• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
dgul

£10 a week

Recommended Posts

I get a bit fed up with this sort of thing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-43125842

Quote

A council leader has distanced himself from a tweet made by his party suggesting a family can be fed on £10 a week.

I dunno.  If you've got nothing then £10 a week will go quite far.  Should the state be much more generous than that?  

I do spend much more than £10 a week, but then I've got a job so I can afford the indulgence. But, that said, a normal day might be a one egg omelette with cheese for lunch (40p) plus something bigger for dinner (maybe 80p).  A single child might want to eat loads, but you can give them cheap calories, like pasta.  I'd say £10 is a fair minimum.

Of course, it might be nice to have nicer food, but then that's poverty for you.  I agree with the sentiment of the council, in that far too many people spend their £10 on ready meals and other expensive calories.  I'm not sure that I want to be the one paying for it all.

And then there is the 'poor single mother' syndrome -- as far as I can tell there is substantial money shoved towards 'poor' single mothers.  I don't know why they'd be in poverty.  The ones in poverty will be the single girls (and boys) without kids and no job.

This is just political posturing, by some wannabe political pundit picking a fight wherever she can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dgul said:

I get a bit fed up with this sort of thing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-43125842

I dunno.  If you've got nothing then £10 a week will go quite far.  Should the state be much more generous than that?  

I do spend much more than £10 a week, but then I've got a job so I can afford the indulgence. But, that said, a normal day might be a one egg omelette with cheese for lunch (40p) plus something bigger for dinner (maybe 80p).  A single child might want to eat loads, but you can give them cheap calories, like pasta.  I'd say £10 is a fair minimum.

Of course, it might be nice to have nicer food, but then that's poverty for you.  I agree with the sentiment of the council, in that far too many people spend their £10 on ready meals and other expensive calories.  I'm not sure that I want to be the one paying for it all.

And then there is the 'poor single mother' syndrome -- as far as I can tell there is substantial money shoved towards 'poor' single mothers.  I don't know why they'd be in poverty.  The ones in poverty will be the single girls (and boys) without kids and no job.

This is just political posturing, by some wannabe political pundit picking a fight wherever she can.

For a family ? which in my book is a minimum of three people 

The second part is 100% correct IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wish councils could feed themselves on £10 of my money a week. Sadly, it is currently just shy of £30. Not to mention all the other indirect taxes extracted. Food really is the least of people's problems but then it is such a lovely topic for the Bourgeois prigs that litter our country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, billfunk said:

I just wish councils could feed themselves on £10 of my money a week. Sadly, it is currently just shy of £30

Oh fuck. I am feeling triggered again.

My council tax RISE is £4.15 per week. 

So perhaps I should now feed my family on £5.85 per week?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cunning Plan said:

Oh fuck. I am feeling triggered again.

My council tax RISE is £4.15 per week. 

So perhaps I should now feed my family on £5.85 per week?

We don't care if you feed your family. Just pay us our taxes or we will throw you in jail, you pleb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, billfunk said:

We don't care if you feed your family. Just pay us our taxes or we will throw you in jail, you pleb.

Result. They spend over £2.50 per day per head feeding prisoners - so £70 per week for the four of us.

Bloody luxury. Where do I sign?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cunning Plan said:

Result. They spend over £2.50 per day per head feeding prisoners - so £70 per week for the four of us.

Bloody luxury. Where do I sign?

Your parents signed for you. The contract was your Birth Certificate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack Monroe still can't decide if she wants a penis or a vagina. I've lost track of what her actual birth gender is now. In a few weeks she'll probably announce she's a bloke again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong answer.

How much can a family be fed when working 40h @ NMW?

A lot more than £10.

The problem is is become acceptable for working age to not work. Thats the wrong thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feeding a family decently for ten quid a week ain't really do-able in reality. You might be able to pull it off if you really wanted to make a point but long term I doubt it so I think they were right to retract it.

Unfortunately they put themselves in the position of having to apologise to 'Jack' Monroe, quite possibly one of the most irritating, tediously right-on gobshites to be found roaming the face of the earth. If anyone wants to test the above statement, listen to her appearance on 'Any Questions', though I warn you, your teeth may be ground to stubs by the end of it.

