why is it that if you work you have not much help, but when on benifits(and no not everyone on benifits is a scrounger) you get the best council houses? the reason im moaning is a couple of family members who work cannot get anything suitable from sheffield city housing and they would be paying full rent, what a joke, why not give priority to people who will pay full rent(not inc the elderly)?????????????????????

because they'd rather be on here reading trash like that? ^^^^^

why is it that if you work you have not much help, but when on benifits(and no not everyone on benifits is a scrounger) you get the best council houses? the reason im moaning is a couple of family members who work cannot get anything suitable from sheffield city housing and they would be paying full rent, what a joke, why not give priority to people who will pay full rent(not inc the elderly)?????????????????????

Could you type this again with some punctuation? We might understand better what you're trying to say.

I fully see where your coming from.

It seems I slug my guts out at work all week, to struggle to pay the bills and have no money for luxuries, when I could probably go on benefits and be better off!

A friend of mine at work, her husband was made redundant, so he went on benefits, she contacted the council to see what help they could get and was told she would be better off quitting her job and going on benefits as well!!!

Its all good now he's got a job again, but it just goes to show that most people would be better off quitting their jobs and claiming.

The guy put a good argument up and we have 2 muppets posting crap. its muppet like those thats spoiling the forum
Havnt you got nothing better to do with your life instead of picking on punctuation on internet forums:loopy::huh:
or the resident dole scrounger on here whos wants the best council house for herself and family, And not let the hard working people a better place to live

its no good being on benifits belive me ..ive been workin 20 years i get nothing sorry 64 pound a week then they made me stand 3 days

why is it that if you work you have not much help, but when on benifits(and no not everyone on benifits is a scrounger) you get the best council houses? the reason im moaning is a couple of family members who work cannot get anything suitable from sheffield city housing and they would be paying full rent, what a joke, why not give priority to people who will pay full rent(not inc the elderly)?????????????????????

total ******** and you know it:loopy:

why is it that if you work you have not much help, but when on benifits(and no not everyone on benifits is a scrounger) you get the best council houses? the reason im moaning is a couple of family members who work cannot get anything suitable from sheffield city housing and they would be paying full rent, what a joke, why not give priority to people who will pay full rent(not inc the elderly)?????????????????????

Actually, you have a very valid point of view.

I can see where the OP is coming from, I know it's an age old argument and to be truthful I'm not sure how I would feel about it if I myself were on benefits but occasionally I get annoyed that people who receive benefits can then get extra "benefits" as a result.

Recently, my son brought home a letter from school (comprehensive). It was advertising a new type of scheme or such like where, if your children are eligable for free school meals then the child qualifies to attend extra activities through the school. These activities included rock climbing, day trips out, sports activities etc etc.

Now my problem is, my son's friends were able to enrole for theses activities but because my fella is a hard working bloke and doesn't claim benefits, my lad can't join in the fun with his mates.

I know there are people in receipt of benefits who don't think that it's much fun (I'm sure it's not, I wouldn't want to be in that position), and there are many parents who don't chose to be in that position (as there are people who do!), but I know (and I do know) of people that are claiming benefits (some of them no intentions of going into work) and have much more expendable money at the end of the week than hard working families have.

So my point is, don't have the luxury of being able to afford to take our kids out and for the same kind of activities as this scheme offers as after we have paid out our rent for the house, council tax, dinner monies, bills etc etc, we are barely keeping our heads above water, so why don't we qualify for schemes like this, we are just as hard up as a person on benefits its, if not worse.

I fully see where your coming from.

It seems I slug my guts out at work all week, to struggle to pay the bills and have no money for luxuries, when I could probably go on benefits and be better off!

A friend of mine at work, her husband was made redundant, so he went on benefits, she contacted the council to see what help they could get and was told she would be better off quitting her job and going on benefits as well!!!

Its all good now he's got a job again, but it just goes to show that most people would be better off quitting their jobs and claiming.

Why don't you then?

The guy put a good argument up and we have 2 muppets posting crap. its muppet like those thats spoiling the forum
Havnt you got nothing better to do with your life instead of picking on punctuation on internet forums:loopy::huh:
or the resident dole scrounger on here whos wants the best council house for herself and family, And not let the hard working people a better place to live

You think that's a good argument? Sheeesh...some people.

I can see where the OP is coming from, I know it's an age old argument and to be truthful I'm not sure how I would feel about it if I myself were on benefits but occasionally I get annoyed that people who receive benefits can then get extra "benefits" as a result.

Recently, my son brought home a letter from school (comprehensive). It was advertising a new type of scheme or such like where, if your children are eligable for free school meals then the child qualifies to attend extra activities through the school. These activities included rock climbing, day trips out, sports activities etc etc.

Now my problem is, my son's friends were able to enrole for theses activities but because my fella is a hard working bloke and doesn't claim benefits, my lad can't join in the fun with his mates.

I know there are people in receipt of benefits who don't think that it's much fun (I'm sure it's not, I wouldn't want to be in that position), and there are many parents who don't chose to be in that position (as there are people who do!), but I know (and I do know) of people that are claiming benefits (some of them no intentions of going into work) and have much more expendable money at the end of the week than hard working families have.

So my point is, don't have the luxury of being able to afford to take our kids out and for the same kind of activities as this scheme offers as after we have paid out our rent for the house, council tax, dinner monies, bills etc etc, we are barely keeping our heads above water, so why don't we qualify for schemes like this, we are just as hard up as a person on benefits its, if not worse.

Well said....The system is all wrong,I was in a similar position to yourself a few yrs ago and Igree thats its not fair at all...

I think what people tend to forget is that if you work you're likely to improve your position and be able to aspire to things like foreign holidays, better living conditions and the trappings of modern day consumerism. It's not easy, I'm not saying it is, but with the application of hard work and ambition just about anything is achievable.

However, living on benefits as a lifestyle choice means that these dreams can only ever be that, dreams.

Watching a documentary or travel show depicting exotic places can mean different things to those in work to those who choose not to work. To the first, it could mean a holiday destination some time in the future. To the latter, it will always remain a TV program.

I can see where the OP is coming from, I know it's an age old argument and to be truthful I'm not sure how I would feel about it if I myself were on benefits but occasionally I get annoyed that people who receive benefits can then get extra "benefits" as a result.

Recently, my son brought home a letter from school (comprehensive). It was advertising a new type of scheme or such like where, if your children are eligable for free school meals then the child qualifies to attend extra activities through the school. These activities included rock climbing, day trips out, sports activities etc etc.

Now my problem is, my son's friends were able to enrole for theses activities but because my fella is a hard working bloke and doesn't claim benefits, my lad can't join in the fun with his mates.

I know there are people in receipt of benefits who don't think that it's much fun (I'm sure it's not, I wouldn't want to be in that position), and there are many parents who don't chose to be in that position (as there are people who do!), but I know (and I do know) of people that are claiming benefits (some of them no intentions of going into work) and have much more expendable money at the end of the week than hard working families have.

So my point is, don't have the luxury of being able to afford to take our kids out and for the same kind of activities as this scheme offers as after we have paid out our rent for the house, council tax, dinner monies, bills etc etc, we are barely keeping our heads above water, so why don't we qualify for schemes like this, we are just as hard up as a person on benefits its, if not worse.

my bold - I do hear what you are saying although one argument that was put to me recently was that if you are claiming benefits you are not allowed to have any savings, so they spend all their money on TVs etc (mass sweeping generalisation, sorry about that) because if they opened a bank savings account they would lose their benefits. Not sure how much truth is in this though to be honest.

