to worry that some people on benefits won't manage when payments are made monthly

(362 Posts)
SuedeEffectPochette Tue 12-Feb-13 22:08:43

Of course, many people on benefits are doubtless great at managing a budget, but at the moment people are paid weekly, so if money runs out, it's only a day or so (still bad enough). But when payments are monthly, some people may have a couple of weeks of no money - what is going to happen to them? Also Housing Benefit won't be paid direct to landlords any more, which will lead to a massive increase in homelessness if that money is not passed on. If you have run out of money for food, you won't be paying any to your landlord will you? I think the government should stick to weekly payments.

HoHoHoNoYouDont Tue 12-Feb-13 22:11:01

I don't see why monthly payments should be a problem unless you really have problems handling cash in which case you should be able to apply for some kind of special consideration depending on your circumstances.

Mosman Tue 12-Feb-13 22:12:12

I agree, it's hard enough as a family to budget monthly when you've had 20 years of it, in Australia we get paid fortnightly which firstly chips away at the interest on our mortgage as the payments are more regular and secondly you're only ever days away from being paid not weeks.

Piemother Tue 12-Feb-13 22:13:44

Yanbu. Removing landlord direct was a daft decision.

The loan sharks will make a killing u
hmm

I worked in supportive housing for a long time. If direct payments of HB to landlords stop, there will be an increase in vulnerable people on the streets. If you have addictions or MH issues of some kinds you won't always pass the money on to the LL. You just won't. I hope everyone is ready for the homelessness to be like it was in the 80s.

mumandboys123 Tue 12-Feb-13 22:15:29

yes, I agree, it's going to be a problem for a lot of people. My worry for people is the fact that at some point there will be a switch from weekly/fortnightly to monthly - which means potentially up to 4 weeks with no money at all. It will be very difficult for even the most capable money managers to manage that on such basic incomes.

CloudsAndTrees Tue 12-Feb-13 22:15:45

Housing benefit is rarely paid directly to landlords in this area anyway, except in very special circumstances. People seem to manage.

The rest of us that live on a wage can manage it, I don't see why people on benefits can't. It's not rocket science, and people on benefits won't be the only ones living on whatever's left in the cupboard or freezer at the end of the month. The idea is that they will get used to it so they can manage a monthly wage when they get one, and aren't put off looking for a job because of monthly payments, because that's what they will already have.

Seems like a good idea to me.

In theiry people should be able to budget but in practice it's harder. Dh and I are currently paid about8 days apart and it works so much better for us than when we were paid on the same day. We aren't awful with money we both have degrees and common sense grin and it is still easier. I agree OP - this change will be problematic and cause hardship.

Trills Tue 12-Feb-13 22:17:22

YABU.

You seem to think that people "on benefits" are less good at managing money than people who are "not on benefits", which I assume means "working", where being paid monthly is the norm. (many benefits are paid to people who also work)

The majority of household bills are paid on a monthly basis. If you are worried about people who are bad at managing money (on benefits or not) you could consider it easier to pay the rent/gas/electric/water/council tax at the beginning of the month and then see how much you have left for the rest of the month, rather than having to keep some of your money each week in order to pay a big lot of bills that one lot of income can't cover.

HoHoHoNoYouDont Tue 12-Feb-13 22:18:07

At the moment, even if tenants have their money paid direct to the landlord they can reverse this anytime they want and keep the money so I don't see how it's going to make it worse. My alcoholic ex tenant did this.

Personally I would prefer it monthly right now.

But there is one person I know will not cope with it at all. He cant even make it the two weeks. I do hope there will be some support for others like him. He has mild LDs.

I also think that there are just people who wont be able to cope who dont have LDs. But hopefully they will learn to and turn it into a positive.

Not paying direct to LLs is a crazy move. It will make getting a tenancy while on HB even more difficult.

rhondajean Tue 12-Feb-13 22:21:36

It's gang to be a disaster.

It's not about how good people are at managing money. It's potentially about people making decisions such as feeding their children or buying them waterproof shoes NOW or paying rent which they won't really get into trouble over right this minute.

If benefits were paid at reasonable levels, it wouldn't be a bad idea.

Also there are a much higher percentage of vulnerable people on benefits than in work and they will now be a target for teh exploitative, whether that be doorstep loans or just bad people they know.

SuedeEffectPochette Tue 12-Feb-13 22:21:49

Trills - I don't think people "on benefits" are less good at managing money. I think some people on benefits probably are, and that if you are not receiving much money anyway it is going to be much harder to budget for a month than for a week. It's just a cost saving exercise for the government which will affect those with lower incomes and their children.

aldiwhore Tue 12-Feb-13 22:22:21

YANBU.

When you have very very little, it's far easier to budget week by week than month by month. It's actually extremely difficult to budget monthly when you have little to play with.

Perhaps monthly cheques that can be cashed weekly would be good??? There's a choice there then, although you'll always have people who spend their 'giro' (I'm old) on the day they get it and live on nothing for 6 out of 7 days... as there always ARE these types, for a public order perspective, a monthly payment will create a lot of problems, not just for the claimant but for everyone else.

Not tarring all people on benefits with the same brush AT ALL, been on them myself and wasn't a scumbag... but anyone who's ever been on benefits knows these people exist.

MariusEarlobe Tue 12-Feb-13 22:23:23

Are you paid in arrears for benefits? If a person's being paid weekly and it switches to monthly will people get a week's payment then nothing for four weeks during the switch?

When we fled each I was on monthly benefits for a while, the last couple of weeks we lived on child benefit because I had so many bills from living with exh when I had a well paid job I had to leave when I fled.

In regards to rent not paid direct, had something essential gone such as dd s shoes, cooker, coat I would have had to use part of rent to replace until I next got money.

For those with issues it will be chaotic , people with drug, drink issues suddenly given 700 pounds or more in their bank???

Booyhoo Tue 12-Feb-13 22:23:33

i am on benefits and i want to receive them monthly. all my bills are monthly bills, not weekly or 4 weekly as benefits are currently paid.

Booyhoo Tue 12-Feb-13 22:25:19

but yes i agree that others will really struggle with it being done this way.

aldiwhore Tue 12-Feb-13 22:26:17

Maybe choice is the best way then Booyhoo?

For some, DAILY payments would be best for them?

MariusEarlobe Tue 12-Feb-13 22:26:28

"It's potentially about people making decisions such as feeding their children or buying them waterproof shoes NOW or paying rent which they won't really get into trouble over right this minute."

This.

rhondajean Tue 12-Feb-13 22:26:35

The best thing for people who struggle for whatever reson would be to sign up to a budgeting account from a credit union.

LouMae Tue 12-Feb-13 22:27:02

YABU. People don't have a choice how often they get paid their wages, why should benefits be any difference? They should just be glad they're getting the money!

SuedeEffectPochette Tue 12-Feb-13 22:27:07

Booyhoo - yes I can see how it would be easier for you if your bills are monthly. But what about the few that just blow it all in the first week. You can starve in three weeks..........

OhTheConfusion Tue 12-Feb-13 22:29:49

What will happen to people during the transision from weekly to monthly... will they be left with nothing for upto four weeks?
It is all very well going from one month to the next with a full months wage but not four or five weeks on one weeks worth of benefit money.

Booyhoo Tue 12-Feb-13 22:29:53

yes the choice of weekly or monthly would be good, but those in charge wont go for that as it would cost too much to do. as usual.

