'I only survive through Cash Converters': Carer mum who can't afford a bed reveals desperate poverty

by Guest Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:49 pm

First topic message reminder :

The documentary goes behind the scenes of the staff and customers, some who are struggling to rub two pennies together

It's a heartbreaking moment for a Cash Converters customer who admits that she and her son are sleeping on an airbed because he can no longer make it upstairs.

Elaine is a full-time carer for 27-year-old Mark, who suffers from the rare degenerative condition Lowe's Syndrome, and she regularly visits the Cash Converter store in Glasgow to try and provide much needed funds to survive.

In the BBC show which goes behind the scenes of the staff and customers of the Renfield Street second-hand trading store in Glasgow, Elaine is a regular customer.

The staff of the store say of one of their favourite customers: "She's a fantastic woman, I've known her for so long."

A £65-a-week carer allowance is not enough for Elaine and her family to survive on, so she scrapes together anything she can including anything she can sell at Cash Converters.

'I only survive through Cash Converters': Carer mum who can't afford a bed reveals desperate poverty - Page 5 Cashing-In-2

'I only survive through Cash Converters': Carer mum who can't afford a bed reveals desperate poverty - Page 5 Cashing-In-2

Mark has a life expectancy of just 30 years old

Her son Mark's condition carries a life expectancy of just 30 years and Elaine says that the recent government cuts have greatly affected her job as her son's full-time carer.

She explains: "We're struggling and I would say we're not getting the help that we need. The help we need is just not there.

"We can't walk away because we're the carers and we have no choice."

In the rest of the show the staff are faced with a shoplifter who swipes a flat-screen television before a quick thinking member of staff runs after the thief to retrieve the expensive item.

The staff also have to stall a phone thief who tries to cash in on a stolen mobile so the police can question the customer.

It's also terrible news for one family who suffer a tragic loss and have to pawn their possessions to afford to pay for a funeral for their stillborn son.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/i-only-survive-through-cash-6117957

by Tommy Monk Fri Jul 31, 2015 12:59 pm

Overweight by genetic disposition...!?

Maybe heavier set because of bone size/structure or naturally increased muscle mass etc... but not reason to claim to be unfit to work.

The 'fat' overweight people is entirely due to eating too much, too much crap and not moving around enough!

I am technically overweight by the BMI scale, this is because I am built like a rugby player... not fat and not unfit to work.

by Guest Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:02 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:This was the question Korban:

So what did you mean when you said to Didge that it was "OK" if it was self-inflicted trough greed. He said that he was all for people getting treatment as a condition of receiving benefits. Is that what you were saying was OK?

Sorry Korben I am all for this and the same should be applied to smokers and drinkers.You want benefits, then you look to see help to quit smoking and if you have a drink problem.

FFS what is it about my answer you fail to grasp ? at least 4 times i have answered that question you just repeating it is getting annoying
if you cant understand the answers that your problem not mine

by Raggamuffin Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:04 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:This was the question Korban:

So what did you mean when you said to Didge that it was "OK" if it was self-inflicted trough greed. He said that he was all for people getting treatment as a condition of receiving benefits. Is that what you were saying was OK?

FFS what is it about my answer you fail to grasp ? at least 4 times i have answered that question you just repeating it is getting annoying
if you cant understand the answers that your problem not mine

No, you've just turned it round on me every time. It's very clear that you are indeed saying that those who have "self-inflicted" obesity should have their disability benefits withdrawn if they refuse to do anything about it.

by Guest Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:07 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
its still a stupid question as there is no way as i said to differentiate ether way as i also said in that same post and repeated on this one

people think all overweight are overweight through a concious choice or un-concious but they are many reasons and as i pointed out above A fifth of people are overweight because of a genetic preposition

A concious choice would be in essence self inflicted but i know of nobody ,i have heard of nobody, other than the notable exception of a sumo wrestler who has made that choice just to avoid work and claim benefits hence its a straw man argument
and as i also keep saying they is no real way to differentiate

but as i also said if they was some way of proving that somebody deliberately ate so much as to but them self`s over weight so much to go on disability and avoid work with all the other potentially fatal health risks that such a course of action would create
Heart disease and stroke.
High blood pressure.
Diabetes.
Some cancers.
Gallbladder disease and gallstones.
Osteoarthritis.
Gout.
Breathing problems, such as sleep apnea
to name but a few

then you have to then look at some kind of psychological problem that needs addressing
you ask any fat person if they would want to be fat all the fat people i konw would rather not be fat

Well now, there are some interesting conditions in there which some people do indeed claim disability benefits for.