Recently, my son brought home a letter from school (comprehensive). It was advertising a new type of scheme or such like where, if your children are eligable for free school meals then the child qualifies to attend extra activities through the school. These activities included rock climbing, day trips out, sports activities etc etc.

Did you know that there is now a scheme to give a Netbook and accessories to the value of £500 to kids who are on free school meals?

Did you know that there is now a scheme to give a Netbook and accessories to the value of £500 to kids who are on free school meals?

Your point being?

Did you know that there is now a scheme to give a Netbook and accessories to the value of £500 to kids who are on free school meals?

Thanx for that :) I feel much better :(

I still feel really strongly on how unfair it all is, this is one of the things that has really gotten to me, I can't tell you how appalled I am with these type of schemes.

I know there will be people on benefits reading this who think I'm just a whining so an so, as like I say there are people who hate being on benefits, infact a friend of mine is a single parent with 3 kids (not through her own choice) and she is so ashamed (I'm not saying for one minute that there should be any shame in it) of being on benefits that she pays for the kids school dinners rather than claim free ones, so yeah there are people who hate it but there are also others who make a career out of it, and enjoy flaunting their new tv's etc.
why are their children different to mine, why do their children deserve days out and activities but mine don't? A family of 5 say, on benefits receive "more" than a family of 5 not on benefits, if you take into consideration the rent/mortgage payments and council tax etc, this I know as fact as yes I know people who receive them and how much they receive.

We all want the best for our kids but these two examples only tell me that kids such as mine and others like them are missing out on things because their parents choose to work or indeed are lucky enough to work but now I am starting to wonder who the lucky ones actually are!

A single parent with 3 kids ( not her own choice) who`s is it then?. did the pixies
bring them.

A few years ago I had to register myself as homeless, aged 20. I was working full time in a very secure job, could pay the rent, bills, council tax, however was told that cos I don't abuse drugs or alcohol, haven't a criminal record, and don't have children, I didn't have a leg to stand on. The council officer asked me "do you have a boyfriend?" When I replied no, and asked for the reason that question was asked, her response was "I was just wondering if you wanted a baby, as you'd get top priority if you are pregnant". I couldn't believe my ears!! Yes, I was irresponsible enough to have got on the wrong side of my mother and get thrown out of home :hihi:, but I wasn't irresponsible enough to just decide to have a baby to get somewhere to live!!

Needless to say, I ended up taking on a private rented flat, the only thing I could afford, that was vile, but it was a roof over my head.

A single parent with 3 kids ( not her own choice) who`s is it then?. did the pixies
bring them.

funny aren't ya?

Just to re-iterate for the cheap seats, she is single "not through her own choice"

Could you type this again with some punctuation? We might understand better what you're trying to say.

Well i can understand it no probs must be you whoos the one thats thick!

Did you know that there is now a scheme to give a Netbook and accessories to the value of £500 to kids who are on free school meals?

I think thats a great idea!
Whats the criteria for selecting the beneficieries..?:)

its no good being on benifits belive me ..ive been workin 20 years i get nothing sorry 64 pound a week then they made me stand 3 days

Gosh you must have been tired after that lol

Did you know that there is now a scheme to give a Netbook and accessories to the value of £500 to kids who are on free school meals?


Its not the only scheme in place though, my son got a PC with a years free broadband last year for being on the Gifted and Talented register :D

its not as simple as that though, there is now a thing in place called LHA, when you are first made redundant you are given the full rent for the first 13 weeks, pvt or council property, after that you are given a rate which 9 times out of ten wont cover the full amount and on top of that council tax is only discounted. so a single person in a property gets £256 a month for food, gas electric travel contribution to rent and contribution to council tax. its NOT an easy ride by any means. now if its a family scenario then im not too sure, i know there are tax credits and stuff.

its no good being on benifits belive me ..ive been workin 20 years i get nothing sorry 64 pound a week then they made me stand 3 days



Did you not request a chair ?


3 days standing is a little harsh in my book

lol some funny come backs lol .truth tho hate not working!

Why don't you then?

Because that would put me on the same bottom feeding line as the benefit cheats.

Now don't get me wrong, not everyone on benefits are bottom feeders, its a decent thing if your stuck for work while you look for more.

Its the scumbags who think its their right to have benefits, without trying to get any jobs or earn a living I have the problem with.

its no good being on benifits belive me ..ive been workin 20 years i get nothing sorry 64 pound a week then they made me stand 3 days

Your mistake was having worked to start off with...

Did you know that there is now a scheme to give a Netbook and accessories to the value of £500 to kids who are on free school meals?

That is typical of the Labour government. They foolishly believe that the way to get people out of poverty is to give them handouts!. Hard work is the only way to get better off. Children should be rewarded for woking hard at school not for getting free school meals but they won't do that because it is not politically correct.

Because that would put me on the same bottom feeding line as the benefit cheats.

Now don't get me wrong, not everyone on benefits are bottom feeders, its a decent thing if your stuck for work while you look for more.

Its the scumbags who think its their right to have benefits, without trying to get any jobs or earn a living I have the problem with.

I totally agree with you.

i heard that govt is thinking to encourage teenage single moms to live under guardians ??/

its no good being on benifits belive me ..ive been workin 20 years i get nothing sorry 64 pound a week then they made me stand 3 days

You are not doing it right

A single parent with 3 kids ( not her own choice) who`s is it then?. did the pixies
bring them.

did you ever stop think why shes on her own maybe her other half passed away think before you pass judgement

did you ever stop think why shes on her own maybe her other half passed away think before you pass judgement
what are the odds on that compare to 3 kids with 3 different fathers

I think what people tend to forget is that if you work you're likely to improve your position and be able to aspire to things like foreign holidays, better living conditions and the trappings of modern day consumerism. It's not easy, I'm not saying it is, but with the application of hard work and ambition just about anything is achievable.

However, living on benefits as a lifestyle choice means that these dreams can only ever be that, dreams.

Watching a documentary or travel show depicting exotic places can mean different things to those in work to those who choose not to work. To the first, it could mean a holiday destination some time in the future. To the latter, it will always remain a TV program.

Tory Blair and labours policy of hiking up council rents, then putting council homes into hands of housing associations means that only the unemployed can afford to rent social housing. These days its a lot cheaper buying then renting.
Its a sad fact but private shareholders are taking social rent money and that income is guaranteed when only people on benefits can afford to rent.
I hope the people who can't read or understand without punctuation get help.

Tory Blair and labours policy of hiking up council rents, then putting council homes into hands of housing associations means that only the unemployed can afford to rent social housing. These days its a lot cheaper buying then renting.
Its a sad fact but private shareholders are taking social rent money and that income is guaranteed when only people on benefits can afford to rent.
I hope the people who can't read or understand without punctuation get help.

Utter rubbish. Good grief, you're dim.

Buying is more expensive than renting.

Because that would put me on the same bottom feeding line as the benefit cheats.

Now don't get me wrong, not everyone on benefits are bottom feeders, its a decent thing if your stuck for work while you look for more.

Its the scumbags who think its their right to have benefits, without trying to get any jobs or earn a living I have the problem with.

