Could you live on £7.50 a day?

[DodgyAgent]

Completely agree with Darmstadt... the govt. is running a blame game to whip the people into a frenzy and believe that every person on benefits is a lazy, feckless scrounger.

It's very easy to blame the poorest and powerless in society because they have no voice. It is the govt's fault for believing the banks are "too big to fail", selling of our industry and utilities and leaving us with sky-high commodity prices, pushing up everyone's bills.

Don't get me started on how the banks use debt to entrap us for the rest of our lives. The whole banking system relies on the vulnerable being in debt. And if you don't believe that, ask why savers are being robbed in Cyprus and not bond holders?

Whilst you are quite right about those in power wanting to look after themselves we have a huge problem at the other end of the scale which is almost entirely down to labour policies and their love of welfare. So whilst we may have a debt dependency culture it is not as serious as the welfare dependency problem. People in debt usually have the means at least to work whereas those in welfare do not.

[DimPrawn]

At a push I could live on £750 a day.




Oh, sorry, you said £7.50 a day!

[vetran]

Completely agree with Darmstadt... the govt. is running a blame game to whip the people into a frenzy and believe that every person on benefits is a lazy, feckless scrounger.

It's very easy to blame the poorest and powerless in society because they have no voice. It is the govt's fault for believing the banks are "too big to fail", selling of our industry and utilities and leaving us with sky-high commodity prices, pushing up everyone's bills.

Don't get me started on how the banks use debt to entrap us for the rest of our lives. The whole banking system relies on the vulnerable being in debt. And if you don't believe that, ask why savers are being robbed in Cyprus and not bond holders?

why does there have to be a single villain?

There are a number of people who reside on benefits and have no intention of getting off them. This is aimed at them.

There are a number of businesses who exploit the UK and have no intention of paying UK tax. These are being dealt with.

There are a number of people who arrive in the UK who have no right to be here and we can't get rid of them. well.

There are a number of companies that are actively trying to enslave the populace.

There are a number of MPs that depend on captive voters that are ensnared by certain government proposals.

Before the utilities such as BT were sent off they were oversized, inefficient and disorganised. now we discover the majority of energy rises were driven by green tax I suspect we are looking at efficient and well managed businesses that are being harpooned.

etc.

I like most want to see a small government that does big things for people using very little money.

[SueEllen]

Whilst you are quite right about those in power wanting to look after themselves we have a huge problem at the other end of the scale which is almost entirely down to labour policies and their love of welfare. So whilst we may have a debt dependency culture it is not as serious as the welfare dependency problem. People in debt usually have the means at least to work whereas those in welfare do not.

Lots of those claiming benefits in the UK actually work.

Housing benefit in London is claimed by people who work indicating there is a problem with wages, rents and the availability of social housing. Even if you don't believe in social housing why is the tax payer subsidising rents?

Council tax was also subsidised for low earners.

Then there is the Nu Labour problem where people earning up to £50,000 were entitled to child tax credits. Why were they paying people benefits who should be able to afford (even if it's a struggle) to bring up their children? They already get child benefit.

[formant]

Lots of good comments dropped here already, so I shall keep it short.

Living off £53 a week is doable - if you assume that people really only have to pay for food and the most basic of bills. Those are pretty theoretical circumstances though. In reality people have debts to pay off, have financial responsibilities (say family other than their biological children) that the government doesn't take into consideration, and are stuck in crappy tariffs and fixed-term contracts that don't miraculously disappear when their circumstances change and whatever they lived off previously (job, partner, family, etc.) isn't around anymore. Sure - probably shouldn't be the taxpayers responsibility, but let's face it, it's how people live - and not just those on low incomes.

Yeah, there are a decent amount of jobs out there - and on an individual basis, I think a lot of people could be working but aren't doing what's necessary to gain employment. However, if everyone on unemployment benefits suddenly decided they were willing to do whatever it takes to get a job - then the reality is, there aren't enough jobs to go around.

There are also a good amount of people that simply aren't employable. I don't know about you, but I prefer to be served by the hard-working, friendly Eastern European, than the smelly British toothless druggie. I'd rather see those 'lost causes' live on benefits, fed, watered, and off the streets, than deal with them in day-to-day life.

[DimPrawn]

All the poor, stupid and criminal should be forced to stay in Britain and the rest of us shipped out to Australia.

Like the olden days but in reverse.

[tractor]

Today some people receive £53 a week in benefits. Assuming that the government only pays the living then surely the case has been made that it is indeed possible to live on £7.50 per day?

I've worked in countries where the average income was $2 per day. The people there were very much alive.

The question is really. Is it a viable long-term proposition to live on £7.50 a week and enjoy the benefits of living in an modern economy?

The answer to that question is "No". The "Left's" solution is to give more of other peoples money. The "Rights" is to force them into work.

Precisely, and the point all these div politicians miss is that it is their responsibility to develop policies that underpin a vibrant economy. All this blame it on the global crash is rubbish. Many economies are doing fine.

But for any of them, left or right to expect them to develop policies that put the average joe first, that is a bridge too far. Everbody else has to pay for their mistakes. Ever has it been though.

You have to remember also, that if you make people too comfortable, no one will want to clean your bog or mow your lawn or serve you horse in your fave fast food outlet.

[KentPhilip]

Would it be out of order to point out that in Victorian times they stuck the poor into workhouses. While this was not exactly nice accommodation it gave them the basics, and by putting everyone together allowed them to benefit from economies of scale in the provision of the accommodation itself, food, and heating, saving enormous amounts of money.

And allowed everyone else to get on with the business of making the country prosperous, which they were stupendous successful at (the industrial revolution in Victorian's reign made Britain the richest and most powerful country in the world).

[DodgyAgent]

Would it be out of order to point out that in Victorian times they stuck the poor into workhouses. While this was not exactly nice accommodation it gave them the basics, and by putting everyone together allowed them to benefit from economies of scale in the provision of the accommodation itself, food, and heating, saving enormous amounts of money.

And allowed everyone else to get on with the business of making the country prosperous, which they were stupendous successful at (the industrial revolution in Victorian's reign made Britain the richest and most powerful country in the world).

too practical and too logical so the lefties wouldn't like it.

[doodab]

You can call the government what you like but they are not the ones to have increased and presided over the huge welfare bill that is crippling the economy

Actually, as the graphs in here, on p18 show they are. Fig 4.2(b) shows that social security spending, as a %age of national income, was flat between about 1999 and 2007. It's been on the up since then, although of course that's largely due to a massive recession.

The real problem is the state pension.