Bogeyface Tue 12-Feb-13 22:30:51

I think the problem is that a great many benefit claimants who dont work, are vuilnerable. So addictions, learning issues, mental health problems or very young with no support (such as kids coming out of the "care" system). Expecting them to manage on a monthly basis is fine, except for the fact that was mentioned above, if they make a mistake they could potentially have 4 weeks without money if it is a 5 week month. Thats going to cause immense problems.

Also, alot of unemployed claimants have pre-payment meters for their gas and electric. If the money runs out so does the gas and electric, and while one would get used to how much to put on the meter after a couple of months, what happens in the first month or 2 if they have underestimated? You could argue that monthly payments means that they can take advantage of direct debit discounts etc, but then you are back to the issues of the vulnerable maybe not being in a position to understand it or shop around effectively so they could end up paying more.

It really isnt as simple as it seems.

Booyhoo Tue 12-Feb-13 22:31:40

i realise that my first post seems as if i think it should be paid monthly. i dont, i just personally find it easier to work with a monthly figure and that's all i was saying. i wasn't saying it should be like this for everyone.

Bogeyface Tue 12-Feb-13 22:32:32

Incidentally, when CB changed from being paid weekly to monthly, single parents could opt to keep their weekly. I dont know why they were allowed to do this, but I chose to do it as I was on my own at the time and still do. I have to say that knowing I will get that on a Monday, every week, is a big help especially on the last week of the month.

Mixed feelings here. Personally monthly would be easier than fortnightly.

Often we find that all our bills come out within 2 weeks, which can be disastrous.

Booyhoo

Over here there is going to be a choice of monthly or fortnightly.

And HB direct to LLs is staying.

Bogeyface Tue 12-Feb-13 22:34:52

Boo I like having both. Before H got made redundant we had 2 budgets. The monthly "wages" budget that paid all the billsand the weekly "TC" budget that covered the shopping (he was on a low income despite working 50+ hours a week sad ). Anything left over went into the child benefit account for clothes, shoes, trips, emergencies etc.

Booyhoo Tue 12-Feb-13 22:35:22

"What will happen to people during the transision from weekly to monthly... will they be left with nothing for upto four weeks?
It is all very well going from one month to the next with a full months wage but not four or five weeks on one weeks worth of benefit money."

if they paid it for the month ahead instead of in arrears would that get rid of this issue?

OptimisticPessimist Tue 12-Feb-13 22:35:49

It's the transition that worries me most tbh. Like Boo I think it would probably be easier monthly, I'm always forgetting I've got bills coming out (same date every month, but different days of the week obviously and I think in days rather than dates) so to be able to have them all come out at once would be great. I don't have a massive problem with it being changed for new claims, as long as there's protection for vulnerable people. The problem is that people with existing claims will have to go four or five weeks without any money when their claim is transferred, and that's what worries me. I'll be trying to save enough to cover the transition period, but any people aren't really aware of the changes UC will bring - especially those who only claim tax credits and not unemployment benefits.

I would much prefer monthly. It would mean I could pay all the bills, keep the money I need for each week and then know what I have left for clothes/car repairs or other one off expenses.

Can you tell I budget to the last penny? blush

Bogeyface Tue 12-Feb-13 22:37:28

They should just be glad they're getting the money!

Well obviously we are. I spend my day curtseying to all you tax payers, the same tax that my husband and I have both paid but no longer do thanks to redundancy. Sheesh!

But as I said what about those who are vulnerable and who already struggle with a weekly budget? I can imagine that there will be a massive increase in child neglect with this too.

Bogeyface Tue 12-Feb-13 22:39:18

if they paid it for the month ahead instead of in arrears would that get rid of this issue?

Unlikely. JSA is paid in arrears as you are signing to confirm that you were available for work in the previous 2 weeks and that you were seeking work. Paying it in advance would bring all sorts of issues. I really dont see how it is workable.

andubelievedthat Tue 12-Feb-13 22:39:55

YANBU, its a straightforward money saving exercise by the govt. LOUMAe why not try getting the monkey off your back?

Booyhoo Tue 12-Feb-13 22:42:28

good point bogey, i also kept my CB and TC weekly and yes that is the money i get the shopping, electric, petrol, and weekly monies to dc's various clubs with on a monday.

although if pushed i think the only thing i couldn't change to monthly would be the grocery shopping. but i totally see how others just couldn't do this.

i have always chosen to have my Hb paid to me as i know that if stuck i can always choose to feed my children and deal with LL later. i know that isn't maybe the best scenario for the LL but for me it is important that i have that choice. i have needed to do it maybe 3 times in 8 years of renting and have always called LL first and asked if it was ok. i know others wont be as lucky with their LL's though.

Booyhoo Tue 12-Feb-13 22:45:07

"Can you tell I budget to the last penny? "

same. it is very difficult to work out what is available to spend on the 1st of feb out of a fortnight's IS in order to leave enough for the monthly bills that will be coming out at the end of feb.

Bogeyface Tue 12-Feb-13 22:45:31

Perhaps this is the ultimate cost cutting exercise. Give an addict £400 (say) on the 1st and a fair few will be dead by the 7th.

5madthings Tue 12-Feb-13 22:48:10

I think this could cause problems for lots of people, especially the vulnerable.

When I had ds1 we got our child benefit paid weekly as we were students. Its still paid weekly now 13yrs later and ever tho dp is paid monthly and we budget etc its actually very handy to know we have a certain amount going in each week and makes it easier if something unexpected comes up etc.

foslady Tue 12-Feb-13 22:48:43

I worry for those with an addiction of some kind - for what could be the 1st time they will have a large amount of money going into an account. Imagine how worried a partner will be not knowing if the account has been raided and therre's no money to feed the kids for 3 weeks?

Bogeyface Tue 12-Feb-13 22:48:52

Down to the penny here too. One thing about earning a shit wage is that being on JSA isnt quite so much of a shock! Our outgoings were pared down the minimum until.......we looked at our budget and realised that we could afford a new car (well, new to us). So we got one, on finance (a good deal to be fair)........ten days before H got to work to be told his unit was closed and he was out of a job. No notice, no pay, no nothing. We cant sell it or hand it back because we would still owe as the depreciation (even with a used car) means it is worth less than we owe on it sad

porridgewithalmondmilk Tue 12-Feb-13 22:49:20

rhondajean - I'm not benefit-bashing, but honestly, how isn't it a decent amount? hmm

Friend is a single parent to two children and gets £1600 per month in benefits. No disability benefits, "just" housing benefit, council tax benefit, income support, child tax credits and child benefit.

On top of that the children go to nursery three days a week and are fed there - she doesn't pay for that. Plus milk and vegetable tokens.

I really can't see how that isn't enough, sorry?

SuedeEffectPochette Tue 12-Feb-13 22:49:51

That's a bit extreme Bogeyface. Give anyone £400, say, on the 1st and it will be difficult to imagine/plan for what you will need on the 25th. It will also be tempting to splash the £400 a bit, because you have it, I imagine. It's going to be awful and it will be the people who are most vulnerable who will suffer most.

Startail Tue 12-Feb-13 22:50:59

It's not just the transition that will be difficult, it's every time people in temporary work come on and off benefits.

I loan out my phone often enough as it is to the nice lad next door.

He frequently ends up flat broke between jobs (hence no mobile credit). I fear that monthly payments would mean even longer before his money comes through.

He's not very bright and has no family support, budgeting is not a skill he's ever learnt.

Bogeyface Tue 12-Feb-13 22:51:36

It is extreme, and I was being facetious, but the fact is that you give an addict say £400 and they will blow it and then what? Starvation, begging, prostitution or theft presumably. I am just saying that it has not been thought out at all. I agree with you that, as always, the worst off will suffer most. sad

poppypebble Tue 12-Feb-13 22:51:42

I have a family member who won't manage monthly payments some months. He has schizophrenia and just won't cope when he is unwell.