Its not as if they have traveled half way round the world to get here, is it.. ? Some people are unemployable , and you should be ashamed of yourself, '' bottom feeders'' . Is this the only way you can feel significant , slagging off the most unfortunate in society ? Poor you!

That is typical of the Labour government. They foolishly believe that the way to get people out of poverty is to give them handouts!. Hard work is the only way to get better off. Children should be rewarded for woking hard at school not for getting free school meals but they won't do that because it is not politically correct.

A4e, gets the handouts not the unemployed. Get real , astonishing. People like this exists!

Buying is more expensive than renting.

Nope not under right to buy, rents are 90pound a week in some housing associations... People Realy want to wake up,. Corruption is every where....... And idiots just don't know, where do you get your views from? Nazis weekly ?

That is typical of the Labour government. They foolishly believe that the way to get people out of poverty is to give them handouts!. Hard work is the only way to get better off. Children should be rewarded for woking hard at school not for getting free school meals but they won't do that because it is not politically correct.

If children are on FSMs, (Free School Meals) then it stands to reason that they are going to be disadvantaged, when compared to their peers who come from a more affluent family.

A more affluent family is going to be more likely to be able to afford a PC/ internet, whereas a family on FSMs, even if they have a gifted child, is not going to be able to provide that for them.

Why should the "poor-but-bright" child be disadvantaged?

Why not give the child the opportunity to achieve within its potential? Isn't that the whole point of things like the "every child matters" philosophy?

Nope not under right to buy, rents are 90pound a week in some housing associations...

For £90 pw you could get a £55000 mortgage which would allow you to buy a 2 bedroom flat or a semi on the Cross.

Not really much of a difference is there?

Group hug.

For £90 pw you could get a £55000 mortgage which would allow you to buy a 2 bedroom flat or a semi on the Cross.

Not really much of a difference is there?

more like 80grand, how can people on the minimum wage afford 90pound a week? They can't ,so they don't. And its not as if there is well paid jobs in Sheffield anyway . So the landlords profit because the poor can afford to work and rent. Brilliant don't you think?

Buying is more expensive than renting.

When interest rates are at an all time low and when renting equates to 100% loss of equity?

Don't lie.

PlainTalker i agree with your last post, I can understand that some people can and will get frustrated but what you have to realise is that most of the people you are talking about have children, and you cant blame the kids for what a parent chooses to do in life!
The Goverment has to help by giving away free things to disadvantaged kids because who else is going to give it them? Computers,days out,free meals,better housing and other things.
Infact there is some old guys(millionaires) who have a sports company in Barnsley and they pay for young kids who cant afford £2 - £3 a week for subs to play football because mum and dad cant afford it, is that a bad thing because working families have to pay? NO

I have been made redundant and yes i have to sign on but i dont get any benefit, my wifes pay covers us both but i sign for my stamp, at the moment we have no money, we cant afford holidays and we dont have any spare money after we payed the mortgage and bills, i am not annoyed or bitter towards anyone else because i cant give my kids everything they want! i know that once i back in work things will be fine.

Please people dont forget the kids that are involved in this.

Why is it that if you work you have not much help, but when on benefits(and no not everyone on benefits is a scrounger) you get the best council houses?

The reason I'm moaning is a couple of family members who work cannot get anything suitable from Sheffield City Housing and they would be paying full rent. What a joke! Why not give priority to people who will pay full rent(not inc the elderly)?

OK. First of all, people who receive benefits also pay full rent. Even though the rent is paid by Housing Benefit, it is still paid in full to Sheffield Homes, so they experience no drop in revenue by letting to people on benefits.

Secondly and far more importantly, you have fallen sucker to the nonsense argument that the shortage of social housing is the fault of benefits claimants. Benefits claimants do not decide how many council homes are available in the region, that's the responsibility of Sheffield Council under guidance from the Government.

There are far too few council homes in Sheffield. Even homeless people, whom society naturally regards as being amongst the most vulnerable, do not get the immediate right to a council home. To be assessed as "high priority" and shunted to the top of the waiting list (which is measured in years), you must be homeless *and* vulnerable. Sheffield Homes does not consider homelessness inherently vulnerable enough to warrant priority allocation. By "vulnerable", they mean above a particular age (which figure escapes me), suffering with ill health, or having children.

The fact of the matter is that the Right To Buy scheme and demolition and clearance of outdated housing, combined with almost no real replacement policy, has ravaged the social housing stock across the country.

Instead of in-fighting with other people who are dependant on social housing, ask; Why has the Government taken the money earned from Right To Buy, and from selling off former housing land to private developers, and not used it to restock social housing to sufficient levels to meet the needs of the people?

-------

"Only 9% of the 15,670 homes built in the [Yorkshire and Humber] region last year were social homes. The Regional Spatial Strategy suggests 30-40% of all homes built should be for social and affordable housing."

source: http://www.housing.org.uk/Uploads/File/North%20regions/Home%20Truths/Yorks%20HT%2009.pdf

What confuses me about the system, is the new houses are built then scumbags and scroats are allowed to have them - meaning they don't look after them.
Why don't the council go around and hand pick people to move onto new estates: people who wash their net curtains and actually have some up, people who don't leave rubbish all over their garden, people who actually give a damn about where they live?
Some donkey decided that low class scumbags have to integrate with the better people who live in council housing, to make it equal and let the scumbags see that they don't 'have' to choose to live the way they do - however, the scumbags want to live the way they do, they like being scruffy and having no self pride and no nice house - they do nasty things to others who have nice things. This means that the rest of the council tenants on that estate have to suffer because the scumbags don't want to change.

Not everyone on benefits are scumbags - the ones who are scumbags are the ones that don't have any pride and want to come off benefits - they are happy scrounging off the state. They think 'why should I work'....Thing is they could make use of the free education given to them (fine education that people come all over the world for) but that's also hard work so they won't do it. They just breed more scumbags and that's the cycle.

Scum breeds scum - scum wants everything for nothing and gets it= no lessons learnt.

I feel more sorry for the elderly in this country than anyone else, they have worked all their lives and get nothing back - except fear of scumbags either robbing, beating or raping them.

I realised a while back that there is no point in getting angry about how things are run in this country, things won't change, your voice means nothing!!! YOU mean nothing (the expenses scandal proved that, if not a million other things)
There is no point in saying 'if you don't say what's wrong, things won't change - things will not change anyway. Unless you are an aristocrat you mean nothing to the Government.
The best thing to do is save lots of money and get out of England!! Id

If children are on FSMs, (Free School Meals) then it stands to reason that they are going to be disadvantaged, when compared to their peers who come from a more affluent family.

A more affluent family is going to be more likely to be able to afford a PC/ internet, whereas a family on FSMs, even if they have a gifted child, is not going to be able to provide that for them.

Why should the "poor-but-bright" child be disadvantaged?

Why not give the child the opportunity to achieve within its potential? Isn't that the whole point of things like the "every child matters" philosophy?

There are alot of families out there that do work, but can still not afford to buy pc etc, these families live along side the benefit claimers and see that there standard of living in some cases is far better than there's.

This equipment if it is necessary should be given out to everyone below a certain annual pay.

Personnally I dont think anyone should get anything, its just the way the world is if you can not afford it then you dont have it.

There are alot of families out there that do work, but can still not afford to buy pc etc, these families live along side the benefit claimers and see that there standard of living in some cases is far better than there's.

This equipment if it is necessary should be given out to everyone below a certain annual pay.

