On 19/11/2017 16:28, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:55:09 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 19/11/2017 14:43, Mark wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 12:14, Mark wrote:

[ ... ]

It may mean living on what is considered a minimum standard for
nowadays. For example, in the past, many people lived in houses with
no heating. I did. Would you expect people to do this nowadays?

I have never seen a house with no heating. The Georgian house I lived in
in the 1950s had a fireplace in every room except the bathroom and the
kitchen.
Perhaps you meant central heating, which I never had until I was just on
40 years old. It ought to be clear that I cannot agree that it is in any
way essential.

I don't mean central heating. OK. I did exaggerate. The place which
I am referring to had a small electric fire in the lounge (which was
ineffective) and *no* other heating. It looked like it used to have
fireplaces in some of the rooms but they were all blocked up.
It was bloody cold in the winter. I think the other residents
suffered more than me.

The first house I had (bought when it was four years old, for £700+ in
1977) had exactly the same facility. Just an electric fire in the open
plan living room.

Bloody hell! My first non-rental house, which I bought in 1987 cost
me £50K. It was a 3 bed end terrace starter home, with a driveway
(luxury). It was a few years old and in the cheapest area nearby. It
did have central heating though.
You may say I was ripped off but this was the market price. Just
before I had been gasumped on a 2 bed mid terrace (asking price £46K).

Mea culpa.

It ought to have read "£7000+". And that price had been quoted earlier
in the thread.

I didn't regard it as unacceptable. Life within the house simply differs
from season to season, with the main living room in more use in the
colder months. T'was ever thus until I was nearly 38 years old (when I
moved into the first place with central heating).

It isn't credible that people cannot live on it.

The benefits available don't sound too generous to me.
Although I cannot speak from experience, since I have never received
benefits, although I have been poor.

It's important to have some perspective on this. Looking back at recent
economic and social history, there was a time, within easy living
memory, when a phone (of any sort), washing machines, refrigerators,
carpets, frequent home-redecoration, meals out, an alcohol-based "social
life" and (especially) a motor vehicle were way outside the expectations
of the majority. And that was people who were on earnings greater than
social security benefits.

Things have changed. Nowadays you need a phone, washing machine,
fridge, and a motor vehicle. And, if you don't know why, I can
explain it to you.

No, you don't need any of those things so much that your fellow
taxpayers should provide you with the means to get them (and the word
"need" is so often misused in any case). They're nice to have, but you
have to get them by your own efforts.

OK. I will explain it to you. They need a phone so that they can
search for jobs. It's no good if a potential employer cannot contact
you by phone. You need a washing machine since all the laundrettes
have closed down. You need a fridge to stop your food going off and
giving you food poisoning. You need a motor vehicle since public
transport is virtually non-existent [1].

Hmmm...

You are making me smile for reasons I don't want to go into in too much
depth.

Sorry, but this statement seems to show a deal of naivety. Not
everyone can copy you.

It was to do with the job I did. Not my personal circumstanmces.

Let's just say that many, many, people earnestly assure "the
authorities" that their need for a car is greater than average because
they have to go to work at unsocial hours when there is no public
transport. This even if they work in the city centre in an office or
shop. Every single one of them goes to work at unsocial hours before the
buses are running. There are never any exceptions to the "unsocial
hours" mantra.

FWIW I've never worked in a city centre. My first job I needed
personal transport because there really was no public transport.
Imagine a bus service from one village to another miles away in the
evenings in a rural area - can you?

See? You're doing it too!

But oddly, I worked for more than seven years before I learned to drive.
And my mother never learned to drive and worked all her (working) life.

As some would say, go figure.

I had to.

Also, bear in mind that many things are much more expensive than they
were, like accomodation, food etc.

I don't know that food is dearer in real terms than it has ever been.
What is commonly agreed is that it has fallen - a lot - as a proportion
of household income. That must also mean that food now accounts for a
smaller proportion of benefit income.

Food inflation is very high ATM (4%).

[1] In many areas.

TRANSLATION: "Ah, but...".

You seem to have an obsession about this phrase. Why?

Because you keep using it (or variants of it) as though doing so
invalidates your opponent's argument.

[It doesn't.]