However, no doubt when he is forced into work and can't cope (we know this, he's had 3 breakdowns already from trying to go back to work) he'll kill himself, thus rendering the budgeting problem non-existent.

SuedeEffectPochette Tue 12-Feb-13 22:54:44

It's awful but it's also just not going to save money overall is it? Not with more people forced out of housing or having to resort to desperate measures of some sort to make ends meet.

Bogeyface Tue 12-Feb-13 22:55:05

Friend is a single parent to two children and gets £1600 per month in benefits. No disability benefits, "just" housing benefit, council tax benefit, income support, child tax credits and child benefit.

For every "friend" like this, there are hundreds of families like mine. We dont get anywhere near that. And how much is your friends rent? She doesnt get that to spend, it pays her rent! Our income was low before redundancy we managed on only slightly more than that with a mortgage. £1600 minus housing costs isnt that much you know.

rhondajean Tue 12-Feb-13 22:56:06

Porridge - how much of that £1600 is taken up on housing and council tax costs?

propertyNIGHTmareBEFOREXMAS Tue 12-Feb-13 22:56:11

Yabu. They are poor, not stupid.

How much of that £1600 is rent though?

I would guess around £600 (yes really) if my memory of being a SM is correct.

So thats £250 per week to pay for food for her plus two kids, electricity, some form of heat, clothes, shoes, TV Licence, etc etc.

Doesnt be long disappearing.

Booyhoo Tue 12-Feb-13 22:57:01

"Friend is a single parent to two children and gets £1600 per month in benefits. No disability benefits, "just" housing benefit, council tax benefit, income support, child tax credits and child benefit."

how much is her rent and council tax?

rhondajean Tue 12-Feb-13 22:57:16

Cross post bogey.

Also

Please remember that single people get £71 weekly and are only entitled to rent for a room in a shared house while under 25, and will have to make a contribution to cpucil tax from that.

porridgewithalmondmilk Tue 12-Feb-13 22:58:20

Bogey - yes, I completely concede your first point which is why I emphasised I wasn't benefit-bashing. However, I did take issue with benefits not paying "enough" when many pay more than enough.

As for housing costs, all I can say is that she lives in the same area as me and her benefits amount to more than I earned in my first, second, third and fourth years teaching. I had to manage housing costs and the costs certainly aren't unreasonable around here - inner London it isn't grin

All in all it amounts to (at a guess) around £280 per week which I DO think is quite generous for somebody who doesn't work, sorry.

rhondajean Tue 12-Feb-13 22:58:42

Single person on jsa that is.

Bogey, I know someone just now, intelligent person who lost a good job because of an alcohol problem. They get benefits fortnightly just now and say its paid on a Monday, they have drunk the lot by the Wednesday. They are not physically capable of stopping drinking while they still have resources there to do so.

SuedeEffectPochette Tue 12-Feb-13 22:59:35

So anyone who has ever run out of money is stupid PropertyNight?......that's me and lots of my friends then.....

rhondajean Tue 12-Feb-13 22:59:48

Porridge - does she rent privately?

My mortgage for a largish three/four bed with dining room is £200 per month plus less than rent for a two bedroom flat on the same estate.

Bogeyface Tue 12-Feb-13 22:59:53

Yabu. They are poor, not stupid.

But many are vulnerable and simply not capable of budgetting that amount. Many struggle on a weekly basis, managing for a month would be almost impossible for some.

There was a thing a few years ago about the banks selling loans and credit cards to people who were not capable of understanding what they were signing up for. A young lad in my town with Downs Syndrome was signed up for a loan when he went into his bank to take some money out. He was very independent, but not that independent. He got the money, blew it and never paid a penny back. His parents only found out when the court summons turned up. Do you think he would manage a monthly budget?

scarlettsmummy2 Tue 12-Feb-13 23:00:41

It is going to be a complete disaster for the most vulnerable and the most feckless. And a bloody nightmare for social landlords!

porridgewithalmondmilk Tue 12-Feb-13 23:00:54

Rhonda - it is really rough for single people, I know that. I'm single and childless and I thought at one point I was going to be jobless and absolutely crapped myself as I knew I'd be entitled to NO support at all. However, the majority of benefit-claimants don't fall into that category.

Bogey - hope you're able to get a job soon (if you haven't already, sorry if I missed it) it must be horrible to be made redundant x

rhondajean Tue 12-Feb-13 23:01:59

Porridge, don't you think it's enough if a percentage of people fall into that category though?

Bogeyface Tue 12-Feb-13 23:02:26

Rhonda I knew someone like that too, thats why I said what I did. He did die as a result of his alcohol abuse at only 32, and its people like him that will suffer the most with this. I agree with the PP that for some people, being paid DAILY could actually be better.

Bogeyface Tue 12-Feb-13 23:03:08

Thanks Porridge both still looking.

rhondajean Tue 12-Feb-13 23:03:40

Scarlett, I'm on the board of an ha and we are trying desperately to address this before it impacts because in Scotland at least we are about trying to keep people in houses, but it's going to be grim.

porridgewithalmondmilk Tue 12-Feb-13 23:03:51

Rhonda - no, council house smile

Booyhoo Tue 12-Feb-13 23:04:45

2 children
CB = £33.70/week
CTC= 114.60/week
income support= £70/week ( i forget what the pence is)

218.30/week = 945.96/month for everything apart from rent and council tax. it might seem like loads but really isn't when you take all the other bills out of it. never mind if she has any debt or annual bills that she has to budget for. there is also the lovely surprise costs that pop up throughout the year usually in january when i'm skint like the washing machine breaking down or all the dcs needing new coats and shoes in the same week all of a sudden.

if her total monthly income is £1600 then her rent and council tax must amount to £555 (roughly).

when you were managing on less than this were you raising 2 dcs alone?

No one is feckless. No one. Jesus.

edam Tue 12-Feb-13 23:05:57

Benefits officials make mistakes. Under the new system, if they screw up, you could be left penniless for a month at a time.

No doubt paying monthly sounds reasonable if you are a millionaire government ministers (which almost all of the cabinet are). Their obstinate refusal to even consider the fact that people on benefits might not have a handy trust fund they can dip into is rather chilling.

Benefits are paid fortnightly where i am (only child benefit/tax credits are paid weekly)- i'd prefer weekly, tbh.

i wouldn't fancy having a months money in one go, i know for a fact i'd end up forgetting a direct debit or whatever.

scarlettsmummy2 Tue 12-Feb-13 23:07:16

I think people moaning about people on benefits getting too much need to get real- and I have direct experience working with these single mothers etc living it up. Yes, sometimes they do have big tvs, but to be honest that's about all they have. They are
more often than not in fuel poverty, have no money for proper food, their children are statistically more likely to under perform, their long term mental and physical health is much worse and they are completely dependant on the government. Not a great place to be.

manicinsomniac Tue 12-Feb-13 23:08:30

I think YABU to generalise, it's going to be very different for different people.

I only know 2 people on benefits but even those two are chalk and cheese in how they will cope with this. One has two degrees (but happens to be unemployed), is very worldly wise and experienced and is a fantastic budgeter. She will probably be happier this way. The other has severe diabulimia to the point where she counts as disabled and can't work at all and she already struggles not to spend everything she gets the very day she gets it on food that lasts a matter of days. Monthly will be a disaster for her.

scarlettsmummy2 Tue 12-Feb-13 23:09:22

Wannabe- yes, some are feckless. I work with plenty of unemployed young men who are exactly that! There may be underlying reasons for that, but the bottom line is, for some, rent will come below partying with their mates.