Personnally I dont think anyone should get anything, its just the way the world is if you can not afford it then you dont have it.

Spot on! get a job,save up and you can have what you want without having to scrounge it from the taxes of other hard working people.

For £90 pw you could get a £55000 mortgage which would allow you to buy a 2 bedroom flat or a semi on the Cross.

Not really much of a difference is there?

WOW, so annual earnings of £4,680 means that you can borrow £55,000?

They've really relaxed the lending criteria!

WOW, so annual earnings of £4,680 means that you can borrow £55,000?

They've really relaxed the lending criteria!

No, a poster was saying that rents in some HA properties are £90 a week.

There are alot of families out there that do work, but can still not afford to buy pc etc, these families live along side the benefit claimers and see that there standard of living in some cases is far better than there's.

This equipment if it is necessary should be given out to everyone below a certain annual pay.

Personnally I dont think anyone should get anything, its just the way the world is if you can not afford it then you dont have it.

In a lot of cases families will have bought stuff with credit cards or loans. You cant just assume that everything someone owns is bought with their income. But I do agree. Everyone can use the PCs at the library.

There is another excellent article here about the current social housing crisis in the climate of recession: http://www.nlgn.org.uk/public/articles/council-housing-back-to-the-future-a-new-role-for-local-authorities-in-21st-century-social-housing/

"If local authorities could keep the money they pay to the Treasury for all rents through HRA, it would mean an additional £450 million per year for councils to invest in better homes for their residents. It could enable a concerted approach to alleviating local housing pressures and responding to local need."

"Other local authorities are using imaginative ways to kick start house-building in their local areas. Sheffield City Council are planning to form a Local Housing Company to build 2,500 homes over the next 10-15 years."

"Currently 75% of the capital goes to the Treasury if councils sell off housing. If this changed, and the government bought in the right for councils to keep the money, as they have suggested with the Right to Buy sales, it might encourage councils to sell off more homes to private tenants and achieve more mixed communities."

Not just the library. Many schools do after-school clubs where kids can do their homework.

I have mixed feelings about the free netbook scheme. While it does help those disadvantaged, it doesn't help the kids whose parents are working hard with one or two jobs earning minimum wage. They're just equally as deserving, but don't get a chance.

I'd rather see the money going on enhancing school equipment, especially when I know of someone who was given a Netbook and uses it purely for MSN in the evening.

The criteria for free Netbooks should be conditional, and not given out if the parents can afford the full Sky package!

my wife and i both work full time and by the end of the money there is always too much month left! I know of other people who by being on benefits opens up a whole world of other add on stuff that you can get for free or at discount.

I proved this by looking in to what i could get off the price of loft insulation or cavity wall insulation, seems like if we are disabled, on benefits or really old we could get it for next to nowt or in some cases for free but you can get bugger all off if your work so HOW FAIR IS THAT???:huh: sometimes i wonder if its worthwhile going to work at all....

My sister is on benefit...she has 2 children by 2 different fathers...neither of them pay towards the kids...my sisters choice to be on her own..the last childs dad offered to stick around..my sister told him not to bother...unfortunately the last child has learning difficulties and one or two other problems..so my sister gets extra money for this child..shes in council housing and all in all each week she collects £300 just for one week...that doesnt include the housing benefit or council tax benefit either...now my hubby works as a coach driver...which doesnt pay the minimum wage..he gets a daily rate...some days hes out the legal time to be able to drive thru the days..which is 15hrs with his breaks etc...and on these days my hubby is workin for £3.50 per hour...we live in private rented accomodation where we pay full rent..full council tax...and we havent had a holiday for 20 odd yrs cos we cant afford one..we have a clapped out old car to get him to work and back...we struggled very much when our kids were younger...we did get family credit back then..which wasnt that much actually..and we are still struggling now...but hubby wants to work..he doesnt want to be out of work..we would prob be better off actually cos then we would get some of the rent and council tax paid for us...but he chooses to work..he has to work...what I'm tryin to get at is my sis..and I love her dearly..gets all this money a week..her house is absolutely immaculate..she can afford to replace all her things like furniture..appliances as and when she wants..not because theyre broken..just because she fancies a change..on the other hand we're strugglin like mad to make ends meet..dont get any help cos hubby works... and we're far far worse off for it..this annoys me...its the system whats all wrong to me...and no I'm not jealous of my sister if you think I am..just hacked off by it all...so I have to agree that hardworking people get nothing... Phew!!!!! feel better now I got that off my chest.....!!!

I fully see where your coming from.

It seems I slug my guts out at work all week, to struggle to pay the bills and have no money for luxuries, when I could probably go on benefits and be better off!

A friend of mine at work, her husband was made redundant, so he went on benefits, she contacted the council to see what help they could get and was told she would be better off quitting her job and going on benefits as well!!!

Its all good now he's got a job again, but it just goes to show that most people would be better off quitting their jobs and claiming.

fully agree with that

its no good being on benifits belive me ..ive been workin 20 years i get nothing sorry 64 pound a week then they made me stand 3 days

i wasnt having a dig at people who claim benifits as such, i just meant that people who work and have to pay full rent out of there own wages should get offered a decent place to live

OK. First of all, people who receive benefits also pay full rent. Even though the rent is paid by Housing Benefit, it is still paid in full to Sheffield Homes, so they experience no drop in revenue by letting to people on benefits.

Secondly and far more importantly, you have fallen sucker to the nonsense argument that the shortage of social housing is the fault of benefits claimants. Benefits claimants do not decide how many council homes are available in the region, that's the responsibility of Sheffield Council under guidance from the Government.

There are far too few council homes in Sheffield. Even homeless people, whom society naturally regards as being amongst the most vulnerable, do not get the immediate right to a council home. To be assessed as "high priority" and shunted to the top of the waiting list (which is measured in years), you must be homeless *and* vulnerable. Sheffield Homes does not consider homelessness inherently vulnerable enough to warrant priority allocation. By "vulnerable", they mean above a particular age (which figure escapes me), suffering with ill health, or having children.

The fact of the matter is that the Right To Buy scheme and demolition and clearance of outdated housing, combined with almost no real replacement policy, has ravaged the social housing stock across the country.

Instead of in-fighting with other people who are dependant on social housing, ask; Why has the Government taken the money earned from Right To Buy, and from selling off former housing land to private developers, and not used it to restock social housing to sufficient levels to meet the needs of the people?

-------

"Only 9% of the 15,670 homes built in the [Yorkshire and Humber] region last year were social homes. The Regional Spatial Strategy suggests 30-40% of all homes built should be for social and affordable housing."

source: http://www.housing.org.uk/Uploads/File/North%20regions/Home%20Truths/Yorks%20HT%2009.pdf

ok, even if housing benifit pay the rent, who pays housing benifit?
could it be us council tax payers?

