Quite right ,the benefits trap or benefits cycle needs to be broken. Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh and I realy dont want to see kids suffer any kind of upset but they must learn that because their parents are on Benefits and sitting at home on their backsides they dont get all the things you mention

I rekon it would only take a generation for it to sink in

Originally Posted by politicalwizard

I find myself outraged at the thought of someone sitting at home in front of the television doing nothing all day managing to recieve more money from state provided benefits than I can earn from working full time.

<snip>

This Government needs to sort out the benefits trap, get people back out to work and stop rewarding people's laziness.

With apologies for the snip, but absolutely!

You've not only highlighted the massive benefits and 'something for nothing' culture that exists in society today, but also the grossly unfair way in that many of those benefits encourage people not to work to the significant disgust of those who do, in particular those at the lower end of the income scale who are actually penalised for doing so.

I've no reason to want anyone who genuinely needs benefits for a period in their life, not to receive them, however a way has to be found to prevent the welfare scroungers from simply sitting on their backsides and taking the working population for a ride.

Originally Posted by politicalwizard

I find myself outraged at the thought of someone sitting at home in front of the television doing nothing all day managing to recieve more money from state provided benefits than I can earn from working full time.

This has been an issue for me since school. When I was at school, I found that children whose parents didn't work, or who worked as little as possible so they could still claim benefits, managed to get free uniforms, free school meals, free books, free trips abroad, free EVERYTHING. Whereas my parents earned just shy of £22k between them, paid all their taxes, but because they were above the threshold for help, we struggled on - paying taxes for those children and their families to have everything for free.

I am not saying for one second that we abolish all benefits, and people who are genuinley struggling and need an extra bit of help shouldn't recieve that, but what I am saying is that those families that have generation after generation that have never worked a day in their life, but still find money for holidays, cigarettes and regular trips to the pub, should be made to work for that money. Granted, the country is short on employment opportunities at the moment, but you're not telling me that someone who sits at home all day, who is perfectly healthy, cannot go out to work a few days a week - at least they would be EARNING money instead of having it handed to them on a plate!

Again, at college it outraged me that when I still lived with my parents, I only qualified for £10 EMA a week to help with books and course costs, whereas another girl on my course (whose mum was perfectly healthy and could have worked if she wanted to) got £30 a week EMA which then just got spent on going out, and her mum just sat at home throwing her benefits money at online bingo all day. Is this fair?

There are families living in the some of the most expensive parts of the country recieving twice my wage in benefits. I am effectively paying for them to sit at home and do nothing.

This Government needs to sort out the benefits trap, get people back out to work and stop rewarding people's laziness.

I can understand where you are coming from, and personal perceptions count for a lot when forming opinions. But there are certain points to be borne in mind. Firstly, because it has been traditionally more risky politically to cut benefits for families with children, with children suffering hardship being a nightmare vision that no politician wants to be held responsible for, and because of the drives to reduce child poverty in recent years, the benefits system is significantly more generous to families with children than to those without. A single person on Jobseeker's Allowance has his rent and Council Tax paid, then on top recieves only a pitiful £67.50 a week to feed and clothe himself and pay all bills. And younger adults recieve less even than this. And yet, because of high Council Tax bills and rents, the total benefit bill for that person can be quite high, though most of that, in the form of Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit goes straight to councils and landlords respectively and is not money in claimants' pockets.

Then, the system itself massively disincentivises work. For someone to be better off in a job, they need to earn not just enough to replace the pitiful £67.50 JSA, but also enough to replace the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit too, both of which can together add up to a lot more. If someone cannot earn enough to replace all their benefits entirely, for every £1 they earn they lose £1 off their benefits and are thus effectively being expected to work for nothing. When one also considers that there are additional costs involved with being in work, eg travel to work expenses, and perhaps added wear and tear on clothes and the need to consume extra calories if the job is physically demanding, then taking jobs that don't lift a person out of benefits can, in practical terms, leave that person even worse off. Any reasonable person ought to be able to understand the widespread lack of enthusiasm to work for this. We are often told how the rich are disincentivised by having to forego as much as 50% of what they earn: consider, then, how disincentivised the poor must be when they are effectively expected to forego 100% of theirs.

And if it can be difficult, primarily because of high rents, for single people to earn enough to escape benefits, consider how much more difficult it must be for families to do so with their more generous benefit levels. Tackling this benefit trap is also made difficult by the fiendish complexity of the benefits system itself. So here is what I think needs to be done:-

All benefits should be combined into one straight-forward payment that takes full account of all personal circumstances - rent, Council Tax, number of dependents, and so on. Everyone should be entitled to a benefits calculation on demand based upon their own personal circumstances, the level of entitlement calculated by the Department for Work and Pensions. Once this system is up and running and in place, it should be possible to enact a system whereby for every £1 someone earns they only lose 40p off their benefits, with no one losing their benefits entirely until they are taking home 2 and 1/2 times their basic benefit entitlement. For this to work effectively and speedily there must be more liason between the DWP and the Inland Revenue.

Thus everyone, however poorly paid, would still keep 60p of every £1 earned. The problem of people not wanting to work will be massively diminished if work is made to pay for all in this way. After all, few people are actually so lazy that they just don't want to work at all, but there are quite a lot of people who don't want to work for nothing, which is an easy sentiment to understand, whether or not you agree with it.

Originally Posted by srb7677

After all, few people are actually so lazy that they just don't want to work at all, but there are quite a lot of people who don't want to work for nothing, which is an easy sentiment to understand, whether or not you agree with it.

Quite, Iain Duncan Smith can waffle on about making work pay as much as he likes, he neglects to factor into his calculations that these days few people live near where they work and the costs of commuting can be substantial. He also forgets costs at work like eating at work.
The other problem is even if some manages to get full time employment (that is a rare as rocking horse poo these days) at the minimum wage they will still be paying a substantial amount of tax.
It is not that benefits are too high, (upon close inspection they are not) it is that in work take home pay for many millions is just not anywhere near high enough.
Then there is the current problem of far too many people chasing far too few jobs most of which are part time low pay.

Originally Posted by lankou

Quite, Iain Duncan Smith can waffle on about making work pay as much as he likes, he neglects to factor into his calculations that these days few people live near where they work and the costs of commuting can be substantial. He also forgets costs at work like eating at work.
The other problem is even if some manages to get full time employment (that is a rare as rocking horse poo these days) at the minimum wage they will still be paying a substantial amount of tax.
It is not that benefits are too high, (upon close inspection they are not) it is that in work take home pay for many millions is just not anywhere near high enough.
Then there is the current problem of far too many people chasing far too few jobs most of which are part time low pay.

I can sympathise with most of yours and SRB's post except for the fact that "what is wrong with making your own sarnies to take to work???????????????"
"

Originally Posted by Bananawoman

I can sympathise with most of yours and SRB's post except for the fact that "what is wrong with making your own sarnies to take to work???????????????"
"

Nothing if you have somewhere refridgerated to keep them in the hours before you eat them. (Not a frivolous comment by the way.)