Booyhoo Tue 12-Feb-13 23:09:26

or £655 even! blush

rhondajean Tue 12-Feb-13 23:10:00

New claimants may be 34 days without a payment.

So you are usually paid weekly, then made redundant - you work say I. A kitchen and haven't been there long enough for redundancy.

You sign on.

It's a month before you are due a payment and it goes through by bacs which can take three days.

Plus that spare room you have for you kids when they stay on your access weekends, that's costing 14 percent of your total rent now.

You can get an advance of a percentage of you first payment. But the total of that comes off your first benefit payment. So you are short for teh next, and probably every following, month.

porridgewithalmondmilk Tue 12-Feb-13 23:10:04

Rhonda - I do see the point you are making and I really do have a lot of sympathy with people like Bogey who are in a crap situation through absolutely no fault or doing of their own. But, working has GOT to make people better off than being on benefits, hasn't it? And if benefits are too generous, it just isn't worth working.

It's the same with my friend. I am on £40,000 a year which sounds like a lot. The thing is though, I take home £24,000 a year. Friend "takes home" £19,200 a year. And once I factor in my travel costs, working wardrobe, the difference is even less. For many people, that extra £4000 or so just ISN'T worth is, and I am on a good salary - most people on benefits wouldn't walk into a job that paid £40,000 a year. I don't know what the answer is but I don't think throwing more money at it is the answer.

IneedAsockamnesty Tue 12-Feb-13 23:12:22

Then porridge no she does not get that amount in her hand.

She will get about £190pw in her hand to pay everything apart from rent and council tax.

ReturnOfEmeraldGreen Tue 12-Feb-13 23:13:10

I work in debt advice and based on my experience I think a lot of people will really struggle with this, it should be an option not compulsory. I think housing associations in England would also like to help their tenants remain in their homes, btw confused

scarlettsmummy2 Tue 12-Feb-13 23:13:53

Porridge- how many children are you supporting on your own on that?

Things are looking bleaksad

porridge

You are looking at it wrong.

The reason that work doesnt pay is not that benefits are too generous. Its that wages are too low and living costs too high.

Benefits are set at the level people need to live on already. Making them lower wont make work pay, it will just create worse poverty.

rhondajean Tue 12-Feb-13 23:14:38

How on earth do you take home £24 k from £40k? Are you paying pension contributions? Because you do realise how privileged that makes you...

I do agree people should be better off working. And once you find adequate qualifications, jobs and Childcare to let everyone do just that, let me know grin

Bogeyface Tue 12-Feb-13 23:15:48

But, working has GOT to make people better off than being on benefits, hasn't it? And if benefits are too generous, it just isn't worth working.

No, it isnt that benefits are too generous, they cover the absolute basics (trust me on this). What makes it worth working is a decent living wage, so the government should be focussing on increasing NMW to a level where a family with one working adult can survive without claiming anything. But they wont do that because the very people whose votes they want are the people who run the businesses paying a pittance. And they say that you cant buy votes.....

IneedAsockamnesty Tue 12-Feb-13 23:21:17

Working does pay, due to disregards from income and the HB system, unless your in private and your house is loads over the LHA

porridgewithalmondmilk Tue 12-Feb-13 23:25:37

Sock - she really does, I have seen bank statements (not in a nosy way blush she asked me to help!) I won't pretend to be an expert but I have seen what she gets and it is all from state benefits. Plus the nursery placements and other things she is entitled to of course.

Bogey - I'm in agreement with you about the decent living wage actually and I completely agree that benefits aren't generous to some people - however to others they are and are at least comparable to what someone would get working (which I agree is too low.)

I've never been entitled to claim benefits. However I was homeless for a few months in my early twenties and the lady at the Job Centre actually suggested I get pregnant! No word of a lie!

Bogeyface Tue 12-Feb-13 23:49:47

The nursery placements are available to every child aged 3, its part of the early years education program for the childs benefit not the mothers.

If she was working say 24 hours a week on NMW then she would be entitled to claim HB, Council Tax benefit and would get a fair whack in child and working tax credits plus her CB. She WOULD be better off in a job.

Bogeyface Tue 12-Feb-13 23:51:30

Sorry meant to add.....whether she chooses to live on benefits and only have the bare minimum as opposed to some of lifes luxuries (like not getting ripped off with 1000% APR if she needs a loan for a new washing machine), then thats up to her. But life is definitely easier with a job.

marriedinwhite Tue 12-Feb-13 23:56:27

I haven't read all of this but people with jobs have to manage being paid monthly; why should that expectation be different for people who are given money for not working. If they can't budget they will have to take responsibility for the mess they are in. Most will soon learn after a month of hunger and cold and in the longer term they will have learnt a valuable life lesson. Life is tough. It it hard work if you work; it shouldn't be easier if you don't. That comment is not meant for those who can't work btw; just for those who can work but don't.

IneedAsockamnesty Tue 12-Feb-13 23:58:43

Porridge,there is no legal way that she can be getting more than the gov says she needs to live on each week for her household circumstances.

These are the same for everybody with her family size.

Some benefits also have a impact on other benefits either raising them or as is the case with IS where no carer element is paid reducing them.

If she's in social housing as you said she was up thread then her rent would usually go straight to the LA as would her ctb so these would not be on her account. It would be extremely unusual for HB to go to a tenant who is in social housing (LHA - for private rents is different)

So assuming she is not breaking the law or committing fraud then no you didn't see proof of this in her bank statement.

IneedAsockamnesty Wed 13-Feb-13 00:02:14

Oh good god, married, did you have to jump in with that couldn't you have left it, just once.

Its a lot harder to make smaller amounts stretch over a month,that should be obvious

twofingerstoGideon Wed 13-Feb-13 00:08:46

No, Sock, I don't think she can...
This bit: 'Most will soon learn after a month of hunger and cold...' is particularly charming. Who cares if children are cold or hungry, after all?

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 00:11:31

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

That comment is not meant for those who can't work btw; just for those who can work but don't.

This is my favourite part.

Lets line them all up and decide who is worthy.

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 00:13:09

Lets line them up against who could have empathy but wont Wanna and match them shot for shot......

Yes. Sounds about right.

Booyhoo Wed 13-Feb-13 00:19:49

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

marriedinwhite Wed 13-Feb-13 00:23:12

Working people don't get paid weekly any more. Why should people who don't work be paid weekly. I thought it was an expectation that all people were treated equally. No? If working people have to budget over a month; shouldn't non working people do so. Wouldn't that make things easier in the longer term - like when they might get a job and be paid monthly.

marriedinwhite Wed 13-Feb-13 00:25:35

Read the last sentence of my post please. *That comment is not meant for those who can't work btw; just for those who can work but don't.*

Now do excuse me; I have to go to bed - you know need to get up in the morning for work.

IneedAsockamnesty Wed 13-Feb-13 00:26:11

Lots of working people do get paid weekly.

IneedAsockamnesty Wed 13-Feb-13 00:27:20

I would go to sleep as well if I wasn't on call

We did read the last sentence.

I even quoted it.

It was just as ridiculous as the rest.

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 00:30:45

If all people were treated equally you wouldnt bitch about benefit claimants but hey ho!

This isnt about equality you bloody idiot, but about some people who find it hard to understand the concept of managing money at the best of times and how they will find it impossible on a monthly budget, they will starve, or steal or sell themselves in order to survive when the money runs out. They will become homeless and then cost you and your precious taxes far more than they do now. Way to think ahead hmm

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 00:31:23

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 00:32:48

Reposting, just in case wink see if you can spot the deliberate mistake!