My sister is on benefit...she has 2 children by 2 different fathers...neither of them pay towards the kids...my sisters choice to be on her own..the last childs dad offered to stick around..my sister told him not to bother...unfortunately the last child has learning difficulties and one or two other problems..so my sister gets extra money for this child..shes in council housing and all in all each week she collects £300 just for one week...that doesnt include the housing benefit or council tax benefit either...now my hubby works as a coach driver...which doesnt pay the minimum wage..he gets a daily rate...some days hes out the legal time to be able to drive thru the days..which is 15hrs with his breaks etc...and on these days my hubby is workin for £3.50 per hour...we live in private rented accomodation where we pay full rent..full council tax...and we havent had a holiday for 20 odd yrs cos we cant afford one..we have a clapped out old car to get him to work and back...we struggled very much when our kids were younger...we did get family credit back then..which wasnt that much actually..and we are still struggling now...but hubby wants to work..he doesnt want to be out of work..we would prob be better off actually cos then we would get some of the rent and council tax paid for us...but he chooses to work..he has to work...what I'm tryin to get at is my sis..and I love her dearly..gets all this money a week..her house is absolutely immaculate..she can afford to replace all her things like furniture..appliances as and when she wants..not because theyre broken..just because she fancies a change..on the other hand we're strugglin like mad to make ends meet..dont get any help cos hubby works... and we're far far worse off for it..this annoys me...its the system whats all wrong to me...and no I'm not jealous of my sister if you think I am..just hacked off by it all...so I have to agree that hardworking people get nothing... Phew!!!!! feel better now I got that off my chest.....!!!


wow that took a lot of reading but I can see what you mean the system allows this so i dont blame your sister at all. I think it all stinks to be honest. Bugs you when you go out and do a hard days work and have to pay full for everything and there are people out there getting lots of help who dont really lift a finger!

ok, even if housing benifit pay the rent, who pays housing benifit?
could it be us council tax payers?
That's not the point we were discussing. The council don't lose housing revenue by letting to benefits claimants.

People claiming benefits do not disappear if they don't get into social housing, by the way. They go into privately rented accommodation, usually far more expensive, which the Government pays for. Why should Government paid benefits be increased unnecessarily and go into the pocket of the private sector?

For clarity I would like to officially confirm the correct spelling of "BENEFIT"

what are the odds on that compare to 3 kids with 3 different fathers

sorry i did not know that i stand corrected
but who are we to judge we dont know her life .

I think what people tend to forget is that if you work you're likely to improve your position and be able to aspire to things like foreign holidays, better living conditions and the trappings of modern day consumerism. It's not easy, I'm not saying it is, but with the application of hard work and ambition just about anything is achievable.

However, living on benefits as a lifestyle choice means that these dreams can only ever be that, dreams.

Watching a documentary or travel show depicting exotic places can mean different things to those in work to those who choose not to work. To the first, it could mean a holiday destination some time in the future. To the latter, it will always remain a TV program.

If a person chooses not to work then why the hell should they expect hard working people to keep them!!. People who won't work should get no benefits or a council house and be left to starve on the streets.

PlainTalker i agree with your last post, I can understand that some people can and will get frustrated but what you have to realise is that most of the people you are talking about have children, and you cant blame the kids for what a parent chooses to do in life!
The Goverment has to help by giving away free things to disadvantaged kids because who else is going to give it them? Computers,days out,free meals,better housing and other things.
Infact there is some old guys(millionaires) who have a sports company in Barnsley and they pay for young kids who cant afford £2 - £3 a week for subs to play football because mum and dad cant afford it, is that a bad thing because working families have to pay? NO

I have been made redundant and yes i have to sign on but i dont get any benefit, my wifes pay covers us both but i sign for my stamp, at the moment we have no money, we cant afford holidays and we dont have any spare money after we payed the mortgage and bills, i am not annoyed or bitter towards anyone else because i cant give my kids everything they want! i know that once i back in work things will be fine.

Please people dont forget the kids that are involved in this.

I can see your points but i do really believe that if you worked upto the point of being made redundant then must have paid tax etc so i don't see why your wife working should come into it. You should be entitled to claim on your own. It's not as if married people get any tax breaks anymore so why should it be used against you when you need help. I do think the system is very unfair.

My sister is on benefit...she has 2 children by 2 different fathers...neither of them pay towards the kids...my sisters choice to be on her own..the last childs dad offered to stick around..my sister told him not to bother...unfortunately the last child has learning difficulties and one or two other problems..so my sister gets extra money for this child..shes in council housing and all in all each week she collects £300 just for one week...that doesnt include the housing benefit or council tax benefit either...now my hubby works as a coach driver...which doesnt pay the minimum wage..he gets a daily rate...some days hes out the legal time to be able to drive thru the days..which is 15hrs with his breaks etc...and on these days my hubby is workin for £3.50 per hour...we live in private rented accomodation where we pay full rent..full council tax...and we havent had a holiday for 20 odd yrs cos we cant afford one..we have a clapped out old car to get him to work and back...we struggled very much when our kids were younger...we did get family credit back then..which wasnt that much actually..and we are still struggling now...but hubby wants to work..he doesnt want to be out of work..we would prob be better off actually cos then we would get some of the rent and council tax paid for us...but he chooses to work..he has to work...what I'm tryin to get at is my sis..and I love her dearly..gets all this money a week..her house is absolutely immaculate..she can afford to replace all her things like furniture..appliances as and when she wants..not because theyre broken..just because she fancies a change..on the other hand we're strugglin like mad to make ends meet..dont get any help cos hubby works... and we're far far worse off for it..this annoys me...its the system whats all wrong to me...and no I'm not jealous of my sister if you think I am..just hacked off by it all...so I have to agree that hardworking people get nothing... Phew!!!!! feel better now I got that off my chest.....!!!

Poppy, I'm sure your sister would far rather not have the expense of catering for the needs of a child with special needs, if she could have the choice.

I have a feeling that if you had a child with special needs you'd get certain benefits to help deal with the costs.

if your husband is getting under the minimum wage, then the firm which employs him is acting illegally, as by law you cannot receive less than XYZ an hour if you are over 21 (I forget what the exact figure is)

If what you mean is that he's not working enough hours to receive the equivalent of national minimum wage, then he should be entitled to certain things like tax credits, or, if his hours are less than (whatever) a week, he should be able to claim Income Support, which will get you a rent rebate on top of that, at least. (unless you are earning, too, and your contribution to the household's earnings take you above that level.)

I can see your points but i do really believe that if you worked upto the point of being made redundant then must have paid tax etc so i don't see why your wife working should come into it. You should be entitled to claim on your own. It's not as if married people get any tax breaks anymore so why should it be used against you when you need help. I do think the system is very unfair.

If the state says that a household of X persons requires £Y amount of money to live on, (say, a household of 2 persons needs, erm, what??? let's say £205.00 as an arbitrary figure?)

It doesn't matter if the husband earns £205.00, and the wife £00.00.

it doesn't matter if the wife earns £205.00 and the Husband £00.00.

Ditto, if the husband earns £105.00 and the wife earns £100.00.

If the combined total income is £205 or above, (the arbitrary figure I stated above) then they have enough to live on.

My husband receives incapacity benefit due to having an accident at work, and I work part time as we have 2 kids. We live in a Sheffield homes property and we have to pay our own rent and council tax, we get no help so not everyone who is on benefits gets a "free house"

i didnt think it was that easy to get benefits if you quit your job, i thought they suspended your benefits for so many weeks, not that i claim benefits, ive always worked, i just quit my job through having an unfair boss but i managed to get another job straight away.

That is typical of the Labour government. They foolishly believe that the way to get people out of poverty is to give them handouts!. Hard work is the only way to get better off. Children should be rewarded for woking hard at school not for getting free school meals but they won't do that because it is not politically correct.

Too right.

School dinners are between £1.80-2.50 a day. The price of a pint.