Let's take gout for example. Some people do indeed suffer so much from gout that it makes them incapacitated, and they can claim disability benefits.

There are several ideas about what causes uric acid to rise so much that crystals get deposited in the joints - causing gout. Diet is one of those - and of course the usual suspect - alcohol. Now I'm not convinced about diet tbh, but experts disagree with me. What if someone who was incapacitated by gout was told that it would be much better if they gave up alcohol and other certain foods, and they refused to do so? What if they were advised to have treatment to reduce uric acid which would control the gout, and they refused to do so?

says it all really

by Raggamuffin Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:10 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Overweight by genetic disposition...!?

Maybe heavier set because of bone size/structure or naturally increased muscle mass etc... but not reason to claim to be unfit to work.

The 'fat' overweight people is entirely due to eating too much, too much crap and not moving around enough!

I am technically overweight by the BMI scale, this is because I am built like a rugby player... not fat and not unfit to work.

To me, the issue isn't so much why they're overweight, it's whether or not they're prepared to address it or treat it.

Someone may well be obese because of genetics or whatever, and all the lifestyle changes in the world, and all the treatment in the world is not going to make a difference. I would say that's a very small minority though.

Let's say that someone is obese because they just ate far too much. It might be that they're comfort eating, or they might just like chips too much to resist them. If they then claim benefits because they have health-related obesity issues, or because they simply can't get off the bed, is it right that they continue to get those benefits without lifting a finger to help address the reasons why they're eating too much?

by Guest Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:11 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
FFS what is it about my answer you fail to grasp ? at least 4 times i have answered that question you just repeating it is getting annoying
if you cant understand the answers that your problem not mine

No, you've just turned it round on me every time. It's very clear that you are indeed saying that those who have "self-inflicted" obesity should have their disability benefits withdrawn if they refuse to do anything about it.

No i asked you how you would make that decision simple fact is you can`t and avoid answering that question and you keep ignoring the other part of my post to bang on about one line

by Raggamuffin Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:12 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well now, there are some interesting conditions in there which some people do indeed claim disability benefits for.

Let's take gout for example. Some people do indeed suffer so much from gout that it makes them incapacitated, and they can claim disability benefits.

There are several ideas about what causes uric acid to rise so much that crystals get deposited in the joints - causing gout. Diet is one of those - and of course the usual suspect - alcohol. Now I'm not convinced about diet tbh, but experts disagree with me. What if someone who was incapacitated by gout was told that it would be much better if they gave up alcohol and other certain foods, and they refused to do so? What if they were advised to have treatment to reduce uric acid which would control the gout, and they refused to do so?
says it all really

Ah, so are you saying that gout is indeed caused by diet or booze? In that case, do you think that someone with gout should get public money if they're not prepared to give up the booze?

by Guest Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:16 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
says it all really

Ah, so are you saying that gout is indeed caused by diet or booze? In that case, do you think that someone with gout should get public money if they're not prepared to give up the booze?

i don`t know your fond of telling people what they are saying why don`t you just log on as me an save me the trouble

by Raggamuffin Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:16 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

No, you've just turned it round on me every time. It's very clear that you are indeed saying that those who have "self-inflicted" obesity should have their disability benefits withdrawn if they refuse to do anything about it.
No i asked you how you would make that decision simple fact is you can`t and avoid answering that question and you keep ignoring the other part of my post to bang on about one line

You see? You just turned it around on me yet again. It was YOU who said that you agree with Didge that benefits should be conditional upon them seeking help for their "self-inflicted" obesity.