If all people were treated equally you wouldnt bitch about benefit claimants but hey ho!

This isnt about equality, but about some people who find it hard to understand the concept of managing money at the best of times and how they will find it impossible on a monthly budget, they will starve, or steal or sell themselves in order to survive when the money runs out. They will become homeless and then cost you and your precious taxes far more than they do now. Way to think ahead hmm

grin

Booyhoo Wed 13-Feb-13 00:34:52

marriedinwhite i cant work out whether you live in the 1950's or the 2050's! people still get paid weekly here in 2013. you live on planet earth in the UK right?

AudrinaAdare Wed 13-Feb-13 00:35:09

Oh that is nice that you can go to bed and get up bright and early for work for money. You may not believe it but many people would envy you for that. Personally, I'm on the night-shift with my disabled child.

marriedinwhite Wed 13-Feb-13 00:37:42

One would hope the parents care if their children are hungry and cold and are prepared to take responsibility for it. If the parents don't; then it is a sorry state indeed and perhaps those sorts of parents need to be discouraged from having child after child that they cannot provide for financially. I would have loved to have been feckless but nobody was going to come and pick up the pieces. Society cannot keep picking up the pieces because some people expect them to be picked up without thinking about the consequences. The children most certainly should not suffer but ultimately it is the parents who cause the suffering and somehow the suffering has to cease without the children suffering but I'm not sure that is achieved by the continual stream of benefits and subsidised housing. Hostels, parenting guidance, supervision, earning responsibility all have a place.

Hostels?

Ah you are of the "12 to a room" mindset that I have witnessed on here!

Workhouses.

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 00:43:43

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Booyhoo Wed 13-Feb-13 00:44:13

the sort of 'hostel' that was popular in ireland in the last century? the ones that 'catered for' women of questionable morality? is that the sort you mean? i might be wrong but i think they've gotten a bit of a bad rep recently. folk might not be so keen. cant think why hmm

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 00:45:08

I dont see why Boo.

12 hours of forced work whilst being abused is the best remedy for being raped isnt it?

starsandunicorns Wed 13-Feb-13 00:45:32

Married lots of people who WORK still get paid weekly. I work for an angency as does my dp we get paid weekly.

We dont claim any benfits and due to work being slack this week our joint income this week is 174 pounds we have rent counicl tax money for to put in the meter and pertol for the car.( we need the car as I could be placed anyway within 20 miles of our flat at unsoicable hours) are we bad people as we get weekly paid we work bloody hard in uncertain times.

I have been on benfits before and have known lots of people and some manage well, others dont ie paying rent on time or blowing it on a bender.
I would of being happy to have monthly benfit payment as would of been easier but others struggled just on weekly payments.

marriedinwhite Wed 13-Feb-13 00:45:37

AIBU clearly needs a new rule:

"only those who agree with the left and every OP should post".

Somewhat Orwellian I think.

There is nothing wrong with planning. There is nothing wrong with working. There is nothing wrong with claiming benefits if you are unable to work for health or genuine caring reasons. There is everything wrong with expecting others to pick up the tab because it is too easy to get someone else to pay for your mistakes.

akaemmafrost Wed 13-Feb-13 00:46:19

MIW you are the Daily Mail in human form. Terrifying.

Booyhoo Wed 13-Feb-13 00:46:38

of course, you are right bogey. it will certainly make them think twice about being so female in future, wont it?

One day marriedinwhite you might lose your job. And your DH might leave you.

They will come for you then. All the feckless that you wanted sterilised and thrown in hostels.

Everyone is only ever a few steps away from the dole queue.

marriedinwhite Wed 13-Feb-13 00:48:36

and from getting out there and getting another job.

Does anyone have the figures on the number of unemployed and the number of jobs.

I think we need to spell it out.

Booyhoo Wed 13-Feb-13 00:49:58

" There is everything wrong with expecting others to pick up the tab because it is too easy to get someone else to pay for your mistakes. "

of course there is, but why are you mentioning that on this thread? this thread is about benefit payments being changed to monthly from weekly.

do you just see the word 'benefits' and associate it with "can work but chooses not to so others can pay for them to shag around and keep goats?"

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 00:51:02

"only those who agree with the left and every OP should post".

Somewhat Orwellian I think.

Hmm, clearly someone didnt understand their Orwell! But if we are using literary references then punishing someone for something without them knowing what crime they committed is Kafkaesque and that is what this policy will do to the most vulnerable in society.

marriedinwhite Wed 13-Feb-13 00:52:29

And the dole queue's going to pay monthly. Like most people receive a salary. And the complaint is what - people are given money - and now they want to dictate how and when they receive it hmm. They don't get it at all in many parts of the world; only in the UK would there be complaints about it being paid once a month rather than once a week.

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 00:53:54

MArried

I have applied for 26 jobs this week alone. H has applied for more (he has more qualifications than me, so shoot me). Do you know how many replies we have had in the 2 months since he lost his job? 4. Each of them telling him or me that we werent successful this time. The rest just didnt bother getting back to us.

Where are these mythical jobs of which you speak?

starsandunicorns Wed 13-Feb-13 00:55:13

Married getting out there getting another job well I got 4 rejection emails this week min wage jobs one was for cleaner. I applied becauase it was a perm job the email said over quailfield. Dont think you live in the real world

Booyhoo Wed 13-Feb-13 00:55:28

and the award for refusing to see the point entirely goes to...... no surprise here- Marriedinwhite! congratulations. are you really this ignorant or do you have to work hard at appearing to be?

IneedAsockamnesty Wed 13-Feb-13 00:55:50

Why is any of that relevant to a thread about vulnerable people who will be made more vulnerable by having payments made monthly?

People are concerned about the vulnerable who (in your words) cant work. This is usually because they have chaotic lives, addictions, or need support in some way.

A couple of posters, myself included, have welcomed monthly payments. Im still concerned about others though. Its called empathy

marriedinwhite Wed 13-Feb-13 00:59:00

Perhaps if you were a little more polite I'd offer come professional coaching foc. Tailor the application to job spec, ensure there are no spelling mistakes, evidence how you can meet the spec with good examples, volunteer in the meantime, and pitch applications lower if necessary. The market is turning; be ready to meet it. Volunteer; do odd jobs, run the PTA fair - all things you can put a positive spin on for an application form.

Before interview think of questions which relate to the person spec; write them out and focus - it will help have relevant answers on the tip of your tongue at the interviews.

starsandunicorns Wed 13-Feb-13 00:59:10

Bogeyface I hope you and h get something very soon. I feel your pain its hard out there some people sitting in their ivory towers just dont know what it is like

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 00:59:10

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Yes. We need to improve ourselves. We are inadequate. hmm Nothing to do with the state of the job market.

DP got offered a job last week. The next day the offer was withdrawn. Why? The JC found someone who had been on JSA longer and they were cheaper.

starsandunicorns Wed 13-Feb-13 01:03:25

Married I do all that you have said in post dont think you can get lower than applying for min wage job oh just let you know I'm dislexic so please before you point out my spelling mistakes don't.

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 01:03:30

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

marriedinwhite Wed 13-Feb-13 01:03:31

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Booyhoo Wed 13-Feb-13 01:04:02

"Perhaps if you were a little more polite I'd offer come professional coaching foc. Tailor the application to job spec, ensure there are no spelling mistakes, evidence how you can meet the spec with good examples, volunteer in the meantime, and pitch applications lower if necessary. The market is turning; be ready to meet it. Volunteer; do odd jobs, run the PTA fair - all things you can put a positive spin on for an application form.