Do you see a sign down the pub 'free pints for those on a low income'.

If someone can afford a pint of beer then they can afford to feed their children.

The Government is in a sticky position. It knows there are people in this world who would rather buy a pint of beer than feed their children. The easy solution is to feed the child for free and let the adult buy the beer. Does not solve any problems.

If children are on FSMs, (Free School Meals) then it stands to reason that they are going to be disadvantaged, when compared to their peers who come from a more affluent family.

A more affluent family is going to be more likely to be able to afford a PC/ internet, whereas a family on FSMs, even if they have a gifted child, is not going to be able to provide that for them.

What is it with this whole 'laptop' giveaway? I believe they tried this in Oldham and within 48 hours the local Cash Convertor was full of laptops.

A child is as good as the family supporting them. When I was at school many of the kids on free school meals were the ones who disrupted the lessons. So I had to pay for my own lunch and put up with their juvenile behaviour all day, yet they got their lunch paid for. They rarely got expelled because it was deemed they were better off in school than wandering the streets at home.

It is plain to see the current system does not work. Even why a child has an additional need which sometimes has been caused by the way the child has been brought up, they still get more money. Basically because it's a choice of let them grow up to become a problem in society or give them money in the hope they won't become a problem in society.

My husband receives incapacity benefit due to having an accident at work, and I work part time as we have 2 kids. We live in a Sheffield homes property and we have to pay our own rent and council tax, we get no help so not everyone who is on benefits gets a "free house"

What do you mean by "we get no help" - you've just said you get incapacity benefit. Do you also get child benefit? and tax credits? You should.

ok, even if housing benifit pay the rent, who pays housing benifit?
could it be us council tax payers?

No. Council tax goes to pay a small proportion of local services such as bin collection.

If children are on FSMs, (Free School Meals) then it stands to reason that they are going to be disadvantaged, when compared to their peers who come from a more affluent family.

A more affluent family is going to be more likely to be able to afford a PC/ internet, whereas a family on FSMs, even if they have a gifted child, is not going to be able to provide that for them.

What is it with this whole 'laptop' giveaway? I believe they tried this in Oldham and within 48 hours the local Cash Convertor was full of laptops.

A child is as good as the family supporting them. When I was at school many of the kids on free school meals were the ones who disrupted the lessons. So I had to pay for my own lunch and put up with their juvenile behaviour all day, yet they got their lunch paid for. They rarely got expelled because it was deemed they were better off in school than wandering the streets at home.

It is plain to see the current system does not work. Even why a child has an additional need which sometimes has been caused by the way the child has been brought up, they still get more money. Basically because it's a choice of let them grow up to become a problem in society or give them money in the hope they won't become a problem in society.

(my bold)

So the authorities say, "Little Arbuthnot is naughty and disrupptive, I now what he needs:- -no, forget a supportive environment etc... lets give him FSMs" do they?

"Peregrine's a good boy, lets punish him by forcing him to pay for his school meals?"

*hands G4I an alarm clock, and a pack of ground coffee, for a sniff*

Too right.

School dinners are between £1.80-2.50 a day. The price of a pint.

Do you see a sign down the pub 'free pints for those on a low income'.

If someone can afford a pint of beer then they can afford to feed their children.

The Government is in a sticky position. It knows there are people in this world who would rather buy a pint of beer than feed their children. The easy solution is to feed the child for free and let the adult buy the beer. Does not solve any problems.

The whole concept of School Meals, and free School Meals in particular was that for some children it was the only opportunity for them to have food that was filling, nourishing, and hot. For some schoolchildren, the school lunch was the only food they had. (in fact for some previous neighbours of mine, not so long ago, it WAS the only food the kids got. I remember their poor little girl going to school with Wellington boots, trimmed down as "shoes", and a pair of boy's football shorts for knickers. That's how bad it was, and this disgraceful event happened, even within my stepson's lifetime.)

I know some parents who have money for four packs of cigarettes between them, per day, yet haven't got money for milk and bread to feed their child.

The whole concept of School Meals, and free School Meals in particular was that for some children it was the only opportunity for them to have food that was filling, nourishing, and hot. For some schoolchildren, the school lunch was the only food they had. (in fact for some previous neighbours of mine, not so long ago, it WAS the only food the kids got. I remember their poor little girl going to school with Wellington boots, trimmed down as "shoes", and a pair of boy's football shorts for knickers. That's how bad it was, and this disgraceful event happened, even within my stepson's lifetime.)

I know some parents who have money for four packs of cigarettes between them, per day, yet haven't got money for milk and bread to feed their child.

If food vouchers were given out instead of cash benefits, this problem would avoidable.

The whole concept of School Meals, and free School Meals in particular was that for some children it was the only opportunity for them to have food that was filling, nourishing, and hot. For some schoolchildren, the school lunch was the only food they had. (in fact for some previous neighbours of mine, not so long ago, it WAS the only food the kids got. I remember their poor little girl going to school with Wellington boots, trimmed down as "shoes", and a pair of boy's football shorts for knickers. That's how bad it was, and this disgraceful event happened, even within my stepson's lifetime.)

I know some parents who have money for four packs of cigarettes between them, per day, yet haven't got money for milk and bread to feed their child.

Did the parents of this child work?. I bet the parents had money for beer and cigarettes.

If food vouchers were given out instead of cash benefits, this problem would avoidable.

I fully agree with you.

The whole concept of School Meals, and free School Meals in particular was that for some children it was the only opportunity for them to have food that was filling, nourishing, and hot. For some schoolchildren, the school lunch was the only food they had. (in fact for some previous neighbours of mine, not so long ago, it WAS the only food the kids got. I remember their poor little girl going to school with Wellington boots, trimmed down as "shoes", and a pair of boy's football shorts for knickers. That's how bad it was, and this disgraceful event happened, even within my stepson's lifetime.)

I know some parents who have money for four packs of cigarettes between them, per day, yet haven't got money for milk and bread to feed their child.

And that is the problem!

It's like the whole fiasco with free swimming. Some children in poor areas of Sheffield don't go swimming. Cost is between £1.50-£3 (again the price of a pint). For some children they don't go because their families would rather spend that money in the pub than going swimming. Labour have come along with a solution to this - lets make swimming free. What a 'great' idea - the families can continue to spend the money in the pub and someone else will pay for the child to swim. Does this solve anything? Even when the plan is rejected by the Lib Dems a group of Labour councillors set their own project up in the North of Sheffield. Low and behold families come onboard saying how expensive swimming is and how they struggle to afford it.

If food vouchers were given out instead of cash benefits, this problem would avoidable.

Unfortunately this has created a black market. The vouchers are not for lottery, beer or cigarettes. But people buy the vouchers off others, say £30 of vouchers for £25, in order for the person who had received the vouchers to have cash for beer / cigarettes.

Unfortunately this has created a black market. The vouchers are not for lottery, beer or cigarettes. But people buy the vouchers off others, say £30 of vouchers for £25, in order for the person who had received the vouchers to have cash for beer / cigarettes.

Yes I can imagine, people always try to play the system for their own benefit, it is human nature.

Maybe giving out the food, rather than vouchers could work. But I suppose even then, people serving the food would exploit their position.

(Your previous post says swimming is £1.50-£3, I pay £4 at ponds forge) Where is it £1.50? - I could go 2.66 times more often :hihi:

Did the parents of this child work?. I bet the parents had money for beer and cigarettes.