Originally Posted by lankou

Nothing if you have somewhere refridgerated to keep them in the hours before you eat them. (Not a frivolous comment by the way.)

Lunch box with ice pack..................serves most people.

I grew up this way hence I hope I can offer some insight.

At school I had to hide the fact my house belonged to the council, that my parents weren't married, that my uniform was donated... and getting to the front of the dinner queue in front of the other kids to explain that you're one of those people who's a worthless dog who can't even pay for meals... that was a difficult experience somewhat -_-. School trips weren't free so I didn't go to them. I've never been on a plane or outside the UK before.

My parents were pretty hopeless in their general affairs. My Dad worked for the council (again, I'd have teachers or pupils ask me "so what do your parents do?" - and I'd have to be either vague or creative) - my mother has probably spent less time working in her adult life than sleeping. In spite of that they could afford to get drunk every other day, a few cigarettes and the odd time we could get meal deals at a take-away (places like allen's chicken, or kebab shops that do meals for about £2 each). The house we lived in as a result was mostly unfurnished and unclean. I still rarely invite people round - it's unpleasant them being here.

Since then the situation has improved - now my dad works doing deliveries, and my mother... well she's still a "house keeper". But now we can afford computers, and pre-owned video games that haven't aged by half a decade. There's a desk and carpet in my room

I've known people not on benefits to have harder lives than I have had. The times I've gone to bed hungry have been few and it's not like I have to "look after relatives" who don't exert themselves or "house-keeping" in a place where nothing is organised anyway - I've known kids to get through school while raising their siblings like their parents have failed to raise them, while looking after crippled family members, and getting a job to pay their share of rent... and doing the cleaning. I have the upmost respect for them.

I also agree with you that people should be encouraged to work or face the consequences. If you're long-term unemployed but have no reason to be - then the benefits that keep you afloat should start disappearing. Maybe you could allow "well there's no jobs" as an excuse for families with children idk. But the fact their parents have no sense of organisation or work ethic harms children also.

The labour of the under-class is important and should be encouraged. But understand that it's normally crime and fraud which allow for high-definition televisions in benefit claimant's houses - not the claiming of benefits themselves. The charicature of the layabout benefits claimant does exist - but it is in the minority. And if I'm honest with you I doubt it's a life one would ever want.

Originally Posted by Verion

But understand that it's normally crime and fraud which allow for high-definition televisions in benefit claimant's houses - not the claiming of benefits themselves. The charicature of the layabout benefits claimant does exist - but it is in the minority. And if I'm honest with you I doubt it's a life one would ever want.

Precisely it just is not possible for the Daily Mail version of a "benefit scrounger" to exist without resorting to crime. Which is why I as a member of neighbourhood watch was asked by the police, (not the Department of Work and Pensions) some time ago to report anyone "living above their means."
I just do not recognise the Daily Mail, Sky TV always down the pub, "scrounger" on benefits. Because it just is not possible on what benefits pay out.
Also getting benefits is difficult, I have a friend who is going blind, has diabetes that is difficult to control, mobility problems as the aftermath of a pelvis broken in five places in an accident, and recently had heart stents fitted. Unlike Phil the Greek, I had a frantic phone call from my friend at 08.00 hours from a hospital 30 miles away where she had been kicked out, (literally) of bed the day after the stent fitting without any money or means to get home.
I have managed to get the various organisations who should be helping them off of their backside to do something, but when some actual money will arrive in the form of benefits is anyone's guess.

Originally Posted by srb7677

All benefits should be combined into one straight-forward payment that takes full account of all personal circumstances - rent, Council Tax, number of dependents, and so on. Everyone should be entitled to a benefits calculation on demand based upon their own personal circumstances, the level of entitlement calculated by the Department for Work and Pensions. Once this system is up and running and in place, it should be possible to enact a system whereby for every £1 someone earns they only lose 40p off their benefits, with no one losing their benefits entirely until they are taking home 2 and 1/2 times their basic benefit entitlement. For this to work effectively and speedily there must be more liason between the DWP and the Inland Revenue.

Thus everyone, however poorly paid, would still keep 60p of every £1 earned. The problem of people not wanting to work will be massively diminished if work is made to pay for all in this way. After all, few people are actually so lazy that they just don't want to work at all, but there are quite a lot of people who don't want to work for nothing, which is an easy sentiment to understand, whether or not you agree with it.

I'm in full agreement with you on this point, although I'd first want to go through all the benefits themselves with a fine tooth comb and whittle a lot of them out. But rather than simply paying everyone a lump sum I'd far rather see the tax threshold lifted to an amount which would take the bottom 10% of wage earners completely out of the tax net - obviously only suitable for working benefit claimants - which would cost the exchequer just 0.6% of all tax revenues (HMRC figure), a cost which I'm pretty confident would be more than recouped by the simplification of the system. For those who aren't working and are entitled to benefits, as you say, these should be calculated on a person by person basis rather than the same sums given to everyone regardless of their situation.

I'm also in agreement that there needs to be a far better formula for tapering the payments of benefits for people who do work, so that there are no circumstances whereby someone who claims benefits will be better off than someone in identical circumstances who works. All the data for doing this is already there, so if both HMRC and the DWP got their IT systems working properly, technically it wouldn't be a difficult proposition to do.

Originally Posted by Midas

I'd far rather see the tax threshold lifted to an amount which would take the bottom 10% of wage earners completely out of the tax net -

That does not go far enough Midas, the "average wage" masks many millions of people in work with incomes below £15000 or even lower.

This thread has been bugging me because there has been a nag in my head that says, I need to post but I cannot think what it is I really want to say.

I know what it is now about benefits that annoys me. This might be a simplistic view point but why, just because you are on benefits should you be entitled to more if you have more children or any children at all or one pop out whilst on benefits? After all, those of us who are not on benefits, i.e. are working, do not find out that the partner is preggers and then go to the boss and say - oh, btw in 9 months time I need a payrise and expect to get it - do they?

Don't get me wrong, I believe that benefits should be at a sensible level, should encourage getting off them as soon as possible and I go some way to supporting SRB's argument about removing hardship by finding a job but I do not see why people on benefits should be better off than those who are on salaries where they pay tax/NI, no Coucil Tax help etc etc and live worse than those who are on benefits.

So I know this is very simplistic but that is what I feel.

Originally Posted by Bananawoman

This thread has been bugging me because there has been a nag in my head that says, I need to post but I cannot think what it is I really want to say.

I know what it is now about benefits that annoys me. This might be a simplistic view point but why, just because you are on benefits should you be entitled to more if you have more children or any children at all or one pop out whilst on benefits? After all, those of us who are not on benefits, i.e. are working, do not find out that the partner is preggers and then go to the boss and say - oh, btw in 9 months time I need a payrise and expect to get it - do they?

Don't get me wrong, I believe that benefits should be at a sensible level, should encourage getting off them as soon as possible and I go some way to supporting SRB's argument about removing hardship by finding a job but I do not see why people on benefits should be better off than those who are on salaries where they pay tax/NI, no Coucil Tax help etc etc and live worse than those who are on benefits.

