do it at a time when cuts are happening all across the public sector.

If you must compare past actions to now then you could start with the 'right to buy' scheme eroding the social housing stock. There isn't enough now due to that...

 

[stevie_r]

I see your point and it can be hard for someone living in a house for many years to give it up when their children move out, but what about a family with two children living in a one bedroomed flat when there is a three bedroomed next door with one person in it. We must also remember this accommodation is tax payer subsidised.

But this is in no way anything to do with forcing people to relocate into different properties in order to get the number of bedrooms right; it is an exercise in reducing the benefit bill. This clearly needs to happen but this new measure is ridiculous.

Yes this accommodation is tax payer subsidised, having paid PAYE since 1979 I understand that. Would I be right in assuming that during this lengthy recession you haven't suffered redundancy? Many have, several times (myself included). There are a significant number of people currently on benefits who really did wish that they were tax payers.

I think we would all agree that where we need to make reductions in terms of benefit provision is the 3rd generation of a family who have no idea what a P60 is.

 

[LIG]

So how about you only get your benefit reduced if offered a smaller property which you decline? Pretty tough at the moment if no smaller property is available.

+1 :thup:
That would be a FAIR step which every reasonable, caring human being would take, but we're talking about politicians here!
They only want to get power and, once in power, stay in power, and they can only do that by blaming everyone else - the other lot/the previous lot/the ancient lot/the overseas lot (take your pick!) - for all the current problems faced by people! "It wurn't me, Guvn'r!"

 

[sev112]

I see your point and it can be hard for someone living in a house for many years to give it up when their children move out, but what about a family with two children living in a one bedroomed flat when there is a three bedroomed next door with one person in it. We must also remember this accommodation is tax payer subsidised.

And many of those people have lived in that house for circa 18+, and probably 25+years, (in my parents' case 52 years) have paid the equivalent of a mortgage all that time, as tax payers, and in my humble experience paid for substantial maintenance and decoration throughout that period that should be the responsibility of the landlord. Then their 2 sons grow up and leave home, and the mother passes away.
Go on, take away the home from the remaining 80 year old parent.

I can see the logic, without doubt ; the humanity of the overall idea I'm not totally convinced by yet. The idea needs a lot more development to make sure the wrong decisions are not made in cases of this ilk.
Having said thatbinwould love to get my dad out of his flat in London to something more suitable, possibly near me, and there would be a chance ofna young family making a home there. But he can't imagine leaving his home and I understand making him move aged 80 and start a new life will probably not be great.
Shows that some ideas have good and bad points, and so be careful what people wish for.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

And many of those people have lived in that house for circa 18+, and probably 25+years, (in my parents' case 52 years) have paid the equivalent of a mortgage all that time, as tax payers, and in my humble experience paid for substantial maintenance and decoration throughout that period that should be the responsibility of the landlord. Then their 2 sons grow up and leave home, and the mother passes away.
Go on, take away the home from the remaining 80 year old parent.

I can see the logic, without doubt ; the humanity of the overall idea I'm not totally convinced by yet. The idea needs a lot more development to make sure the wrong decisions are not made in cases of this ilk.
Having said thatbinwould love to get my dad out of his flat in London to something more suitable, possibly near me, and there would be a chance ofna young family making a home there. But he can't imagine leaving his home and I understand making him move aged 80 and start a new life will probably not be great.
Shows that some ideas have good and bad points, and so be careful what people wish for.

I am sure the bill only applies to working age tenants claiming housing benefit.
Also a good way to get back to keeping a good old fashioned lodger