The father was a bit of a "Useless Eustace". As my mother would have said, there was more work in a Junior Disprin than there was in him. I can't vouch for any beer drinking, but yes, I remember they certainly did smoke.

I went without, to make sure my step-lad had what he needed (not necessarily what he wanted, mind you!) in terms of food and clothing etc, and it used to cut me up to see this little girl in the school yard with him, looking so bedraggled and neglected.

(Your previous post says swimming is £1.50-£3, I pay £4 at ponds forge) Where is it £1.50? - I could go 2.66 times more often :hihi:

The whole swimming fiasco was free swimming for under 16s and over 65s for council run pools - basic pools, no flumes, no slides, just a pool. The cost varies but with a Slice card (all young people can apply for one along with certain aduls) children are £1.50 and adults £1.90. Even if the adult doesn't qualify for a slice card than the price is only £2.90.

Ponds Forge is run by Sheffield International Venues and not under direct council control, so doesn't qualify for the Slice scheme or the free swimming scheme if it had been introduced.

What good is it giving people something for free when to buy it only costs £1.50? People become dependant on these handouts and key issues are never tackled or solved. So instead of people trying to tackle the key issues we have a group of Labour councillors attacking the Lib Dems saying that it is a travesty that people are being denied access to free swimming. Surely they can use their time for something better in those communities?

If food vouchers were given out instead of cash benefits, this problem would avoidable.

And thats exactly how free school meals work. No cash benefits, but children in very low income families can have a mid day meal - free. It might be the only decent bit of nourishment they get all day. I don't believe in penalising children just because they may have incapable or irresponsible parents.

And thats exactly how free school meals work. No cash benefits, but children in very low income families can have a mid day meal - free. It might be the only decent bit of nourishment they get all day. I don't believe in penalising children just because they may have incapable or irresponsible parents.

But considering the amount of benefits some people receive could they not afford £2 a day. Or even put together a sandwich, some fruit and a drink (even cheaper)?

Children should not be penalised but why do we give parents an easy way out by providing free meals? The parents are not being educated and this cycle continues. Many schools work with parents to educate them about healthy dinners.

What do you mean by "we get no help" - you've just said you get incapacity benefit. Do you also get child benefit? and tax credits? You should.

Yes we get incap benefit and child benefit and tax creds but people seem to think that everyone on benefits gets their rents paid for, we pay full rent, I'm not complaining, I'd rather is be like that.
My husband is training in a new field of work (less meanual due to accident) and on a college course so good luck to him and us, not everyone is a scrounger on benefits, some of us are only claiming what were entitled to and looking to the future:)

If food vouchers were given out instead of cash benefits, this problem would avoidable.

Actually it would not, it was tried in America and people sold the food stamps to loan sharks for peanuts so they ended up worse of than to begin with, all sorts of things have been tried but have failed.
The other thing is that people who had always worked tended to be to proud and would not use the stamps they got.

The people who annoy me on Benefits are young single people who have no interest in work but continue to get benefits.

From my own point of view i hate going to the Jobcentre, it makes me feel low and ashamed, the staff are rude and talk to you like sh88.
I even have a friend that got made redundant and he had been saving to pay for his daughters wedding but once the benefits agency knew he was told he could not claim anything! he has to have less than £2500 pound in his bank to claim? Why should he be punished? him and his wife live almost on bread and jam so he can pay for his daughters wedding.
Worked for 22yrs solid saves for his daughters wedding while paying tax, now he has to spend whats he saved. shocking!!!

Actually it would not, it was tried in America and people sold the food stamps to loan sharks for peanuts so they ended up worse of than to begin with, all sorts of things have been tried but have failed.
The other thing is that people who had always worked tended to be to proud and would not use the stamps they got.

The people who annoy me on Benefits are young single people who have no interest in work but continue to get benefits.

From my own point of view i hate going to the Jobcentre, it makes me feel low and ashamed, the staff are rude and talk to you like sh88.
I even have a friend that got made redundant and he had been saving to pay for his daughters wedding but once the benefits agency knew he was told he could not claim anything! he has to have less than £2500 pound in his bank to claim? Why should he be punished? him and his wife live almost on bread and jam so he can pay for his daughters wedding.
Worked for 22yrs solid saves for his daughters wedding while paying tax, now he has to spend whats he saved. shocking!!!

I agree with you. It annoys me when old people who own their own home have to sell it to pay for their care, whereas people who live in council houses get their care paid for them. The system in this country doesn't really encourage people to make something of their lives because you get punished if you have savings. People who fritter away their money on booze & fags get every benefit there is. Another thing that gets me is that if you have more than £6000 in savings they deduct money off benefits but people with children can earn up to £50,000 a year and claim tax credits. It is a crazy system.

Actually it would not, it was tried in America and people sold the food stamps to loan sharks for peanuts so they ended up worse of than to begin with, all sorts of things have been tried but have failed.
The other thing is that people who had always worked tended to be to proud and would not use the stamps they got.

The people who annoy me on Benefits are young single people who have no interest in work but continue to get benefits.

From my own point of view i hate going to the Jobcentre, it makes me feel low and ashamed, the staff are rude and talk to you like sh88.
I even have a friend that got made redundant and he had been saving to pay for his daughters wedding but once the benefits agency knew he was told he could not claim anything! he has to have less than £2500 pound in his bank to claim? Why should he be punished? him and his wife live almost on bread and jam so he can pay for his daughters wedding.
Worked for 22yrs solid saves for his daughters wedding while paying tax, now he has to spend whats he saved. shocking!!!

you'll have to explain to me, as it's a bit lost on me, about this odd concept called "prioritising":- What exactly *is* more important? Paying your way, in rent/mortgage and food etc or the daughter's wedding? how exactly does her wedding dress or the reception buffet pay the rent or mortgage?

there is such a thing called contribution based jobseekers based soley on national insurance contributions and not on savings....

Actually it would not, it was tried in America and people sold the food stamps to loan sharks for peanuts so they ended up worse of than to begin with, all sorts of things have been tried but have failed.
The other thing is that people who had always worked tended to be to proud and would not use the stamps they got.

The people who annoy me on Benefits are young single people who have no interest in work but continue to get benefits.

From my own point of view i hate going to the Jobcentre, it makes me feel low and ashamed, the staff are rude and talk to you like sh88.
I even have a friend that got made redundant and he had been saving to pay for his daughters wedding but once the benefits agency knew he was told he could not claim anything! he has to have less than £2500 pound in his bank to claim? Why should he be punished? him and his wife live almost on bread and jam so he can pay for his daughters wedding.
Worked for 22yrs solid saves for his daughters wedding while paying tax, now he has to spend whats he saved. shocking!!!

i agree totally. I think it is wrong that people who work all their lives then get made redundant or lose their job due to illness then have to live off their savings. Why should they. I know people who have never worked for years and just live off benefits. The system is all wrong. I don't think genuine people should be penalised but there are obviously people living off benefits who can work in some capacity and more needs to be done to get them back to work and contributing to society.

Yes we get incap benefit and child benefit and tax creds but people seem to think that everyone on benefits gets their rents paid for, we pay full rent, I'm not complaining, I'd rather is be like that.
My husband is training in a new field of work (less meanual due to accident) and on a college course so good luck to him and us, not everyone is a scrounger on benefits, some of us are only claiming what were entitled to and looking to the future:)

Of course you're entitled to it (and I'm glad you're getting it because it will really help). you might also be getting extra subsidy from the state with this college course instead of having to pay the full market rate.