So I know this is very simplistic but that is what I feel.

I think you've just said what I feel too.

The multiple children thing makes lot of sense, and you're absolutely right, your boss wouldn't give you a payrise if you had more, so why should the government?

I work in a pretty stressful job, which unfortunately is poorly paid to the point of being laughable, and my standards of living are not as high as others I know personally, who are on benefits. Seems highly unfair to me!

I'm not saying we should go along the Chinese route, but there is surely a middle ground......if you are on benefits then perhaps the additional payments for having a whole brood of children should stop.

I couldn't afford to have more children because I'd get no extra money. Simple.

BYT

BYT, that is it. Many families who work cannot have more children because they know they cannot afford them but on benefits it seems that all of that responsibility is absolved - free meals, fre this and that etc. If we had had another child we would have had to totally revise our quality of life, at least for years 0-5 as I travel with my job. Childcare for one was expensive as I work very long hours (when I do work) and in many cases was paying for 60 or more child care hours a week on some weeks as well as carers for my disabled husband, who, until our son was older (and of course our son is disabled too which made it harder) hubby could not care for our son either. Not a penny help was received from benefits!

I wonder if anyone has done a real comparison on those who are working and the poverty of "workers'" children. I bet there are more children in poverty in working families than those who do sweet fa all day and get paid in benefits for the priveledge.

Originally Posted by Bananawoman

I wonder if anyone has done a real comparison on those who are working and the poverty of "workers'" children. I bet there are more children in poverty in working families than those who do sweet fa all day and get paid in benefits for the priveledge.

Yes they have, it is one of the reasons successive government have set the working poor against the non working poor by the use of propaganda to stop both actually attacked who really is robbing us all the blind with tax evasion and tax avoidance using Slick Willy experts that HMRC cannot counter, big business and the filthy rich:-

Link with links to the data you are looking for:-
Poverty in the UK: a summary of facts and figures | Child Poverty Action Group

Originally Posted by Bananawoman

This thread has been bugging me because there has been a nag in my head that says, I need to post but I cannot think what it is I really want to say.

I know what it is now about benefits that annoys me. This might be a simplistic view point but why, just because you are on benefits should you be entitled to more if you have more children or any children at all or one pop out whilst on benefits? After all, those of us who are not on benefits, i.e. are working, do not find out that the partner is preggers and then go to the boss and say - oh, btw in 9 months time I need a payrise and expect to get it - do they?

Don't get me wrong, I believe that benefits should be at a sensible level, should encourage getting off them as soon as possible and I go some way to supporting SRB's argument about removing hardship by finding a job but I do not see why people on benefits should be better off than those who are on salaries where they pay tax/NI, no Coucil Tax help etc etc and live worse than those who are on benefits.

So I know this is very simplistic but that is what I feel.

Of course, there is a fundamental difference between benefits and wages. Benefits are paid out on the basis of needs, and needs vary according to circumstances. But wages are paid out on the basis of the work you do, which is unaffected by your needs and therefore don't respond to them. The fact that wages DON'T respond to needs is the very reason why millions of the lowest paid workers need in work benefits as well.

I am afraid to say that welfare MUST be responsive to needs, to be effective. Yet it would be economic nonsense to try and make wages responsive to needs rather than labour value, because a free enterprise economy couldn't operate on that basis: if it did the only people who would ever find work would be single, childless people living in low rent housing, because their needs would be least.

This fundamental difference between wages and benefits just has to be accepted really.

But having said all that, I can understand the disquiet felt by most working taxpayers towards those on benefits who seem to keep on having children without restraint. Somehow, a way needs to be found to disincentivise this, without plunging existing families into abject poverty. I would certainly go along with the state financing no more than a maximum of four children. People will then know that if they have a fifth or more, they will recieve no additional benefits, and will simply have to feed more mouths with the same money. Whether or not the cap should be for even less children, say three for example or even two, is something that can be debated, but my own view is that this would be overly harsh to some existing poor families. But four children seems a reasonable limit to me: no one really needs more than that and shouldn't expect the taxpayer to fund it.

Originally Posted by srb7677

But having said all that, I can understand the disquiet felt by most working taxpayers towards those on benefits who seem to keep on having children without restraint.

Quite all 190 of them.

Originally Posted by lankou

Quite all 190 of them.

I accept that it is almost certainly not a huge number who are totally taking the piss (though probably more than 190 who on benefits have more than four children). The problem is, as I suspect you are already aware, the right wing gutter press pounces on such examples and tries to give the impression that it is widespread. And a great many people fall for this crap.

Nevertheless, I believe it to be a reasonable response to limit benefit payments to the first four children only.

Originally Posted by srb7677

Nevertheless, I believe it to be a reasonable response to limit benefit payments to the first four children only.

The birthrate of the, for want of a better word indigenous population of Britain has been at 1.7 or lower for several decades, the average age at birth of first child is now over 30 years. It is us having the sprogs.

Originally Posted by srb7677

I accept that it is almost certainly not a huge number who are totally taking the piss (though probably more than 190 who on benefits have more than four children). The problem is, as I suspect you are already aware, the right wing gutter press pounces on such examples and tries to give the impression that it is widespread. And a great many people fall for this crap.

Nevertheless, I believe it to be a reasonable response to limit benefit payments to the first four children only.

I see where you're going with this, but just to throw out a suggestion, what about not including children born while on certain benefits? It would be controversial and would have to be debated fiercely, and there is an obvious feasibility problem with having to track a child's status in this regard for perhaps 18 years. Of course there is the moral consideration of saying that unemployed people shouldn't have children, but somewhere an element of personal responsibility needs to be introduced into the benefits system.

I am uncomfortable with saying a lot of the above because a lot of it is the sort of thing a right-wing tabloid might gleefully jump on as a great idea. I do think that benefits claimants are becoming increasingly demonised by the press, and this is reflected in a University of East Anglia report this week that shows we are all getting a lot more tolerant of general dishonesty, except where benefits cheats are concerned, where we are becoming quite a lot less tolerant. My dismay is not because it is wrong to disapprove of benefits cheats - of course it's not - but that this appears to me to be a symptom of a wider scapegoating that provides a convenient smokescreen to the really sharp practices that have levelled this country's economy.

I just wish more of those people who argue for greater personal responsibility (I agree with that bit) would at the same time understand that for the vast majority of benefits claimants - and my nearly two decades in this sector gives me quite a knowledgeable view of it - claiming benefits is a last resort because life hasn't turned out well for them, not some kind of lifestyle choice. If you see benefits claimants with flat screen tellies and nice cars, firstly it's none of your business so stop snooping, secondly they might be cheats and thirdly they might have stupidly got themselves in debt to try to make life more bearable. Of course that's their responsibility if the latter, but those years of easy credit made available to the most gullible and least-educated hardly helped. That easy credit was also taken by working people who thought they could afford it, of course, only to find out that they no longer have jobs. No, I don't have much sympathy for those choices either, but they will pay for their stupidity without you having to point and say they're getting an easy life. They're not. No-one on benefits is unless they are a criminal and manage not to get caught.