She's a SJW's SJW and these bellends just gave her a leg-up. I'm more annoyed by that than the stupid statement itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spygirl said:

Wrong answer.

How much can a family be fed when working 40h @ NMW?

A lot more than £10.

The problem is is become acceptable for working age to not work. Thats the wrong thing.

The real problem is there is absolutely no need for every working age person to be in work. Look at the shockingly low productivity, the tax credits and zero hours, part time contracts. Many people are just not required. Many people are so unproductive you could sack two and replace with one real worker.

The big issue is money, not work. We have had it drummed into us that those not working are scum. Many of them are, but this blinds us to the fact that they are not really the core problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, billfunk said:

The real problem is there is absolutely no need for every working age person to be in work. Look at the shockingly low productivity, the tax credits and zero hours, part time contracts. Many people are just not required. Many people are so unproductive you could sack two and replace with one real worker.

The big issue is money, not work. We have had it drummed into us that those not working are scum. Many of them are, but this blinds us to the fact that they are not really the core problem.

We need to rethink our relationship with work.  Why not have everyone productive for 40 hours a week, rather than a diminishing number working full time and treated like sales by employers whilst others sit doing nothing on the largesse of those taxpayers propping it all up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chewing Grass said:

I think we are at the stage where properly managed and resourced a 32 hr 4 day week should be the norm rather than burning a lot of folks out to pay for an equal number who can't or won't do a 4 day week.

Tax-credits screwed up work for the many.

I was thinking more three days. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Happy Renting said:

Oh dear, Sovereign Man waffle...

Not at all. Just a sardonic allusion to the fact that you are legally obliged to pay taxation. There is no contract to sign. Simply existing makes you liable for the tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realistically..  about £50 a week I’d say for a family of four.

Less is definitely possible,  but you want to be eating at least one non-processed meat meal a week..  you can’t really expect people to live on pasta and value carrots indefinitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, billfunk said:

Not at all. Just a sardonic allusion to the fact that you are legally obliged to pay taxation. There is no contract to sign. Simply existing makes you liable for the tax.

Fair enough. Just that the Sovereign man loonies actually believe a birth certificate is a contract under maritime law., and that it is invalid if you write your name in capital letters or have a ferret.

If Injin were on this forum (s)he would explain that the true authority of any gubmint comes from the fact that they are bigger than you and can beat the shit out of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Happy Renting said:

Fair enough. Just that the Sovereign man loonies actually believe a birth certificate is a contract under maritime law., and that it is invalid if you write your name in capital letters or have a ferret.

If Injin were on this forum (s)he would explain that the true authority of any gubmint comes from the fact that they are bigger than you and can beat the shit out of you.

Injin was great. I wish he/she would post here. I wonder who he/she was in real life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spygirl said:

Wrong answer.

How much can a family be fed when working 40h @ NMW?

A lot more than £10.

Exactly. Plus things have changed since she did it - her blog is full of mackerel fillets reduced to 10p and the like. It's an long time since I've seen reductions that good and not everyone can live entirely on reduced food. Also, I believe her family is just her and one sprog who was still reasonably small when she hit the big time. Jack Monroe can fuck right off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is this bizarre obsession public figures have with lecturing people on how little they should be spending on food?

Is it because they know that the poor sods have no choice but to pay rent, council tax, travel costs, energy costs pushed sky high by renewable subsidy and smart meters, and the TV tax.

So make them feel guilty for taking pleasure in spending the tiny tiny scrap of disposable income with which they are left each week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

What is this bizarre obsession public figures have with lecturing people on how little they should be spending on food?

Is it because they know that the poor sods have no choice but to pay rent, council tax, travel costs, energy costs pushed sky high by renewable subsidy and smart meters, and the TV tax.

So make them feel guilty for taking pleasure in spending the tiny tiny scrap of disposable income with which they are left each week.

 

I think the idea is to counter people who spend £200 a week on food then complain they don’t have / get-enough money.

But using such extreme examples is pretty unhelpful.. unless it’s just a bit of frugality pron.  Frugality pron is fun. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Happy Renting said:

Oh dear, Sovereign Man waffle...

I am spy; freeman of spydom. I do not recognise that name conferred by the queen court. Use my free name sp::::;;;;y

I firget how this commonlaw bollox goes other the person tends to ignore laws created sunce 1066 or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.