Benefit levels

05/02/2012 8:50 pm

Anonymous 3:06 £145 a year BBc licence is, in practice, compulsory.  Because you haveto pay it even if you do not have it.  I tried not several time to enquire how not to pay it but they told me quite clearly that even if you do not own a tv set but you have a computer or a radio you are liable to pay it or you can be prosecuted... As I have a computer I've got to pay it... I would be very helpful if you have a compouter and are not paying the tv licence if you could let me know how have you managed to do so legally... By the way, the billionnares pay exactly £145 per year as would anyone with no income whatsoever... may you call that equality?  

06/02/2012 7:46 am

You'll find the law applies to a device that draws power from the mains to make it operate, ie if its powered by a battery then you dont need a TV licence.

You want to talk equality? How is a family on benefits alone living rent free at the expense of the UK tax payer in a 3 bedroom house fair when you compare it to the thousands of us struggling to get on the property ladder, having to pay rent for a 2 bedroom flat when we need a 3 bed house, do we get any assistance because we have decided to progress our lives, do well and generally through no fault of our own are priced out of the housing market? While the likes of the benefit family get to stay in their 3 bedroom property for life safe in the knowledge they never have to move on? Equality indeed.

My arguement is and always shall remain that unless it sustains you in your day to day living, through the basic needs of man then you shouldnt have it if you are on benefits. Water,food, shelter and heat anything else is a luxury, your 24 cans of beer a week, your 60-100 cigarettes per week or Sky subscription, these are not there to sustain you, they are luxury items.

06/02/2012 10:45 am

Anony 7:46,  so governement after governement have done nothing to help people like you and you take it out on those who are worse off than you?... You have fallen line hook and sinker right inthe politician trap, my friend, of divide and rule... You'll find out that if you target those at thetop who with a single day of their life swipe out from the state the whole budget of years of the whole combined benefit system put together you might get better results... It is typical of bullies to attack those at the bottom than at the top

06/02/2012 1:56 pm

It is NOT the "BBC" licence fee. It is set by the Government; Department of Culture, Media & Sport. This is because the Government is obligated to provide a rounded public broadcast televisual service not bound, affected or led by advertising. This is why there is a certain amount of programming set aside for religion, children, education, science, general entertainment etc. It has always been the same - I am tired of comments ranting about the BBC ripping people off - the BBC can only bid for money - the Government holds the purse and always has done. 

Also, the comment about battery powered devices is utterly wrong - you DO need a licence for receiving broadcasts on a battery powered device. Only i-player type watching is licence free but then again, you need to be very careful with what you watch this on. It is a little complex but spouting off rumours about not having to pay can lead some people into muddy waters.

06/02/2012 5:12 pm

In reply to the post at 7:46am, it's rare for families on HB to get into 3 bed properties compared to single or double bed properties, and most often than not they will be in need of larger properties and have to make do with what they get.

There is a case for people who have been in council housing for some time and have had family members move away, thus freeing up space, sometimes it means that families now "fit" into their properties, sometimes you get underoccupation (which is a separate issue being dealt with).

We need to get away from lumping all benefit claimants together with a miniscule few because it means punishing people who are innocently caught up.

07/02/2012 1:42 am

the computer is no longer a luxury, because most things are done via computer these days, including paying rent and contacting your landlord and getting rent statements, etc.  That's why the TV licence IS totally absurd and outdated, because the moment you use a computer automatically are liable for paying the TV licence...  Now, I would happily do without the TV but I can't do without the computer and because I can't do without the computer I've no choice but pay the TV licence.

07/02/2012 11:32 am

What an odd conversation to spring from a statement that simply calls for some decency in the life of those who either can not work, or who's working options are severely limited.

The poor did not create the economic crisis engulfing the world - they did not take the unsustainable slice of wealth for themselves - yet it is they who are being asked to shoulder the majority burden to replace that wealth.

Too many nonnies and not enough sense it would seem.

07/02/2012 12:09 pm

I can include the working poor in my statement Nonny. Indeed, some of those you despise for claiming benefit have indeed worked all of their lives. Others that you despise for claiming benefit are indeed working currently.

I repeat,

The poor did not create the economic crisis engulfing the world - they did not take the unsustainable slice of wealth for themselves - yet it is they who are being asked to shoulder the majority burden to replace that wealth.

What I can not understand is those poor, such as those in the circumstances you describe Nonny, who seem to revel in their destitution and want to blame those more destitute for the suffering of all.

Such sickness, being so twisted is the true disgrace for it undermines the very positino of those taking it, condemns them to perpetual poverty and loathing, and simply enables the elite to continue exploiting all for their own ends.

Perhaps, instead of worrying over who's got what and who's not Nonny, instead of some peverted sense of greed and loathing of others, exploring the simple question of what represents a decent standard of living should be what engages you.

Does a State Pension supply that standard? Does a low wage, or indeed an average wage?

I'd say it does not - yet at least I can see that cutting someone elses benefit and demanding workers work for even less is not going to improve the position. Even lemmings do not anecdotally through each other off of cliffs!

07/02/2012 2:50 pm

Arguing for fair pay and less dependency on benefit is a Communist view Anon? What a narrow world you inhabit.

07/02/2012 3:28 pm

I repeat,

The poor did not create the economic crisis engulfing the world - they did not take the unsustainable slice of wealth for themselves - yet it is they who are being asked to shoulder the majority burden to replace that wealth.

Is that truly incorrect nonny?

You state to my 'rantings', which I presume to be my consistent call for fair pay and fair rents. This is on the basis that if people were paid a fair wage, and rents were more about affordability and less about short term profit, then the extent of benefit need would reduce drastically. therefore the sustainable way to reduce the total benefit bill is by increasing wages and decreasing rents such that the former reflects the value of the work done and the latter reflects the value of the home occupied; thus treating neither as an outright comodity.

How is saying that a Marxist perspective nonny?