Personally I think 2 kids.

The thing is SRB is that you are a single male with no kids.

Every day at school I see kids who have free school meals (which is an entitlement becuase of certain benefits) who drive cars better than mine (and bear in mind that we have 3 cars that are not cheap) and live in bigger houses than me - and they get benefits!!!!

Originally Posted by uganda

If you see benefits claimants with flat screen tellies and nice cars, firstly it's none of your business so stop snooping,

Yes it is Uganda, as a member of Neighourhood Watch (and unrelated to the latest scurrilous Crimestoppers campaign I have officially complained about,) I was asked by the police sometime ago to report anyone "living above their means."
Now this does not mean "dropping a coin" on someone and becoming one of the 599 people out of 600 who wrongly accuse people via the "shop a benefit fraud" hotline who are wrong, it means going to a lot of time and trouble to see if they are bent or there is a legitimate reason for the "signs of richness with no visible means of support."
What many people just do not realise is some benefits are not means tested, and people may have taken early retirement as well as quite legally getting a non means tested benefit. A new car may be partially paid for by non means tested mobility allowance.
People who appear to be "living beyond their means" when on benefit and are getting no other obvious legal source of income, upon close inspection really do need some police investigation.
I have to state other than a drug dealer on benefit living in a council house who has now departed the area, I have not come across anyone taking the mickey whilst on benefit.

Originally Posted by Bananawoman

Personally I think 2 kids.

The thing is SRB is that you are a single male with no kids.

Every day at school I see kids who have free school meals (which is an entitlement becuase of certain benefits) who drive cars better than mine (and bear in mind that we have 3 cars that are not cheap) and live in bigger houses than me - and they get benefits!!!!

And you only have one kid so see little wrong with a limit of two.

The problem with that, as I see it, is that many working families have more than two kids whom they are paying for without any state assistance at all (except universal Child Benefit). But occasionally, because the main breadwinner through no fault of his/her own loses their job, such a family can be thrown onto the tender mercies of the welfare system. Now what if this family has three or four children already? They weren't on benefits when they had them and never planned to be. I think it far too harsh to provide sufficient funds for only two children in this situation.

But Uganda's idea in post #21 has merits, ie not paying additional benefits for children concieved whilst claiming welfare, though I fear such a system would be too intrusive an administrative nightmare in practice. But it is perhaps worthy of further consideration.

Originally Posted by Bananawoman

Personally I think 2 kids.

The thing is SRB is that you are a single male with no kids.

Every day at school I see kids who have free school meals (which is an entitlement becuase of certain benefits) who drive cars better than mine (and bear in mind that we have 3 cars that are not cheap) and live in bigger houses than me - and they get benefits!!!!

This is precisely what winds me up. I used to do some housekeeping work for a lady who was on benefits (she paid for me out of her benefits money so I could clean her house while she sat playing online bingo all day... I can't afford a housekeeper and I work!!) and she had 3 children - one who is 18, one who is 15 and one who is 7. All 3 children had their own laptops, there was also a desktop PC in the living room, there was a nintendo wii, an xbox 360 and 2 nintendo ds's in the house all with lots of games, and they go on at least one holiday abroad every year and neither the lady nor her husband worked at all - they are both capable of working, there is nothing physically or mentally wrong with them and the husband had recently been offered a job driving buses, which he turned down because he "wouldn't be able to spend as much time with his family" (yet somehow even though he turned down the job, still manages to get benefits....?)

Now I know for a fact that the majority of middle earners in this country could not afford to have that many luxuries in their house or go on that many holidays. It is the middle earners who are penalised. They are the ones who work every hour God sends, just to have 20% of their wage taken away from them and given to someone who does nothing.

Like I said before, I am not saying that people who genuinely NEED benefits to help them out (for example if they have been made redundant, have fallen ill or are unable to work due to caring for a sick relative) but we need to stop encouraging generation after generation to recieve handouts without a thought for where that money is actually coming from.

The Government now classes a family as "Homeless" if they have children aged over 10 of different sexes that have to share a bedroom. I'm sorry but although over 10's sharing bedrooms is not ideal, that does NOT make you homeless. When my parents were growing up, it was rare that children had their own bed, never mind their own room. I agree that children should not be penalised for their parent's employment status, but in the same breath I find it ridiculous that we are encouraging them to go the same way - if they see that they can get more money from benefits than they can from earning a living then which option are they going to choose? There are people who would be getting less money if they went out to work and this is why they are continuing to stay on benefits, which is why the benefits trap needs to be abolished once and for all.

Originally Posted by politicalwizard

There are people who would be getting less money if they went out to work and this is why they are continuing to stay on benefits, which is why the benefits trap needs to be abolished once and for all.

I proposed exactly what I think needs to be done to eliminate the benefits trap and make work pay in post #4.

BTW, I suppose I should say that I do get benefits - I get DLA for my son and CB of course atm. I work for my own company.

Hubby gets War Pensions DLA. he also works full time.

T's DLA is spent solely on him - whereas a child, who does not have a talent, usually does 1 or 2 clubs a week, my son, with his condition making it imperative I keep him active, and, no its not as simple as letting him run in the woods, he does 5 exercise classes a week. As he has no fear of water, one of those is a private swimming lesson.

Anyway, enough said - there are those genuine people on benefits and there are those who are not. Those who are not genuine need to be shopped. JMHO

Originally Posted by Bananawoman

BTW, I suppose I should say that I do get benefits - I get DLA for my son and CB of course atm. I work for my own company.

Hubby gets War Pensions DLA. he also works full time.

T's DLA is spent solely on him - whereas a child, who does not have a talent, usually does 1 or 2 clubs a week, my son, with his condition making it imperative I keep him active, and, no its not as simple as letting him run in the woods, he does 5 exercise classes a week. As he has no fear of water, one of those is a private swimming lesson.

Anyway, enough said - there are those genuine people on benefits and there are those who are not. Those who are not genuine need to be shopped. JMHO

I completely agree with you, people who genuinely NEED the extra help should be entitled to it, whereas those who are simply too lazy to get off their backsides and work should not be entitled to a penny.

Originally Posted by politicalwizard

whereas those who are simply too lazy to get off their backsides and work should not be entitled to a penny.

And just who, using what mindset is going to make that decision?

Of course, the bottom line is that there are always going to be people who know how to work the benefits system, and do it well.

The government does put systems in to place to try and catch those false claimants, but it would be impossible to stop them all.

Penalising every benefit claimant because of a small group would be very wrong.

BYT

Originally Posted by Bright Young Thing

Penalising every benefit claimant because of a small group would be very wrong.

BYT

My thoughts on the subject were put very eloquently in this speech for Holocause Memorial Day, apologies for the long cut and paste:-

Holocaust Memorial Day - The black triangle




At our HMD event last night, we had 4 incredible speakers, one of whom, Dani Neumann, is a member of the congregation struggling to live on disability living allowance and face constant challenges and hurdles to even do that. She spoke incredibly movingly, and has agreed to let me share her words. The sign of the Black Triangle was reserved by the Nazis for 'anti-socials' which as you will see below, included those with disabilities.