Don't bother any more. I just said what you meant, and that stands.

by Raggamuffin Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:17 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Ah, so are you saying that gout is indeed caused by diet or booze? In that case, do you think that someone with gout should get public money if they're not prepared to give up the booze?
i don`t know your fond of telling people what they are saying why don`t you just log on as me an save me the trouble

Oh, so you were just making a facetious remark then. What a shame - I thought you might like to discuss the actual issue.

by Guest Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:30 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
i don`t know your fond of telling people what they are saying why don`t you just log on as me an save me the trouble

Oh, so you were just making a facetious remark then. What a shame - I thought you might like to discuss the actual issue.

it was you that made the remark that "experts disagree with you "and that does "say it all"
you think you know better than experts how very humble of you
that was the remark i highlighted nothing about the causes of gout

by Guest Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:35 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
No i asked you how you would make that decision simple fact is you can`t and avoid answering that question and you keep ignoring the other part of my post to bang on about one line

You see? You just turned it around on me yet again. It was YOU who said that you agree with Didge that benefits should be conditional upon them seeking help for their "self-inflicted" obesity.

Don't bother any more. I just said what you meant, and that stands.

give over were you not just complaining of people telling you what you meant
how the fuck do you know what i meant you took the first line and ignored the rest of the post all to start a argument some thing you have quite the reputation for
so forget it i have had enough

by Raggamuffin Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:57 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh, so you were just making a facetious remark then. What a shame - I thought you might like to discuss the actual issue.
it was you that made the remark that "experts disagree with you "and that does "say it all"
you think you know better than experts how very humble of you
that was the remark i highlighted nothing about the causes of gout

All I was saying is that I'm not convinced that gout is caused by diet, or at least primarily by diet. Uric acid is something that is produced in everyone really, whatever you eat, but the idea is that excessive purines in your diet lead to an increase in uric acid, and then it gets dumped in the joints when it reaches a certain level.

However, for many people with gout the uric acid is high because they can't get rid of it for some reason or because they naturally produce more. It's a bit like the bad cholesterol debate - is high cholesterol produced by what you eat or do some people just naturally produce more?

Why is it a problem that I don't just automatically accept what's said by experts? I'm interested in this stuff, and don't think that questioning these things is a bad thing. I haven't said that it's definitely not caused by what you eat, I said I'm not convinced.

by Raggamuffin Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:57 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You see? You just turned it around on me yet again. It was YOU who said that you agree with Didge that benefits should be conditional upon them seeking help for their "self-inflicted" obesity.

Don't bother any more. I just said what you meant, and that stands.
give over were you not just complaining of people telling you what you meant
how the fuck do you know what i meant you took the first line and ignored the rest of the post all to start a argument some thing you have quite the reputation for
so forget it i have had enough

Your refusal to address what you said tells me all I need to know.

by Guest Fri Jul 31, 2015 2:05 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
give over were you not just complaining of people telling you what you meant
how the fuck do you know what i meant you took the first line and ignored the rest of the post all to start a argument some thing you have quite the reputation for
so forget it i have had enough

Your refusal to address what you said tells me all I need to know.

And this tells me all i need to know about you

i understand your familiar with it altough its not your first time is it

by Raggamuffin Fri Jul 31, 2015 2:06 pm

I don't like Monty Python actually.

by Tommy Monk Fri Jul 31, 2015 5:51 pm

Is this relevant to the discussion of enforced treatment...?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-33731263

by Guest Fri Jul 31, 2015 6:20 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Is this relevant to the discussion of enforced treatment...?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-33731263

quite simply NO

as stated in the report the woman "lacked capacity"
and in any case like that the courts have to make the decision.

by Raggamuffin Fri Jul 31, 2015 6:33 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Is this relevant to the discussion of enforced treatment...?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-33731263

I would say not Tommy. What an awful situation for the poor lady. Maybe if she's very psychotic she won't know her leg isn't there.

by Tommy Monk Fri Jul 31, 2015 6:35 pm

If obesity is caused by lack of mental capacity to eat sensibly and is also killing the person then is It Also right to enforce treatment...!?

by Raggamuffin Fri Jul 31, 2015 6:38 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:If obesity is caused by lack of mental capacity to eat sensibly and is also killing the person then is It Also right to enforce treatment...!?

A fair point, although I think the lady is psychotic rather than neurotic.