Before interview think of questions which relate to the person spec; write them out and focus - it will help have relevant answers on the tip of your tongue at the interviews. "

no, really how many hours a day do you have to practise for to be this ignorant?

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 01:04:48

Lots of shit in that post, but that pretty much sums it up right now! grin

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 01:05:11

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

IneedAsockamnesty Wed 13-Feb-13 01:05:27

The ones I'm most concerned about are people like my clients,

People with long term mental health problems but not considered serious enough to warrant any disability benefits,

People fleeing domestic violence where financial abuse has been an issue

People coming out of the care system

Women leaving the sex industry or those who are here because of sex trafficking

Teenagers who have been young carers.

Anyone that with a disability that is not lucky to get the unconditional group but still requires a carer.

Thats 2 people who have flounced today. Both saying similar things.

I think it might be sinking in. But they will never admit it.

starsandunicorns Wed 13-Feb-13 01:07:40

Bogeyface grin

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 01:07:45

Anywaaay, back to the OP. I have had a look and cant find anything that says that there will be allowances made for those in vulnerable situations. I kind of get the feeling that once it is pointed out often enough there will be a backtrack on this, like there was about the exams fiasco.

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 01:09:36

Sock it was the young people that worried me most, probably because of the age of my DC, but it seems to me that they are most likely to be the ones who end up begging or as prostitutes as they will be taken advantage of. Those leaving care I think will be particularly vulnerable to that.

Booyhoo Wed 13-Feb-13 01:12:37

fwiw married, everyone is entitled to an opinion. it just carries alot more weight if they make it an informed one. wading in with ignorant daily mail regurgitations is going to get the response it deserves TBH.

IneedAsockamnesty Wed 13-Feb-13 01:13:28

As far as I can tell there are no plans to do payments differently for more vulnerable groups

Over here (Canada) things like social assistance (welfare) and child benefit are paid out monthly. People pay their landlords directly, not the government.
Although I would say 90% of people manage to budget for the whole month, it only takes one or two big mistakes for that other 10% to find themselves in real trouble.
There is very little social housing in Canada, almost all renting is done privately. It means most cities, towns and villages have some form of a ghetto, where people end up in crummy apartment buildings, rooming houses or 'by the week' motels.
There are food banks in most towns, but because they rely on donations, people are often only allowed to visit them once a month.
I really hope that if your government transitions to monthly payouts, that they provide access to financial counseling for those that might need it.

Rhiannon86 Wed 13-Feb-13 03:49:04

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

sashh Wed 13-Feb-13 04:15:46

The rest of us that live on a wage can manage it, I don't see why people on benefits can't. It's not rocket science, and people on benefits won't be the only ones living on whatever's left in the cupboard or freezer at the end of the month

You really have no idea have you?

Lots of people on benefits (and quite a few working) use a prepaid meter for electricity. If it runs out the day before you get your money then you can use the 'emergency' or sit in the dark for a day.

Once payments are monthly then you will be sitting in the dark for a week and your freezer (if you have one) will defrost.

Actually the idea of someone on benefits having a freezer is laughable. I only had one because I'd bought it before I had to claim.

There are still people without bank accounts. If I go to the post office on certain days of the week there is a queue of people getting their benefit. They take out the cash, pay for a week's gas, electricity, TV licence and pocket the rest for shopping.

They will do the same with monthly, but they will be carrying a lot more cash which it is very easy to spend.

It is much harder to budget monthly if you are on a low wage or benefits or both.

I wouldn't say it is harder to budget for a month at a time, but it is far more important, as each choice has more impact.
People are adaptable, and can learn new skills if given the opportunity.
Of course some people will struggle with it, but I am sure there are also people struggling with planning a week at a time now.
What is important is that people are being taught how to budget, to plan ahead, to organize their finances.

flow4 Wed 13-Feb-13 07:05:06

Benefit rules have been tightened so much that there most people left claiming are vulnerable in one or many ways: they have mental health issues, learning disabilities, serious physical disabilities or terminal health conditions; or they have children who have disabilities or who are very young; or they're leaving care or fleeing violence or are just out of long-term hospital care; or they are just out of prison or have drug and alcohol dependencies...

The few left on the dole who are readily 'employable' - who have good life and work skills - will probably do OK when their money is paid monthly; but many many others will really struggle.

It is not like receiving a monthly wage, because the benefit rates are so low: a person over 25/a parent over 18 currently get 'up to' £284 per month. Under 25s and couples get less per person. All the signs are that rates will freeze or even go down.

Once benefits are paid monthly into bank accounts, all landlords, utility companies and creditors will insist on direct debit payments made on, or the day after, the benefit payment day.

Most claimants will find themselves left with next-to-nothing, or nothing, or in fact in overdraft - immediately after benefit day.

And there will be claimants - and their children - who do not eat for days on end. Nobody should fool themselves that this will not happen.

ChestyLeRoux Wed 13-Feb-13 07:21:46

I work but I am really looking forward to u c being paid monthly. It will be much easier to pay people I need to pay such as nursery etc.

I do think people who need extra help will recieve it.However whoever wrote 1600 a month is hard to live on with 555 rent and council tax then I dont agree at all.I am not a single mum and have qn extra adult qnd we have more than enough money left on this wage.

rhondajean Wed 13-Feb-13 07:47:27

Did married flounce last night? I was in bed.

To respond to an earlier post, you are right, there is no indication at present that there will be any leeway for the more vulnerable to be paid weekly, or even to have housing costs paid directly, I hope think it will happen eventually though once there is a god awful mess

Not implying it's a bad thing for everyone btw, I think for the capable monthly probably is the way to go but there are as others have said a huge amount of benefits claimants who this will be a disaster for.

The solution for now - ill repeat it in case you can all help anyone you know - get to the credit union for a budgeting account. It releases only a certain amount of money at a time.

threesypeesy Wed 13-Feb-13 09:04:56

in my opinion yes some people with addictions etc will struggle with monthly payments, theres going to be a rise in homlessness, overdoses, and general poverty for those people and there will be plenty that easily adjust to monthly payments too!

but all this i work therefore are superior.... fuck off ! your job may not always be there

and the labeling all benifit claimers as poor, with under fed, under preforming children again.... fuck off, you dcs dont preform better because you have a job!

yes some people really struggle due to there circumstances but other live well where your money cones from does not define you.

i hate these judgy benifit threads

I'm a lot luckier than others so I'll be okay, apart from the added stress of having to budget even tighter. I know people who'll struggle, though.
ExP doesn't even have a bank account, no bank will take him. So he'd have to have a month's worth of money in his house all at once. And he's an alcoholic. Guess where that money's going to go hmm

I totally agree that this will hit the most vulnerable people. But then, what Tory policy hasn't so far?

Also rhonda, not everywhere has a credit union. I used to work in our local one before it shut down due to bad lending and non-repayment of loans. Now our nearest one is about 15 miles away, and would cost a fiver to get to minimum on the bus. Not many people on benefits could afford that on a regular basis. It's a good idea in principle though, I wish our CU hadn't shut down, not least because I'd still have somewhere to volunteer sad

grin at the idea that everyone is paid monthly.
Someone should have told me when I was doing payroll for 500 agency workers that I only needed to go to work one week in four!