THE COMMON ENEMY
The broadway producer Stephen Schwartz once said "the best way to unite a people is to give them a common enemy"
Sad but true. It is never the real enemy but always an under represented group- a minority.
And not just a minority but a vulnerable one. Why? Because they are less likely to fight back.
The Nazis began their campaign against disabled people by convincing the Germans of their economic drain
It is very much economics that are driving current cuts and the campaign is leading to a rise in hate crimes against disabled. We are called benefit scroungers, Spat at on in the street and- in the case of one of my friends- tipped out of his wheelchair by thugs when he was just sitting in the pub having a drink
I am going to read out a list of statements
-These people are costing too much money. We cannot afford for them to be alive. Something has to be done
-They are nothing but a drain on recourses' this is why there is less for you.
-These people must have done something to disserve it. Its there own fault
-we should be able to pay them less- I mean they are worth less
-Why should they have a choice what they do? They should be thankful we are giving them a job
-Look you see here’s an example of one of those people -didn't we tell you they are all like that the whole group nothing but crocks.
I am sure we can all agree that we find these kind of statements disgusting, ignorant, presumptuous not to mention prejudice.
This is what they used to say about the Jews, Black people, women, Gay people. In fact any one of these statements could have been about any one of these groups at one time or the other. Thank god that kind of thing doesn't happen today. Right?
Only it does and is happening today.
What? No way not in Britain! We would never let that sort of thing happen to anyone in our country especially a vulnerable group of people
Let me ask you a question
How many times in the news in the last say year have you seen story's about "benefit cheats" headlines like 75% of people on the sick fit for work. Benefit scroungers living in million pound houses at the expense of the tax payer and so on...
The government’s welfare reform is happening not because this propaganda is true but because it needs to save money.
Rather than force tax invading banks and corporations to pay what they owe they are working hard, and have at large succeeded, in convincing the country that the resection has been caused by the benefits paid out to the sick and disabled.
The truth is most people with disability who are capable of working already are.
But the ones who cant are being used as the new popular common enemy.
They are being forced to have humiliating and inhuman assessments that are ,by the governments own admission not fit for purpose ,flawed and that are performed not by unbiased doctors who rely on medical evidence but by privet companies who's staff are given bonuses for every sick person they find fit for work.
Here are some facts
-only 0.5% of disability benefit claims are fraudulent.
-70% of those found fit to work by the new welfare reform assessments are later after a long and stressful appeal found to be unfit for work and awarded there benefit.
-The appeals have cost the UK tax payer £80million in the last year alone
-Whilst waiting months and in most case's years for assessments and appeals the disabled of the UK are forced to live under poverty line. Suffering the humiliation of having to ask and really on charities to cover basic things like food, heating and housing.
-And are subjected to abuse and random unprovoked acts of violence in public by complete strangers
But surely once a person has won there appeal they are left alone in peace to live there life right?
Wrong!
They are recalled a few months later to be given another assessment and start the whole assessment , appeal , award cycle again.
How do I know this is true. Well because of the governments own published statistics and reports. But also because (and I am no longer to embarrassed, to proud or to ashamed to admit it)
I am one of those people.
The Nazi campaign started by targeting not the Jews but disabled people. They where quietly gassed in the first experiments with Zyklon B, these people were comparatively low in numbers, were less likely to be missed, could not speak up for themselves, and had no-one to speak up for them.
Then after a large propaganda campaign that tapped into the populations anger about the country economic state ,the murder of millions begun
long standing prejudice's like.......
"they think the world owes them something",
"They are a drain on the country's limited resources"
" they do not work so they are worthless"
"It would be kinder not to mention cheaper to kill them, preferably at birth"
......Are stomach turning yet they are statements I hear from people and politicians every day. Maybe not put quite as frankly or bluntly as that but the underlining argument and sentiment is the same.
We are reminded to day that if you do not speak out against injustice, when you value a person only by how much they contribute to a community economically, Human life is cheeped.
We are taught as Jews to remember the horrors of the holocaust. But why is it so important to remember? Because if we do not we are destined to repeat those horrors again and again.
I hope and pray that when we see the warning sighs , recognize the same patterns that are there time and time again through out the history of human rights atrocities that we will stand up with our fellow human beings and fight against the mob rather than become part of it.
Let us, as Hilary Clinton put it in a recent speech to the UN about LGBT human rights, always be on the right side and not the wrong side of history.

Originally Posted by lankou

And just who, using what mindset is going to make that decision?

As I have said before ,we have people comming into this country who have travelled hundereds of miles often in pitifull conditions ,have everything they own in a sports bag , cant speak the language and are working within two days of arriving on building sites in London or maybe crop picking in Lincolnshire . Given that mindset I would like the job .

Originally Posted by Streetwalker

As I have said before ,we have people comming into this country who have travelled hundereds of miles often in pitifull conditions ,have everything they own in a sports bag , cant speak the language and are working within two days of arriving on building sites in London or maybe crop picking in Lincolnshire . Given that mindset I would like the job .

But it is those exploited people who are keeping the unemployment numbers so high. I would also point out so you wish British for want of a better word indigenous people to live in conditions I would not keep livestock in, work with no health and safety regulation and also be paid below the minimum wage.
Sorry mate I did not have my relatives get killed and maimed in several wars fighting for freedom and human rights so that workers could be treated worse than animals.

That speech is just about disabled people, my point is not about disabled people who NEED benefit money, like I have said before, this being the third time, I am talking about people who ARE just stuck in the benefits trap and COULD work if they wanted to. With this in mind, I have a friend who is physically disabled and bound to a wheelchair, but she works at ASDA on a checkout and has done for the past 8 years... Just a thought...

And you talk about "those exploited people" keeping numbers so high, then in the same paragraph talk about how their working conditions are so poor - which one is it?

Employers have always "exploited" (for want of a better word) workers who are willing to work long hours for not a lot of pay, this is not just a recent thing with immigrants as people seem to think.

Originally Posted by politicalwizard

That speech is just about disabled people, my point is not about disabled people who NEED benefit money, like I have said before, this being the third time, I am talking about people who ARE just stuck in the benefits trap and COULD work if they wanted to. With this in mind, I have a friend who is physically disabled and bound to a wheelchair, but she works at ASDA on a checkout and has done for the past 8 years... Just a thought...

And you talk about "those exploited people" keeping numbers so high, then in the same paragraph talk about how their working conditions are so poor - which one is it?

Employers have always "exploited" (for want of a better word) workers who are willing to work long hours for not a lot of pay, this is not just a recent thing with immigrants as people seem to think.

My hubby is tetraplegic and he has worked full time since he broke his neck in 1994, went back to college one day a week to do a part time computing course so he could reskill himself (at his cost I hasten to add too) and has less sick time off compared to his colleagues. He is about to embark on a new job, his 6th since his accident.