They do sometimes section anorexic people though.

by Guest Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:08 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:If obesity is caused by lack of mental capacity to eat sensibly and is also killing the person then is It Also right to enforce treatment...!?

you would have to prove to a suitably competant court that the person lacked capacity

and saying "oh but they must since that are fat" wont wash

te point being that UNLESS it can be shown the person id incapable of making informed decisions, on the basis of good evidence

THEN EVERY ONE OF US HAS THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHAT WE DO WITH OURSELVES.

breaking THAT premise....even to put 50p more into the back pocket of your masters opens a whole can of worms

AND given tat benefits was only EVER intended to be conditional upon financial status

the fact that someone may make a negative choice is NOT and SHOULD NOT be relevant...

by Tommy Monk Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:17 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:If obesity is caused by lack of mental capacity to eat sensibly and is also killing the person then is It Also right to enforce treatment...!?

A fair point, although I think the lady is psychotic rather than neurotic.

They do sometimes section anorexic people though.

Exactly... enforced treatment already happens in quite a few areas and conditions...

This enforced treatment was a major operation under general anesthetic with much higher risks than all other regular drug treatments available for many other conditions that some may refuse to take but who then want to continue claiming to be too unwell to work and associated benefits...

I am not saying I support enforced drug/surgical treatment as a condition of claiming sickness benefit etc... but just pointing out that enforced treatments already happen in other circumstances.

To be able to claim JSA it is a requirement that you have done everything reasonably possible to find work... so isn't it also right that those who wish to continue to claim ESA/sickness benefit etc are required to do everything reasonably possible to improve their condition...!?

by Raggamuffin Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:21 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:If obesity is caused by lack of mental capacity to eat sensibly and is also killing the person then is It Also right to enforce treatment...!?

you would have to prove to a suitably competant court that the person lacked capacity

and saying "oh but they must since that are fat" wont wash

te point being that UNLESS it can be shown the person id incapable of making informed decisions, on the basis of good evidence

THEN EVERY ONE OF US HAS THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHAT WE DO WITH OURSELVES.

breaking THAT premise....even to put 50p more into the back pocket of your masters opens a whole can of worms

AND given tat benefits was only EVER intended to be conditional upon financial status

the fact that someone may make a negative choice is NOT and SHOULD NOT be relevant...

Benefits are not intended to be conditional only upon financial status. JSA is conditional on looking for work, and disability benefits are conditional on being disabled. If someone can become less disabled, they should do so if they want benefits.

by Raggamuffin Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:22 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

A fair point, although I think the lady is psychotic rather than neurotic.

They do sometimes section anorexic people though.

Exactly... enforced treatment already happens in quite a few areas and conditions...

This enforced treatment was a major operation under general anesthetic with much higher risks than all other regular drug treatments available for many other conditions that some may refuse to take but who then want to continue claiming to be too unwell to work and associated benefits...

I am not saying I support enforced drug/surgical treatment as a condition of claiming sickness benefit etc... but just pointing out that enforced treatments already happen in other circumstances.

To be able to claim JSA it is a requirement that you have done everything reasonably possible to find work... so isn't it also right that those who wish to continue to claim ESA/sickness benefit etc are required to do everything reasonably possible to improve their condition...!?

Re your last point, yes, I think it is right.

by Guest Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:25 pm

and all the unemployed R/W should have to change their political afiliations but only if unemployed because I wont employ a R/W er???

(not making a statement of fact there...btw...just for ragga who takes everey word literally)

can you see where such thinking as yours leads......

by Guest Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:29 pm

moreover what the hell is your beef....the numbers involved are microscopic

you know...where is this leading?

to day the fat bastards
tomorrow the paraplegic who is having problems coping
next week the tetraplegic for not trying hard enough
and next year we will burn the feckin lot of these parasites.....

and dont come the "thats not what i agree with, because you damn well know you WOULD support it if your masters told you to....." you are constitutionally incapable of having an independant moral compass

by Raggamuffin Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:32 pm

victorismyhero wrote:and all the unemployed R/W should have to change their political afiliations but only if unemployed because I wont employ a R/W er???

(not making a statement of fact there...btw...just for ragga who takes everey word literally)

can you see where such thinking as yours leads......

