If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
As usual, you are either too dense or too stubborn to grasp the point.
If more than 40% of an estate with unemployment running at 60% have Sky, then the law of averages means that a significant minority at least will have Sky and will be on the dole. It may well be an assumption, but it is a fair assumption. Especially as I know the estate quite well, and have various friends on the estate- and you do not.
And yes, I am aware that Sky's basic package is only about £13.50/month. But to be eligible for the installation discounts and the discounted set-tops you have to take the full package, which is about £43/month at the last count, with a price increase scheduled.
The fact still remains that if you can afford to pay £43/month for a luxury, or even £14 a month, then that is money that you could do without. The dole is there to help people get by until they can find employment again, it is not there to pay for expensive luxury items. That is a fair point, no?
The day we see them driving super cars or taking exotic holidays that were paid with dole money I'll be the first to complain. But the ability to juggle with money enough to afford Sky television is by no means a sign of being given too much money.
£13.50 a month or even twice that amount is absolutely piss-poor and just because some people can't afford it does not mean those on the dole are being paid too much. What everyone does with the money they have is their own business. Some people will prefer to have Sky and cut corners elsewhere, some people will take a different approach.
Judging by some reactions here I get the impression some people would like to give people on the dole food and clothes vouchers and leave it at that, condemning them to a miserable sub-existence below the poverty line and in conditions not fit for animals. I find that concept nauseating.
It's not a bleeding question of the lowest common denominator or "if I can't afford it then people on the dole shouldn't either" attitudes.
A case of projection I feel.
ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS WHAT PEOPLE SPEND THEIR MONEY ON
Got it?
You don't mind people knowing you're racist?
It just won't do, m'lad:)
But that's the point- it isn't THEIR money. It is a state hand-out designed to tide people over until they can find work- that is why it's called a Job-Seekers Allowance. It is an allowance given by the State whilst they seek a job- the clue is, after all, in the title.
Working families can not always afford luxuries yet someone who sits on their arse all day can ? nah that dont sound right to me.
and im talking people who have no intention of working, the lazy sods who cant be arsed to get out of bed on a morning. Im not talking people who may be ill or just signing on till they get employment.
The house I'm living in is obviously not fit for animals then- after all, we don't even have a TV license, let alone a Sky dish
But the thing is it IS a case that if people who are WORKING cannot afford the luxuries, then it is surely wrong that those who are receiving benefits paid for by those workers can afford more luxuries. I certainly aren't saying that people should be below the poverty line, but if someone can pay for Sky TV then they are comfortably ABOVE the poverty line, and so comfortably above the poverty line that they do not need the money.
it is THEIR money, providing they meet the criteria which vary locally
In N. Ireland there can be 90% of an estate with unemployment, no DSS bod will do FA about it - too dangerous
Ie dole money serves a local function, it pacifies the natives
who gives one except you
It is their money.
I think it depends on what they spend their money on. Sky isn't as expensive as people think and if they're on housing benefit they don't have that to worry about either. Say a couple are on the dole and get child benefit too for a couple of kids then they can save up and afford it, they can budget.
And Ladymuck and Blagsta - stop it. Don't turn this dabate in to another bitch fight. It is getting so boring and predictable.
I thought so. Seeing as it is there money. The law says that they are entitled to it, therefore its their money.
Gonna try and tell me otherwise?
'Tis what I mean yeah... only shorter and sweeter.
For example, one lad I know I fell out with because he said I'd grown up adavantaged and never knew any other way of life than to be that way (looong story... I actually grew up in a single parent family on benefits) anyway... the reason he said this was because my stepfather invested in a wide screen television and we have satelite. But this other lad goes all around the world with his family and we never go further than cornwall...
Different people wanna spend their cash on different things. There's nothing wrong with wanting a luxury item, they don't have to spend every penny of their money on cans of beans and second hand clothing.