It just highlights a common theme on Sheffield Forum, where so many people are happy to slate "other" people for a lifestyle not completely different to their own.

Maybe the title of this thread should be "hardworking people get lots from the State, actaully."

I have found this article about how benefits make people lazy. It is a very interesting & truthful read.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1219132/TOM-UTLEY-Im-laziest-man-Earth-But-boss-offered-slash-hours-taught-lot-work-ethic.html

I have found this article about how benefits make people lazy. It is a very interesting & truthful read.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1219132/TOM-UTLEY-Im-laziest-man-Earth-But-boss-offered-slash-hours-taught-lot-work-ethic.html

It's in the Daily Mail: it's neither truthful nor interesting. it's written by a man who's rich enough to only work one day a week.

It's in the Daily Mail: it's neither truthful nor interesting. it's written by a man who's rich enough to only work one day a week.

It is true what it says about the decline of the work ethic & there no longer being a stigma to being on benefits.

Of course you're entitled to it (and I'm glad you're getting it because it will really help). you might also be getting extra subsidy from the state with this college course instead of having to pay the full market rate.

It just highlights a common theme on Sheffield Forum, where so many people are happy to slate "other" people for a lifestyle not completely different to their own.

Maybe the title of this thread should be "hardworking people get lots from the State, actaully."


Yes my husband got his work placement and college course through Shaw Trust.
It's just a shame that certain people on benefits don't use Shaw Trust etc to help them gain employment and knowledge etc so that they can gain employment again in new fields. Some people are willing to stay on benefits, sad but true.

i agree totally. I think it is wrong that people who work all their lives then get made redundant or lose their job due to illness then have to live off their savings. Why should they. I know people who have never worked for years and just live off benefits. The system is all wrong. I don't think genuine people should be penalised but there are obviously people living off benefits who can work in some capacity and more needs to be done to get them back to work and contributing to society.

Sorry? What on Earth are you talking about?

How dare people save up for a rainy day, and then have to dip into those savings because there's a monsoon happening?

I don't quite get your thinking...

Why should he be punished? him and his wife live almost on bread and jam so he can pay for his daughters wedding.
Worked for 22yrs solid saves for his daughters wedding while paying tax, now he has to spend whats he saved. shocking!!!


and why should he get given the money for nothing when he has it in his bank to live off?, just because it was saved for another purpose dosnt mean it shouldnt be used for mortgage/rent or food etc! I keep trying to save for loads of stuff but mortgage needs paying and we keep needing to go buy food etc.. thats just the way it is

It is true what it says about the decline of the work ethic & there no longer being a stigma to being on benefits.


yeah its becoming the "norm" now that you get given money and dosnt really matter if you dont work anymore

Plain talker the weddding has been planned for the last 2 years thats why! plus he did not expect to lose his job, had he still been working he would have used his wages to live on and the savings to pay for the wedding.
Andy why should he not get anything if he has saving's?? The guy has worked for most of his life paying into the system, he fought in the faulkland's war and the first attempt to oust Sadam in Kuwait, the first time he wants something back he gets knocked back!
His Daughter has told him she will postpone the wedding but he wont have it and i dont blame him one bit.
I am sure the decent people will understand that last bit.

Plain talker the weddding has been planned for the last 2 years thats why! plus he did not expect to lose his job, had he still been working he would have used his wages to live on and the savings to pay for the wedding.
Andy why should he not get anything if he has saving's?? The guy has worked for most of his life paying into the system, he fought in the faulkland's war and the first attempt to oust Sadam in Kuwait, the first time he wants something back he gets knocked back!
His Daughter has told him she will postpone the wedding but he wont have it and i dont blame him one bit.
I am sure the decent people will understand that last bit.

It doesn't matter if the wedding has been planned since the daughter's birth. If he has X amount, and the rules say he can only claim if he has Y amount, then he's got to live on that.

He could be saving up for a yacht, a car, a hifi, double glazing, or anything, the fact remains that whatever it was being saved up for, he is expected to use his savings.

They aren't singling him out, the rule applies across the board. anyone claiming with more than the stipulated amount will have the same response:- "live on that."

Sorry? What on Earth are you talking about?

How dare people save up for a rainy day, and then have to dip into those savings because there's a monsoon happening?

I don't quite get your thinking...

i am merely saying that it doesnt seem fair that some people work hard and save and therefore when they cannot work anymore they are expected to use their savings even though they have paid into the system all during their working lives. Whilst there are others in society who choose not to contribute and get benefits even though they have never paid anything into the system, and i am talking about people who can get work of some description but choose not to and not the genuinely sick people who cannot work. If this doesn't fit in with your thinking then fine, you have your opinions and i have mine.

i am merely saying that it doesnt seem fair that some people work hard and save and therefore when they cannot work anymore they are expected to use their savings even though they have paid into the system all during their working lives. Whilst there are others in society who choose not to contribute and get benefits even though they have never paid anything into the system, and i am talking about people who can get work of some description but choose not to and not the genuinely sick people who cannot work. If this doesn't fit in with your thinking then fine, you have your opinions and i have mine.

I totally agree with you.

People don't get the best council housing because they are on benefits. Whether they are on benefits or not is irrelevant. People usually get council housing because they are homeless and in priority need, or are disabled, or have serious mental health problems, or are overcrowded. Although some of these people will be on benefits, it is their other circumstances which make them able to get council housing.

Because hardly any council properties have been built in Sheffield for 30 years, and because over 40,000 were sold, the remainder tend to be rationed to those in greatest need. Just be grateful that you're not so up against it that your last recourse is council housing.

Andy why should he not get anything if he has saving's?? The guy has worked for most of his life paying into the system, he fought in the faulkland's war and the first attempt to oust Sadam in Kuwait, the first time he wants something back he gets knocked back!
His Daughter has told him she will postpone the wedding but he wont have it and i dont blame him one bit.
I am sure the decent people will understand that last bit.


I dont really understand why you thing the tax payer should keep him while he has money in the bank, I have also paid taxes all my life and am struggling to save up for things but i have to pay for stuff! thats just the way it is

i am merely saying that it doesnt seem fair that some people work hard and save and therefore when they cannot work anymore they are expected to use their savings

isnt this why you have critical illness insurance?:loopy:

isnt this why you have critical illness insurance?:loopy:

If you took out critical illness insurance as well as all the other insurances you have to take out you'd have no money at all.
Its not really worth saving at all is it really. We all might as well spend it all while we are working for it (if there is any left) then let the government keep us when something happens.

If you took out critical illness insurance as well as all the other insurances you have to take out you'd have no money at all.
Its not really worth saving at all is it really. We all might as well spend it all while we are working for it (if there is any left) then let the government keep us when something happens.

thats just the attitude this thread is going on about, why should us tax payers pay for the likes of people with that attitude?

thats just the attitude this thread is going on about, why should us tax payers pay for the likes of people with that attitude?

No one pays for me mate, i have only been out of work 3 months my whole working life and that was when i first left school so when you talk about us taxpayers i am one of them.

No one pays for me mate, i have only been out of work 3 months my whole working life and that was when i first left school so when you talk about us taxpayers i am one of them.

so you dont mind going to work all day grafting hard so that your taxes can keep someone who could be out doing the same in beer and fags??