More people coming off benefits hopefully, and being able to do more than they used to do.

by Raggamuffin Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:35 pm

victorismyhero wrote:moreover what the hell is your beef....the numbers involved are microscopic

you know...where is this leading?

to day the fat bastards
tomorrow the paraplegic who is having problems coping
next week the tetraplegic for not trying hard enough
and next year we will burn the feckin lot of these parasites.....

and dont come the "thats not what i agree with, because you damn well know you WOULD support it if your masters told you to....." you are constitutionally incapable of having an independant moral compass

Have I not made it clear that I'm talking about treatable conditions?

Having said that, it would be great if those people could cope better. There was a chap in a wheelchair where I used to work years ago.

by Guest Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:37 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:and all the unemployed R/W should have to change their political afiliations but only if unemployed because I wont employ a R/W er???

(not making a statement of fact there...btw...just for ragga who takes everey word literally)

can you see where such thinking as yours leads......

More people coming off benefits hopefully, and being able to do more than they used to do.

and of course there are actually 1.5 million jobs out there arent there (and thats JUST to cover the "unemployed" )

let alone those who are on disabled benefits....

another how many millions?????

by Raggamuffin Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:38 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

More people coming off benefits hopefully, and being able to do more than they used to do.

and of course there are actually 1.5 million jobs out there arent there (and thats JUST to cover the "unemployed" )

let alone those who are on disabled benefits....

another how many millions?????

So you think that people should get disability benefits just because there aren't enough jobs? That's not really what they're designed for Victor.

by Guest Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:40 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:moreover what the hell is your beef....the numbers involved are microscopic

you know...where is this leading?

to day the fat bastards
tomorrow the paraplegic who is having problems coping
next week the tetraplegic for not trying hard enough
and next year we will burn the feckin lot of these parasites.....

and dont come the "thats not what i agree with, because you damn well know you WOULD support it if your masters told you to....." you are constitutionally incapable of having an independant moral compass

Have I not made it clear that I'm talking about treatable conditions?

for the moment yes
but when your masters decide to attack the untreatable...will you agree with them...or perhaps merely stand silent....

Having said that, it would be great if those people could cope better. There was a chap in a wheelchair where I used to work years ago.

by Guest Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:43 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:

and of course there are actually 1.5 million jobs out there arent there (and thats JUST to cover the "unemployed" )

let alone those who are on disabled benefits....

another how many millions?????

So you think that people should get disability benefits just because there aren't enough jobs? That's not really what they're designed for Victor.

No...I'm saying there are bigger priorities, and vastly morre beneficial to the economy

its a nice tory sound byte isnt it....bash the idle fatties
punish these parasites
demonise them
dehumanise them

and we will save ....ooo....I dunno how much (clue its gonna cost more than it saves......)

but DONT even suggest we try to get the proper taxes out of the fat cats at the top.......

by Raggamuffin Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:52 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Have I not made it clear that I'm talking about treatable conditions?

for the moment yes
but when your masters decide to attack the untreatable...will you agree with them...or perhaps merely stand silent....

Having said that, it would be great if those people could cope better. There was a chap in a wheelchair where I used to work years ago.

My masters? Do you mean the Tories? I've never voted for them in my life. Laughing

You call it an "attack", I call it common sense. If a condition is not treatable, or if treatment is not going to make a difference to the disability, other than to perhaps prevent further damage or disability, then there's not an issue.

by Raggamuffin Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:55 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So you think that people should get disability benefits just because there aren't enough jobs? That's not really what they're designed for Victor.

No...I'm saying there are bigger priorities, and vastly morre beneficial to the economy

its a nice tory sound byte isnt it....bash the idle fatties
punish these parasites
demonise them
dehumanise them

and we will save ....ooo....I dunno how much (clue its gonna cost more than it saves......)

but DONT even suggest we try to get the proper taxes out of the fat cats at the top.......

I just don't think it's right that people are on disability benefits if it can be avoided by them seeking treatment Victor.

Getting more taxes out of fat cats is a different issue. What difference would it make to the benefits system if you could get more out of them?

by Guest Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:02 pm

It would render the argument about the so called costs of benefits and its effect on our finances irrelevant.....

the amount of tax outstanding is orders of magnitude greater than the (bad, ie fraudulent and "scrounging") costs of benefits....

by Raggamuffin Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:04 pm

victorismyhero wrote:It would render the argument about the so called costs of benefits and its effect on our finances irrelevant.....

the amount of tax outstanding is orders of magnitude greater than the (bad, ie fraudulent and "scrounging") costs of benefits....