One of the problems is that people who have had access to a free education and have not embraced that so have no qualifications nor the ability to work but expect others to do it all for them. Before all the "I had crap parents etc etc etc" jump on to this post, each case is individual but I know people who have had sh1t parents, who have been put into care, who have still worked their hardest to do well for themselves and work and achieved a good standard of working. so it can be done.

While I would never want anyone to "starve" I certainly feel that people should earn their benefits (as in those for unemployment - I am not talking about medical where it is truly not possible to work) which the majority do not at the moment. After all why do many unemployed or those who have been on long term benefits get opverlooked for work - mainly due to lack of proven work experience and experience of working. I will be honest that if I had 2 CVs with one person who was in work and moving jobs versus one who had not worked and there was no valid reason for this then I would probably employ the former.

Originally Posted by Bananawoman

My hubby is tetraplegic and he has worked full time since he broke his neck in 1994, went back to college one day a week to do a part time computing course so he could reskill himself (at his cost I hasten to add too) and has less sick time off compared to his colleagues. He is about to embark on a new job, his 6th since his accident.

One of the problems is that people who have had access to a free education and have not embraced that so have no qualifications nor the ability to work but expect others to do it all for them. Before all the "I had crap parents etc etc etc" jump on to this post, each case is individual but I know people who have had sh1t parents, who have been put into care, who have still worked their hardest to do well for themselves and work and achieved a good standard of working. so it can be done.

While I would never want anyone to "starve" I certainly feel that people should earn their benefits (as in those for unemployment - I am not talking about medical where it is truly not possible to work) which the majority do not at the moment. After all why do many unemployed or those who have been on long term benefits get opverlooked for work - mainly due to lack of proven work experience and experience of working. I will be honest that if I had 2 CVs with one person who was in work and moving jobs versus one who had not worked and there was no valid reason for this then I would probably employ the former.

Most of this is valid reasoning - but what scares me about it is it being used to justify; "you'll work at this sweatshop/strip club/slave labour camp or you'll be left to starve". It shouldn't pay to stay out of work, but I'm just afraid to hurt the innocent and vulnerable along the way. There's kids growing up in houses full of mould, and that's in such contrast to these claims of 'benefits thieves' that it makes me so bloody angry :/

Daily-mail bullshit all the time...

Anyhow, I think they should make it progressively harder to claim benefits over time if you're long-term unemployed. You'll either find *a* job or learn to survive on welfare that barely keeps you going. It's harsh. Certainly. I can only imagine a man who grew up middle-class being made redundant and getting a crash course in how to survive on the street. But if kids can survive there then a healthy adult male should get by and find opportunity to get back on his feet. Presuming there's investment into small businesses that offer that opportunity... which is another argument, but ultimately what I feel it comes down to. Leaders that don't lead by example piss me off more than the folks who commit fraud while on welfare.

I've known one guy who came out of care 'unscathed' (as far as one could tell) but I considered him the exception to the rule.

Originally Posted by Verion

Anyhow, I think they should make it progressively harder to claim benefits over time if you're long-term unemployed. You'll either find *a* job or learn to survive on welfare that barely keeps you going. It's harsh.

I agree harsh, but necessary.

Originally Posted by Bananawoman

I agree harsh, but necessary.

You and I have disagreed with this sort of thing before in our private chats, so you will be unsurprised that I disagree now.

You are aware that a single person's benefit when unemployed is a pitiful £67.50 a week? And yet you see it as "necessary" that this is progressively reduced. At what point do you think it should stop being reduced if you don't want people to starve? Should people be punished with homelessness for the crime of not finding a job fast enough? There are at present five people chasing every job vacancy, and for the less skilled jobs many more than that. You cannot fit five people into one job, there just aren't enough jobs to go round. Consider yourself trying to manage on £67.50 a week before wishing to reduce this pitiful amount still further. No one CHOOSES to live on that if there are better options. The problem is the benefits trap, and the confiscatory rate of benefit withdrawal for those who take low paid work.

What should be done are genuine measures to make work pay as I outlined in post #4, not reducing pitiful benefits below the level where it is possible to keep a roof over one's head, as you surely would do if you reduced benefits much below the current pitiful level.

I have always noticed that those who have never had to survive on them are keenest to imagine benefits to be "overgenerous". In fact, they are anything but.

If you read what was written it is stated that it should be harder to claim benefits over time not that the benefit should be reduced from the amount it is atm.

Along with the £67.50 a week perhaps you would be kind enough to tell us all what other payments/benefits a single person gets, like council tax benefit etc or anything else. I am sure there are those of us who, as you rightly say have never had benefits, would like to know just that - exactly what an unemployed single person gets, free prescriptions?

The fact is that people on benefits who are fit for work should do work of some kind for their benefits. There are enough things that need doing and by gaining experience it makes a person more marketable.

No, you are right, I have never had to survive on benefits but then again I worked at school, got a decent education and from a poor working class family, who at time did have to survive on benefits until another job was found, carved myself a career. I was taught good money sense, always saved because my family knew that if times were hard you needed a nest egg. When I first worked I was left with virtually no money for me after paying my "rent" to my mum, my train fare to work and savings etc.

There may be x people applying for y jobs but in this day and age it is those who differntiate themselves who get the jobs that there are.

Originally Posted by Bananawoman

If you read what was written it is stated that it should be harder to claim benefits over time not that the benefit should be reduced from the amount it is atm.

Along with the £67.50 a week perhaps you would be kind enough to tell us all what other payments/benefits a single person gets, like council tax benefit etc or anything else. I am sure there are those of us who, as you rightly say have never had benefits, would like to know just that - exactly what an unemployed single person gets, free prescriptions?

As someone else who has never claimed any benefits, I'd also be interested to know this. You can probably add at least housing benefit to that list, and I'm sure there'll be others too.

The fact is that people on benefits who are fit for work should do work of some kind for their benefits. There are enough things that need doing and by gaining experience it makes a person more marketable.

Indeed. I'd like to see unemployment benefit tied in with a compulsory workfare type scheme, kicking in 'X' weeks or months after the claimant starts to get their benefit, 'X' perhaps being variable depending on the extant economic situation.

No, you are right, I have never had to survive on benefits but then again I worked at school, got a decent education and from a poor working class family, who at time did have to survive on benefits until another job was found, carved myself a career. I was taught good money sense, always saved because my family knew that if times were hard you needed a nest egg. When I first worked I was left with virtually no money for me after paying my "rent" to my mum, my train fare to work and savings etc.

There may be x people applying for y jobs but in this day and age it is those who differntiate themselves who get the jobs that there are.

Quite, and the easy availability of the plethora of benefits there are makes it so easy for many who have little to no ambition or incentive to better themselves to just sit their and sponge, then whinge that they're not getting enough! I have absolutely no problem with those people who genuinely find themselves in a difficult situation receiving assistance for as long as is genuinely needed, but make it too easy, or be too generous and look where we are today, with personal responsibility at an all-time low!

Originally Posted by Bananawoman

If you read what was written it is stated that it should be harder to claim benefits over time not that the benefit should be reduced from the amount it is atm.