Antipag Wed 13-Feb-13 09:59:43

Are the payments monthly or four weekly? Because four weekly is much harder to manage since it is not always easy to manage direct debits if you don't have a set pay date each month. Thousands of supermarket workers across the country can already attest to how annoying this is. I suspect the queue for crisis loans may be round the corner for the first few months whilst people adjust to the change.

CunfuddledAlways Wed 13-Feb-13 10:08:40

does anyone have any links / know when this is supposed to happen?? this has got me worried!! i currently get my child benefits on a monday paid from part time work every other thursday and get my child tax credits on a friday, i have never been paid monthly i have worked where i've been paid fortnightly for over 4 years but the benefits help a lot with the things that my pay just wont cover...

also it would vastly depend where in the month they would pay? the 1st? the 15th? the 30th? same date each month? the last friday of the month? would have to change all my direct debits until the day after benefit payments (some wouldn't be possible such as council tax and mortgage which have to be paid on the first) then work out what i have for the rest of the month

would you get less in feb as its a shorther month? how would they work it out? :/

CunfuddledAlways Wed 13-Feb-13 10:09:03

excuse my bad puntuation!!

CunfuddledAlways Wed 13-Feb-13 10:09:13

and spelling!!

catsmother Wed 13-Feb-13 10:16:58

The inhumanity and condescension shown by a minority on here towards this issue breaks my heart. This whole ridiculous idea that if only these silly feckless unemployed types spent a little more time on their CV everything would come good just like that.

Just suppose, for one minute, I could wave a magic wand and conjure up THE perfect CV for all those out of work. One which contained impeccable composition, spelling, layout, experience etc. One which would immediately catch the eye of any employer.

So bloody what .....

.... still doesn't mean there are enough jobs for all those who need them.

Rhiannon86 Wed 13-Feb-13 10:24:53

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 10:33:29

There might not be enough jobs, but that doesn't stop people competing for the ones out there. And maybe we'd get more investment in this country if we had more people with a positive attitude towards work, instead of a bolshy, entitled attitude?

I just dropped my son and husband off at a jobs fair in town. The queue to get in was around the block. I dont see any evidence of a bolshy entitled attitude in that queue. But clearly you know better because you have a job and I dont.

Rhiannon86 Wed 13-Feb-13 10:36:00

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Plenty of people in work have a bad attitude towards work too.

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 10:47:24

Just because some people have a bad attitude to work doesnt mean that they are the representative majority! You say that "I'm sure plenty of people don't as well" almost as if there must surely be a few who want a job but most dont.

Like I said, the queue at the job fair today says different.

Our area has seen mass redundancies recently, and one day that could be you. Its easy to be smug, I know because I was, until your world comes crashing down and you realise that no job is ever secure, not any more. To quote the national lottery "It could be you".

catsmother Wed 13-Feb-13 10:49:56

Rhiannon - I made that remark because an earlier bigoted poster seemed to be suggesting that all that was stopping people getting work was their apparently inadequate CVs.

Yes - this topic is all about how some claimants would find it hard to manage monthly payments but arising from that has been a fair few very insensitive remarks more or less saying that if they couldn't manage - tough shit - and practically saying that if people weren't working they should be grateful for whatever they got and however it was paid. In reply to that not surprisingly a number of posters who are in the unfortunate position of not being able to find work responded that despite their very best efforts they still hadn't secured a job and so on. So yeah - when a significant minority (is it a minority ? I hope it is .... ) seem to hold the view that the unemployed are all individually responsible for their misfortune and have no right to protest against changes that could bring about real hardship then the issues of benefits and jobs get entwined.

Clearly some people have a bad attitude towards work - you find people with bad attitudes towards everything such is life. But statistically I can't believe that every single person without a job falls into that category. I know they don't, based purely on people I actually know. However, this latest proposal seems - yet again - to be punishing people who are already massively struggling. Talk about kicking someone when they're down.

Orwellian Wed 13-Feb-13 10:53:12

YABU. How is it any different to people in work, most of whom get paid monthly and have to manage their budget? Loads of minimum wage employees get paid monthly and have to budget accordingly. Stop treating benefit recipients as though they are so stupid and incapable of changing their habits. Besides, most people on benefits apparently want to work and when they get a job they will have to budget monthly, because they will be paid monthly, so this is just preparing them for it.

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 10:54:56

Why the passive aggressive strike out Orwellian? Interesting that you have that name btw....

Antipag Wed 13-Feb-13 10:55:33

Can someone please clarify if they will be paid monthy or four weekly because this is a MASSIVE difference.

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 10:58:57

Dont know Anti, isnt CB paid 4 weekly? so it could well be that instead of moonthly. You're right, there is a massive difference.

So in one sentence we should stop acting like claimants are a stupid but in the next sentence you insinuate that claimants are lying about wanting to work!

So its not that they are stupid. They are dishonest. I see.

*all

Surely there are an awful lot of people on benefits now that don't get it weekly. When I was on JSA last year I didn't have the option of weekly. Even if I did then I wouldn't take it as it costs the goverment so much more and monthly is easier to manage

Nancy66 Wed 13-Feb-13 11:07:15

Yes, I think it will be a disaster for some.

I remember that episode of 999 What's Your Emergency that showed groups of people queuing at cashpoints (in Blackpool) at midnight waiting for their benefits to go into their accounts - then spending the whole lot on booze that night.

I know not everyone is that irresponsible - but many are.

rhondajean Wed 13-Feb-13 11:08:17

It's to be paid monthly not four weekly.

whateveritakes Wed 13-Feb-13 11:19:02

It's more the problem that bills/debts and expenses are only just and sometimes not covered by payments in.

Any extra costs such as something breaking down just can't be factored in. if you get money weekly you can still do some sort of juggling. If you have to wait weeks you are knackered or forced to borrow. leaving you with even less the next month.

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 11:21:19

Whatever I bet the board of directors at Wonga et al are rubbing their hands with glee at this news sad

M0naLisa Wed 13-Feb-13 11:25:58

We will get monthly payments, if DH isnt working when we change over then we will get it all in a lump sum. What we intend on doing is paying Rent charges first before ANYTHING else then doing the budgeting. I will split the payments into 4 pieces. Week 1, Week 2, Week 3 and Week 4. Its the only way we will survive. I will probably put on a lump sum of gas and electric because then it will last longer than it does weekly when we are putting on just £10. If i put on £50 on gas i am positive that will last the month.
We are also going to open a new bank account which has no outgoings so we can transfer the money across to that for the month. Anything that needs paying like bills etc will stay in the current account with enough to cover the payments.

I do similar with our budgets now Mona.

I know how much the monthly bills are. I know how much we need weekly.

It would just be easier if it was all in one lump instead of in four different payments.

But then I shouldnt say that. It might sound ungrateful hmm

Rhiannon86 Wed 13-Feb-13 11:50:31

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

StormyBrid Wed 13-Feb-13 11:50:47

Nice to see it's still impossible to discuss upcoming changes to the finances of millions of people without someone popping up to blame the poor for being poor. hmm

I do take issue with the proposal that monthly benefits will put claimants in a position closer to that of workers in having to budget monthly. Some workers are paid monthly; a hell of a lot aren't. Insofar as I can tell, you're a lot more likely to get get a monthly wage at the higher-paid, higher-skilled, salaried end of the scale. NMW, menial, high-turnover jobs at the other end of the scale are often paid weekly. Of the 470,000 (last time I checked the stats) available jobs at any one time, what proportion are highly skilled and salaried? What proportion are minimum wage zero hours contracts? And what end of that scale are vulnerable claimants likely to be entering the job market at?