It's not just about costs though Victor. If the whole country could be on benefits on the back of fat cats' tax, would you go along with that?

by Guest Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:15 pm

(lets speculate here)

If at some time in the future production (physical and "service"..ie banks etc) were to become entirely robotised

and the entire population unemployed

sould not the profits of such a system be used to support the population....

or do we allow the "owners to simply "get rid of" everyone but other owners?

If a company can make billions with 100,000 employees and then years later make 10s billions with 100 employees
due to improved technology...isnt it right to impose a "social responsibility tax upon that company to help support the 99,900 people it no longer needs....and at a decent level of living too?

by Raggamuffin Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:51 pm

victorismyhero wrote:(lets speculate here)

If at some time in the future production (physical and "service"..ie banks etc) were to become entirely robotised

and the entire population unemployed

sould not the profits of such a system be used to support the population....

or do we allow the "owners to simply "get rid of" everyone but other owners?

If a company can make billions with 100,000 employees and then years later make 10s billions with 100 employees
due to improved technology...isnt it right to impose a "social responsibility tax upon that company to help support the 99,900 people it no longer needs....and at a decent level of living too?

Hmmm, I'll have to think about that one. A social responsibility tax eh? An alternative would be for the company to pay out heaps in redundancy payments. I've just said I disapprove of that for the public sector in the other thread though, so I'm not sure about that one. Laughing

Actually, that wouldn't work if they made everyone redundant at the same time.

Perhaps excessive robotisation should be banned?

by Tommy Monk Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:15 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So you think that people should get disability benefits just because there aren't enough jobs? That's not really what they're designed for Victor.

No...I'm saying there are bigger priorities, and vastly morre beneficial to the economy

its a nice tory sound byte isnt it....bash the idle fatties
punish these parasites
demonise them
dehumanise them

and we will save ....ooo....I dunno how much (clue its gonna cost more than it saves......)

but DONT even suggest we try to get the proper taxes out of the fat cats at the top.......

Then victor said...

It would render the argument about the so called costs of benefits and its effect on our finances irrelevant.....

the amount of tax outstanding is orders of magnitude greater than the (bad, ie fraudulent and "scrounging") costs of benefits....

Two totally separate issues victor... why are you trying to conflatde the two...!?

And are you really suggesting that it is ok for some people to be blagging the benefits system as long as we squeezed more money out of other people in taxes to pay for It...!?

It sounds like you Are excusing the criminal activities of benefit cheats by suggesting that some other well off people are evading tax in a fraudulently and therefore criminal way too...!?

Using this logic you could also say that it is ok for well off people to evade tax because there are loads of other people blagging the benefits system!!!

One does not justify the other!!!

And I haven't seen anybody here supporting tax evasion or avoidance in Any way... so just another desperate straw man argument and deflection really...

Also, it is not all about savings... someone on ESA and refusing treatment is cheaper than them being on ESA and taking the treatment and The additional cost of this treatment...

Then even if their condition did improve enough to be moved onto JSA, their benefit payment would remain the same and their continued treatment would still be at a continued cost... so again not about saving money when they would still be costing the system more money by taking the treatment than by not taking the treatment.

However the subsequent improvement in health and better quality of life of the person will be priceless!!!

And then if they are able to get into work then this quality of life will improve even more so!

Giving them so much more than just a bit of extra money!!!

It is only at this point where they not only stop being a cost to The system and therefore a saving... but also become a contributor to The system so it's a win win situation as far as costs are concerned plus the person also has a multiple win lifestyle!!!

by Guest Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:32 pm

sounds great im principle doesnt it Tommy

untill

they get examined by a so called "health care professional" ( a meaningless term applied to atos monkeys)

who has f**k all idea about anything

and promptly sanctioned on the opinion of said monkey

which is what is happening all over right now....