Along with the £67.50 a week perhaps you would be kind enough to tell us all what other payments/benefits a single person gets, like council tax benefit etc or anything else. I am sure there are those of us who, as you rightly say have never had benefits, would like to know just that - exactly what an unemployed single person gets, free prescriptions?

The fact is that people on benefits who are fit for work should do work of some kind for their benefits. There are enough things that need doing and by gaining experience it makes a person more marketable.

No, you are right, I have never had to survive on benefits but then again I worked at school, got a decent education and from a poor working class family, who at time did have to survive on benefits until another job was found, carved myself a career. I was taught good money sense, always saved because my family knew that if times were hard you needed a nest egg. When I first worked I was left with virtually no money for me after paying my "rent" to my mum, my train fare to work and savings etc.

There may be x people applying for y jobs but in this day and age it is those who differntiate themselves who get the jobs that there are.

All that you say here is reasonable enough, and I apologise for misunderstandng what you meant (re making benefits harder to claim over time rather than reducing them over time as I assumed).

In answer to your question concerning what a single unemployed person recieves in benefits in addition to the £67.50 a week, yes you are right to mention Council Tax Benefit which pays their Council Tax in full. There is also Housing Benefit which pays most, if not all, of their rent. But neither benefit enriches claimants: the money goes straight to councils and landlords respectively. Claimants do also recieve free prescriptions. But if they are single and childless, that is about it. So such a person may have no rent or Council Tax to pay, but ALL other bills PLUS the cost of feeding and clothing himself, not to mention jobseeking expenses, must be financed out of only that £67.50.

As to the idea of working for benefits, I am not averse to this idea in principle, but the unemployed should recieve minimum wage for it. So in return for his £67.50, an unemployed person can reasonably be expected to work 11 hours a week. Any more than that and he will be recieving less than the minimum wage unless his benefits increase by an additional £6 for every additional hour worked. I think it would be immoral to expect the very poorest to work for less than the minimum wage. Of course, families will recieve much more than £67.50 a week so one of the parents can reasonably be expected to work for as many hours as is necessary to earn those benefits at minimum wage, up to a maximum of 40 hours a week.

But as far as claimants doing some form of work for their benefits is concerned, the following proviso MUST apply. Claimant labour must NOT be used to replace existing paid employment, thereby exacerbating the cost to taxpayers and putting more people out of work. Ideally, as much of this work as possible should be done in the voluntary sector, and there MUST be careful oversight to avoid cheap claimant labour being used as a substitute for actually employing people.

I was saying "you either find a job or we reduce your benefits". You'll either find it increasingly difficult to live until you find a job that's suitable, or you will not eat.

You're saying "you either find a job or you don't get any benefits". You're going to force folks to either earn their benefits working at a strip joint or not eat.

How is this better srb??
What solution have you got to a situation such as this one?

Originally Posted by srb7677

You and I have disagreed with this sort of thing before in our private chats, so you will be unsurprised that I disagree now.

You are aware that a single person's benefit when unemployed is a pitiful £67.50 a week? And yet you see it as "necessary" that this is progressively reduced. At what point do you think it should stop being reduced if you don't want people to starve? Should people be punished with homelessness for the crime of not finding a job fast enough? There are at present five people chasing every job vacancy, and for the less skilled jobs many more than that. You cannot fit five people into one job, there just aren't enough jobs to go round. Consider yourself trying to manage on £67.50 a week before wishing to reduce this pitiful amount still further. No one CHOOSES to live on that if there are better options. The problem is the benefits trap, and the confiscatory rate of benefit withdrawal for those who take low paid work.

What should be done are genuine measures to make work pay as I outlined in post #4, not reducing pitiful benefits below the level where it is possible to keep a roof over one's head, as you surely would do if you reduced benefits much below the current pitiful level.

I have always noticed that those who have never had to survive on them are keenest to imagine benefits to be "overgenerous". In fact, they are anything but.

How on earth can you say that a £67.50 is pitiful?! I manage to keep my weekly shop around the £35 mark and that is for 2 people's food, so for a single person, they could easily get their weekly shop for around £30, and that leaves them with an additional £37.50 a week to do whatever they want with - new shoes, clothes, bits and bobs for the house (or in reality a lot of people would just spend it down the pub...). This £67.50 is essentially mostly pocket money - they get their housing paid for, council tax paid, and I'm sure much more whereas a person who works will be left with a damn site less than £67.50 a week after all the bills have gone out! I for one would love that much a week!

Originally Posted by politicalwizard

a person who works will be left with a damn site less than £67.50 a week after all the bills have gone out! I for one would love that much a week!

A person on £67.50 has nothing left after bills go out - bills aren't covered by benefits, so if you are going to make this point make sure you're comparing like with like.

Originally Posted by politicalwizard

How on earth can you say that a £67.50 is pitiful?! I manage to keep my weekly shop around the £35 mark and that is for 2 people's food, so for a single person, they could easily get their weekly shop for around £30, and that leaves them with an additional £37.50 a week to do whatever they want with - new shoes, clothes, bits and bobs for the house (or in reality a lot of people would just spend it down the pub...). This £67.50 is essentially mostly pocket money - they get their housing paid for, council tax paid, and I'm sure much more whereas a person who works will be left with a damn site less than £67.50 a week after all the bills have gone out! I for one would love that much a week!

Ill-informed nonsense, I must say. As for the other £37.50 a week after food, which you dismiss as "pocket money", have you never heard of gas, electricity and water bills? I am single so have a single persons's uasge of all three, and my electricity is typically £6 a week. Gas varies but during the winter can reach over £8 a week, and water typically costs about £5 per week. That would wipe out £19 out of that £37.50 right away, if that was all I had to live on. Then, consider that for jobseekers, being online and maintaining a phone are essential for applying for jobs and being contactable by potential employers. And that together is unlikely to cost les than a tenner a week. Then there is £3 a week for a TV License, which I believe one needs to own a computer. This leaves the grand total of £5.50 a week out of which one would have to pay for all their clothes, pay bus fares to attend interviews, not to mention pay for essential repairs. I would love to see you manage it if you think it is so easy. I have been in that situation myself, and let me tell you that £67.50 IS a truly pitiful sum to exist on. UNLESS of course one is still living at home with mummy and daddy and knows nothing about paying bills!

Originally Posted by Verion

I was saying "you either find a job or we reduce your benefits". You'll either find it increasingly difficult to live until you find a job that's suitable, or you will not eat.

You're saying "you either find a job or you don't get any benefits". You're going to force folks to either earn their benefits working at a strip joint or not eat.

How is this better srb??
What solution have you got to a situation such as this one?

I would do neither of those things. T

Too many people just fill themselves with glee at the very thought of getting impossibly tough on welfare claimants, without giving a rat's arse for the consequences, and seem driven by a hatred of those unfortunates that mostly seems borne of ignorance. It is, for example, rarely those who have ever had to live on benefits who want draconian measures, but usually those who haven't got the first clue what it is actually like.

