That’s precisely the tone for most of the article actually.
In order to receive it, you have to be on benefits. It is for only a proportion of the cost of the funeral the link below suggests the average is £1800. You can choose to have the money paid to you or direct to the funeral director. You also have to demonstrate to the benefits agency why you are handling the funeral arrangements and not someone else in the family.
The government can recover the expense from the assets of the person who has died.
The funeral was in England
Not from the Government.
Similar rules i believe
How can a country with such low unemployment be in such a finacial mess, so much so they have to attack disabled people?
3 Likes
If you think about it the only reason it could be is massive corruption at a very high level. It’s worst than most could imagine. The amount of turning a blind eye must be at proportions that defy any imagination (even @gasband 's).
1 Like
Absolute and utter bollocks.
Let’s be absolutely clear here, your statement is that nobody wants to live on benefits. Not one person. Interview them all and put it on youtube and I’ll believe you. Until then, you’re just talking nonsense.
agreed.
there are people in all walks of life who happily live off the toils of other peoples hard work.
there are benefit cheats, just as there are people who cheat the system at a higher corporate level and a political level.
been happening since the first human picked up a stick to hunt a momoth…the second one probably offered help skin it, the third one cook it…the fourth one probably offered to eat it…
it dumbs down the arguement when people suggest all ‘poor’ people are salt of the earth battlers who just need that first ‘break’…
that said…im happy to pay my taxes if every second person on benefits was just needing it for a safety net…and im imagining (with no proof) that at least every second person would…
im more worried about the people who skim off the top to massively gain from a government scheme…and im not talking about just those at the top of that tree…theres thousands of smaller business massively inflating bottom lines on the government teet…whats more, they present themselves as caring organisations who go apoplectic when any cuts to the system are even suggested, and many people fall for it and do thier lobbying for them to keep government funding, when the real socialist ideal should be to hold the firms providing the services to greater economic accountability.
the NDIS in australia springs to mind, as does the NBN…yes, they provide an essential service, but we as a public are getting nowhere near enough value for money.
so when we talk about benefits…theres plenty of ‘benefit’ cheats at every level of the game.
ahem…
3 Likes
Socialism in a nutshell.
OK, you pedantic sod 
In general people don’t want to live on benefits. But certainly the Tory narrative that everyone, or even the majority, or even a significant minority, of people on benefits are doing so as a lifestyle choice. That’s what I’m getting at (which I suspect you know)
While the Tory are busy demonising people trying to live on whatever scraps are thrown off the table, they and their mates are sucking billions out of the public purse. Our money. They are laughing their cocks off at us, and especially people who froth at the idea of a single mum getting a couple of hundred quid a month, while failing to register freeloading, entitled posh cunts taking a couple of hundred million.
2 Likes
Here is one to chew on before we even get started on benefit fraud.
2 Likes
I can only respond to what you type. It’s not pedantic to pull somebody up on a demonstrably incorrect blanket statement.
You knew what I meant. A little bit of generalisation is alright. I’m not in fucking court here.
yeah i agree with Klopptomist on this one…its not pedantic to point it out.
its a continuing issue where language is weaponised to frame anyone who questions the ‘trickier’ stuff to question issues in society when dealing with …well…any minority.
we need to be careful with language as it frames the narrative completely and at times is self depreciating.
my example at the top springs to mind… its not EVIL to question gaovernment funding for NDIS, it would be evil try to cancel it, but if we could get some efficiency in certain schemes, there would (theoretically) be more money to spend elsewhere.
so yeah, lets admit theres people out there that might need to be ‘encouraged’ to get off benefits, just as there are businesses out there who should be ‘challenged’ for some of the practices being used when dealing with Government contracts.
2 Likes
As above, I responded to what you typed, not what you thought. I’ve no idea what you thought or what you meant. That’s what a forum is. You post something, I respond.
OK. I’ll remember to bring that kind of scrutiny to bear on you next time you make a sweeping generalisation about an entire section of society based on someone you once saw down Tesco’s.
3 Likes
Nowhere near as many as is generally presented by Government narrative and figures. The whole Bill for benefits is not as high as generally thought, and the amount fraudulently claimed is vanishingly small - to the point where it would cost the country more to pursue it.
For example the country’s Welfare Bill is frequently presented devoid of context or clarification, and will invariably also include (although you wouldn’t know this unless you dig into it) State Pensions. They’ve been pulling this trick for years, and it leads to the fabulous irony of people frothing about people claiming benefits, while being in receipt of them.
1 Like
It is a bit hypocritical though, when it comes from someone with a track record of making egregiously incorrect sweeping generalisations about many sectors of society.
2 Likes