The "medical side will be done on the cheap

there is no doubt, this IS NOT about the persons "health" but about sounding good, looking as if you are acheiving something and saving a couple of pence here and there (the real costs you can bury easily)

by Guest Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:41 pm

as for tax evasion and the tiny amount of benefit fraud being "not related"

I suppose if you wanted to be disingenious you could demand the two be separted, but the suggestion that objectors consider that one justifies the other is yet more typical tory double speak

benefit fraud is SO LOW in terms of real costs when compared to the tax cheats that it makes no sense unless you ascribe "poor hate" to the tories, when they so visciously attack the minute amout of benefit fraud yet ignore the elephant in the room in the form of tax fraud to go ahead unchecked.

IF it was really about the economy...then the tax fraudsters would be dealtwith...post haste

but its not...its about tory disdain and hate of the poor, and a viscious need to have a "bogey man" to point their all too willing stooges (like yourself) at.

by Tommy Monk Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:36 pm

As far as I am aware... known tax fraudsters are treated as criminals and prosecuted... as are known benefit cheats...

Unknown levels of each are UNKNOWN so your argument on comparative levels is completely unfounded.

Plus, huge sums of money are recovered from tax fraudsters... while almost nothing is recovered from benefit frautsters in comparison... and at enormous net cost!

It would be cheaper to not pursue benefit fraudsters... but it's not about 'saving a few quid', as you claim... it is about stopping people taking the piss... And all in the name of 'fairness' and 'equality'... something I thought you lefties were big fans of!!!

lol!

by Guest Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:39 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:As far as I am aware... known tax fraudsters are treated as criminals and prosecuted... as are known benefit cheats...

Unknown levels of each are UNKNOWN so your argument on comparative levels is completely unfounded.

Bullshit, pure and simple apologist bullshit....

Plus, huge sums of money are recovered from tax fraudsters... while almost nothing is recovered from benefit frautsters in comparison... and at enormous net cost!

It would be cheaper to not pursue benefit fraudsters... but it's not about 'saving a few quid', as you claim... it is about stopping people taking the piss... And all in the name of 'fairness' and 'equality'... something I thought you lefties were big fans of!!!

by veya_victaous Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:16 am

http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/cash-converters-facing-fresh-class-action/story-fnu2q2e9-1227463122525

AUSTRALIA’S largest payday lender Cash Converters has exceeded the legal limit for interest rates and charges to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, a fresh class action alleges.

The lender allegedly charged customers interest rates of up to 160 per cent in addition to brokerage fees, despite the legal limit in Queensland being set at 48 per cent per annum for consumer credit contracts.

the real legislative issue is corporations ripping off the less fortunate that are likely to not know or not be in a position to protest about how badly they are being ripped off

by Ben Reilly Mon Aug 03, 2015 7:45 am

veya_victaous wrote:
http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/cash-converters-facing-fresh-class-action/story-fnu2q2e9-1227463122525

AUSTRALIA’S largest payday lender Cash Converters has exceeded the legal limit for interest rates and charges to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, a fresh class action alleges.

The lender allegedly charged customers interest rates of up to 160 per cent in addition to brokerage fees, despite the legal limit in Queensland being set at 48 per cent per annum for consumer credit contracts.

the real legislative issue is corporations ripping off the less fortunate that are likely to not know or not be in a position to protest about how badly they are being ripped off

Corporations do a lot of things like that. Besides the obvious union-busting and lobbying for laxer pay laws and safety regulations, I think the common policy of not hiring "overqualified" employees helps them maintain workforces that are easier to exploit. The drive to work people longer hours isn't just more profitable, it also dovetails nicely with the desire to keep workers from having the time and energy to organize or engage in political activism.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 03, 2015 8:33 am

Tommy Monk wrote:As far as I am aware... known tax fraudsters are treated as criminals and prosecuted... as are known benefit cheats...

Unknown levels of each are UNKNOWN so your argument on comparative levels is completely unfounded.

Plus, huge sums of money are recovered from tax fraudsters... while almost nothing is recovered from benefit frautsters in comparison... and at enormous net cost!

It would be cheaper to not pursue benefit fraudsters... but it's not about 'saving a few quid', as you claim... it is about stopping people taking the piss... And all in the name of 'fairness' and 'equality'... something I thought you lefties were big fans of!!!

This is the issue. It's not always about money, it is about stopping people taking the piss.

by Sponsored content