I outlined what I would do in post #4. I wouldn't reduce the pitiful benefit levels at all, but would incentivise work by only removing 40p from benefits for every £1 earned. Eliminating the benefits trap in a way that creates no added hardship, and making sure that work pays, is the way to go.

how on earth can you say that a £67.50 is pitiful?! I manage to keep my weekly shop around the £35 mark and that is for 2 people's food, so for a single person, they could easily get their weekly shop for around £30, and that leaves them with an additional £37.50 a week to do whatever they want with - new shoes, clothes, bits and bobs for the house (or in reality a lot of people would just spend it down the pub...). This £67.50 is essentially mostly pocket money - they get their housing paid for, council tax paid, and i'm sure much more whereas a person who works will be left with a damn site less than £67.50 a week after all the bills have gone out! I for one would love that much a week!

ill-informed nonsense, i must say. As for the other £37.50 a week after food, which you dismiss as "pocket money", have you never heard of gas, electricity and water bills? I am single so have a single persons's uasge of all three, and my electricity is typically £6 a week. Gas varies but during the winter can reach over £8 a week, and water typically costs about £5 per week. That would wipe out £19 out of that £37.50 right away, if that was all i had to live on. Then, consider that for jobseekers, being online and maintaining a phone are essential for applying for jobs and being contactable by potential employers. And that together is unlikely to cost les than a tenner a week. Then there is £3 a week for a tv license, which i believe one needs to own a computer. This leaves the grand total of £5.50 a week out of which one would have to pay for all their clothes, pay bus fares to attend interviews, not to mention pay for essential repairs. I would love to see you manage it if you think it is so easy. I have been in that situation myself, and let me tell you that £67.50 is a truly pitiful sum to exist on. Unless of course one is still living at home with mummy and daddy and knows nothing about paying bills!

See, this is where I get pi**ed off, when people think that those on benefits are rolling about in money and well off.

Perhaps for someone living at home, with no bills, £37.50 a week would be great, but as SRB says, its a big world out there, with lots of bills, most of which are essential. You have to pay for gas and electricity, no arguing. And I take on board the point about a tv licence and phone.

£67.50 a week for everything bar rent and council tax is pathetic. Truly pathetic. You try living on that when you have to pay the bills outlined above.

There are people out there who would see benefit claimants destitute, and laugh about it to their mates, and thats wrong. People who feel that being on benefits should be some sort of penury, where the claimant should have no enjoyment in life, god forbid they might want to go to the pub for a few hours, or the cinema, or anything else sociable that costs money. Oh, or buy themselves anything at all.

A close friend of mine is a single parent with a 2 yr old daughter. She gets so little money she can barely feed herself, she always makes sure her daughter is fed but I suspect she rarely eats (through hard evidence that I have) she never goes out or buys clothes, and has no make up as she cant afford it. Is it right that we are reducing her to this?? She cannot work at the moment as her daughter is so young, and she is already making plans to go back to work when R is older.

Britain has a welfare state. End of. So why not show a little compassion when speaking of it, instead of lumping everyone claiming into one huge work shy group, and perhaps allow those who are in their situation through no fault of their own, to live rather than just survive.

Rant over!

BYT

Originally Posted by Bright Young Thing

See, this is where I get pi**ed off, when people think that those on benefits are rolling about in money and well off.

Perhaps for someone living at home, with no bills, £37.50 a week would be great, but as SRB says, its a big world out there, with lots of bills, most of which are essential. You have to pay for gas and electricity, no arguing. And I take on board the point about a tv licence and phone.

£67.50 a week for everything bar rent and council tax is pathetic. Truly pathetic. You try living on that when you have to pay the bills outlined above.

There are people out there who would see benefit claimants destitute, and laugh about it to their mates, and thats wrong. People who feel that being on benefits should be some sort of penury, where the claimant should have no enjoyment in life, god forbid they might want to go to the pub for a few hours, or the cinema, or anything else sociable that costs money. Oh, or buy themselves anything at all.

A close friend of mine is a single parent with a 2 yr old daughter. She gets so little money she can barely feed herself, she always makes sure her daughter is fed but I suspect she rarely eats (through hard evidence that I have) she never goes out or buys clothes, and has no make up as she cant afford it. Is it right that we are reducing her to this?? She cannot work at the moment as her daughter is so young, and she is already making plans to go back to work when R is older.

Britain has a welfare state. End of. So why not show a little compassion when speaking of it, instead of lumping everyone claiming into one huge work shy group, and perhaps allow those who are in their situation through no fault of their own, to live rather than just survive.

Rant over!

BYT

I've lived off £30 a week - nobody wants to adopt teenagers neither does anyone ever want to risk a go through the care system, and at that age you're not entitled to anything, neither are you considered able to sign a tenancy agreement; so it's either find a legal guardian or live on the street. At that time and on that budget, the pennies mattered and the food bill was typically £1.25-£1.50 a day. The electricity was switched off during daylight hours at the place I was staying. Though I had relatives that would fully subsidise my bus pass; I cannot say that I'm alien to such a situation.

Yet when I moved back with my parents, all of the food and the bills and everything I had to scrape by with were free. £30 a week became stupid - instead of sandwhiches from home for lunch it was burgers and chips - instead of food, bills and supplies it was new CDs to listen to. In all honesty I don't think the taxpayer should have paid for those things.

And the third thing of note; while I don't think people should pay via tax for my wasteful behaviour, it's worth noting that when I speak to the finance staff in college they say "most of the kids on EMA need that money" :- and to make it harder to obtain usually means that kids who need it do not get it.

Case in point - there should be grants or support groups that your friend could apply for BYT - except few people know about them and it's like applying for them is intentionally made difficult -_-

Did you know there's an 'education trust' in my town? No?
Well I'd say that - if you make these things hard to find and apply for, then while they are harder to exploit; people who need them do not apply for them.

I've known people who can't find a place to live or end up bottom of the council waiting list because they aren't 18, or pregnant, or on some drugs. It makes them rage and all, but... quietly I'd have to agree that those on drugs or with kids are more vulnerable than I've ever been, even though some of them might just be ignorant and playing the system.

In short, I have mixed feelings toward the welfare system. It *is* possible to piss tax money away through benefits - as the newspapers find some exceptional example in which to prove (to much a lesser extent mind you than the government pisses away the money) but if you have some brilliant idea about removing support for the bottom of our society on the premise that they can afford to chain-smoke and eat pizza every day, or that they don't work hard for us... I'm afraid it's just going to be a social and economical failure as well as being incredibly misguided.

I think your 40p of every £1 idea is decent srb, though it won't stop people complaining that those on welfare still have an easier ride - now that they can still claim the benefits and "barely work" -and are the reason everyone's lives have problems -_-

I am always astounded whenever benefits/welfare are discussed on internet forums just how many closet Nazis, Marie Antoinettes, and pub professors who know precisely **** all about the benefits system, pontificate about it from their armchairs.

I just wonder how many homeless, starving and dead people will need to litter the streets due to the aftermath of the welfare cuts before you will ponder:-""I beseech you in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken."