Friday, March 22, 2013
SHOULD TAXPAYERS BANKROLL THOSE ON BENEFITS FOR NON-ESSENTIAL GOODS? – Tracey Macdonald, who appeared on ITV’s Daybreak, openly admits that she had been brought up on benefits and expects her lifestyle to be bankrolled by the taxpayer.
Tracey likes a drink and she’s a smoker and she feels that her local housing authority had no right to tell her how she should spend her benefits.
The storm broke out after the Eastlands Housing Association put out an advertisement suggesting that residents should start budgeting properly if they are hit by the new government cuts in housing benefit.
Eastlands Housing Associations Advertisement … Can you really afford Sky, cigarettes, bingo, drinks and other non-essentials? If your benefit is being cut and you want to keep your home, you have to make up the difference. Non-essential items won’t matter if you lose your home. Start budgeting now – we can help you do this, call us!
Tracey is one of the hoards of people in the UK living on benefits at the expense of those who diligently go to work every day, to support themselves and those who refuse to work.
There are those just as Martine White, a Thalidomide who is also blind in one eye, who desperately need, and rightly deserve our help, who is being hounded by the Department of Work and Pensions, as they feel she is able to work. In direct contrast is Tracey Macdonald, who is obviously capable of working and yet would rather live off the backs of the taxpayer.
Tracey, and many like her have an attitude that rips to the very core of our patience and understandably makes us taxpayers wonder what this country has come to when we continuously give to those who are just too lazy to work.
Daybreak Presenter: “What would you say to people who have jobs and yet cannot afford the luxuries of SKY TV, alcohol and cigarettes?”
Tracey Macdonald: “That’s their choice if they want to work; it’s like our choice what we are doing.”
Tracey was asked if she cared about what people think about her attitude and it was plain to see that she didn’t care.
Going back to the Eastlands Housing Association and their advertisement, it appeared this upset a great many people living on benefits; which resulted in the housing association having to issue an apology.
Many residents took the view that their comments were ‘deeply patronising’ which is in direct contrast to those hard working taxpayers, who thought the letter made perfect sense; after all why should the taxpayer provide benefits for non-essentials when there are so many hard working taxpayers who cannot afford the luxuries that most of these people living on benefits are able to have?
“The advice in the latest issue of its Streets Ahead newsletter was intended to help its tenants prepare.” Sheila Doran, chief executive of Eastland Homes in Manchester
Sheila Doran’s statement would appear to be plain common sense, something that has certainly been lost in all the ‘political correctness’ that is forced upon us on a daily basis.
Why can’t we stand up and make it perfectly clear to those who simply want to scrounge off the state, year and after years, that this is no longer acceptable. How about the government issuing new rules such as:
Maximum Length on Benefits – 18 months. If the recipient is not working by the end of this period then they can either A) Work for the state, cleaning the streets, care workers etc or; B) Go without.
Why does an obviously sensible statement from the Eastlands Housing Association have to be viewed as patronising?
The taxpayer should not have to support those who are able to work but simply choose not to and if they find it offensive that people have this view then that’s just tough. The British people need to start ‘telling it like it is’ if we are going to bring equity back into society and force those that simply do not want to work, either to work or go hungry – as Tracey Macdonald put it – they have a choice.
For the full ‘patronising’ interview towards the taxpayer, here is the link Daybreak interview – www.itv.com/daybreak