Where I am, pretty much the only field hiring is telesales, because the staff turnover rate is so high. Everyone I know here in telesales is on weekly pay. Anyone getting a job in telesales here will thus be faced with going from monthly budgeting on benefits to weekly budgeting on a wage. They'll be able to see the money in their account, but won't be able to spend it because it's earmarked for the rent in a few weeks. Sounds weirdly familiar... Could it be that a stick designed to beat the unemployed turns out to screw over the working poor too?

Thankfully my years of being feckless and workshy have left me with the ability to budget, and I have family in a position to help with long-term loans if I find myself short on rent day or all-the-bills day, but a hell of a lot of people aren't that lucky. I'm guessing the claimant will have no say over what day of the month the money hits their account? Oh well, I'm just a scrounger, it's not like I've got anything better to do with my time than spending hours on hold to the utility companies trying to switch the date of my direct debits.

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 11:52:25

No, people got paid monthly because it was cheaper. Every transaction with the bank costs money if you are a business, so once a month saved a lot of money.

Rhiannon86 Wed 13-Feb-13 11:54:43

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 11:58:15

Workers who go on a bender are not the same as meths drinking alcoholics or drug addicts. They are the ones that will go all out on a bender and then starve, steal or beg for the rest of the month.

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 11:59:29

2 definitions of bender there!

The first meaning getting shit faced on pay day. The other meaning spending every last penny on booze or drugs within the first week and being penniless for the next 3/4 weeks.

Rhiannon86 Wed 13-Feb-13 12:09:17

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

AudrinaAdare Wed 13-Feb-13 12:10:11

I think there will be an increase in crime due to these changes. There is a reason that Welfare used to be called Social Security. And with fewer police we will all be in it together, except for Cameron et al.

M0naLisa Wed 13-Feb-13 12:12:07

Id also find it easier in a lump sum. Not saying that weekly isnt easy cos it is, knowing if we are skint on Monday, then we have CTC going in on Weds. Or Tues for the monthly CB or Every other monday for the JSA its would just be easier to get it all in one.

They should go shopping, pay rent/bills, feed meters etc before they have a drink/buy drugs then.

You dont say.

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 12:17:08

They should go shopping, pay rent/bills, feed meters etc before they have a drink/buy drugs then.

Well yes.....hmm

But if they did that then they wouldnt be addicts would they, thats kind of how you know they are!

twofingerstoGideon Wed 13-Feb-13 12:37:13

They should go shopping, pay rent/bills, feed meters etc before they have a drink/buy drugs then.

Gold star for stating the bleeding obvious while missing the point spectacularly.

MardyPants Wed 13-Feb-13 13:15:18

From a selfish point of view...
I work in food retail in a high unemployment area, with a high number of drug addicts / abusers living in the area. The store's quietest day is Thurs (local weekly dole day) as the users / drinkers etc are all out blowing every penny they have on booze and / or drugs. They then spend the rest of the week coming in the store filling their bags with stuff either to sell to buy yet more drugs, or to eat (caught someone nicking a box of cereal and a bottle of milk once) as they have spent every penny they have. Try to stop them, or challenge them, and you get 'I'll smash your effing head in', 'I'll smash your face into that wall' etc (actual quotes from 6ft men to like 19yr old shop workers). We get shoplifters EVERY SINGLE DAY.
I expect that changing from weekly to monthly payment will result in more crime, threats of violence, and actual violence, against people like us.
I kind of feel that people like this cannot be trusted to manage money full stop - weekly, monthly, whatever - not sure what the solution is though.
And I do completely sympathise with people on benefits with MH issues etc who would genuinely struggle to budget, and I do understand I see a disproportionate amount of the worst types of people who receive benefits. But the thought of these people receiving money less often - therefore having the potential to blow it sooner and spending more time with zero in the bank - genuinely makes me concerned for my own safety, and the safety of the people I work with every day. :-(

Booyhoo Wed 13-Feb-13 13:22:08

"They should go shopping, pay rent/bills, feed meters etc before they have a drink/buy drugs then. "

yes, good idea, i wonder why no-one thought of that. hmm

another one working hard at appearing ignorant.

Ragwort Wed 13-Feb-13 13:35:35

I volunteer in a local food bank, people are desperate for food, some of you have no idea how bad things are for many people. sad. The number of young, single people using our 'service' is shocking, many of them went to the same school that my son goes to, and are in their late teens/early twenties with no family support (some kicked out of foster homes as soon as they get to 18).

Mardy - the crime statistics have actually gone down in our town since we started the food bank, there is a lot of truth in what you say. A lot of the people I see do have mental health/addition problems and will find it very hard to manage, and to be perfectly blunt, many are never, ever going to be able to find a job that they can do.

starsandunicorns Wed 13-Feb-13 13:44:41

Sadly I knew one single mum on benfits ( I was too at the time) that had problems dealing with money she was next door neighbour. She asked if I would keep the top up off the rent she needed to pay so she wouldnt spend it.
No problem I placed it in my bank gave her a recpiet so we both knew how much she had given me. 3 weeks later I drove to the town where the estate agents was to pay the top up. Took the money out of my account gave her the money she went to the estate agents and it was closed for lunch.
I said we go for a coffee/ shopping and wait till its open. After coffee we spilt up as i popped to the job centre and she went shopping.

On meeting up she said no point in going to pay rent as she brought a outfit for saturday night with the top up rent money.
In the end she lost her private rental house due to non payment of rent. She had no mh or sn. I distanced myself due to this and other behoviour.

Some people like this women will really struggle however I dont have empathy for this type of people. I do worry for the young, and those with learning diffculties etc

bigbeniwish Wed 13-Feb-13 13:49:07

Do any of u think that food tokens may work for addicts? I know its off topic à bit but à fair amount of this this thread shows concern for addictions.

Ragwort Wed 13-Feb-13 13:50:41

stars - I can see your point of view but for some people life is so crap that for just a few hours, buying a special outfit for Saturday night might be the only 'good' thing in their lives. I know we should all be 'sensible' all the time but how many of us lead perfect lives ? I have an issue with food, I know I should eat & drink less, I know I would be fitter, healthier and look better - but I still eat & drink too much. OK, that doesn't particularly harm anyone else (except perhaps the NHS if my health gets too bad) but it's just an example of how it isn't always so easy to 'do the right thing'.

Floggingmolly Wed 13-Feb-13 13:54:54

Most if not all people in paid employment are paid monthly; what's the difference? Genuinely, I'm not benefit bashing?

Booyhoo Wed 13-Feb-13 14:07:02

you are ignorant if that's what you think flogging.

stars your friend may not have had any diagnosis but do you honestly think someone in a good state of mind chooses a dress over a home for their children? i'd say your friend had a lot going on in her head that she probably didn't even know how to explain tbh.

the bottom line is there always have been and there always will be people that for whatever reason, cant manage their money. im not going to go in to all the possible reasons for this, there are so many, but those of you saying "oh, write a good cv or learn to budget are completely naive if you think this will solve the problems faced by people who will suffer due to monthly payments. there is no magic wand. there never will be because there will ALWAYS be people who need support when it comes to managing their finances. monthly payments will be great for some people (like me- i welcome it) BUT there should be choice and support for those that WILL struggle. and as for all of you saying "employed people cope with monthly payments so benefit claimants should too", you have completely over looked the fact that the vast majority of people in receipt of benefits are vulnerable or disadvantaged in some way. this means that the very basic budgetting skills so many of you take for granted just do not come with any ease to these people. for all sorts of reasons. it isn't just black and white. open your eyes and accept the reality of this situation. people who have no choice but to receive state benefits to survive WILL suffer, by starving, freezing, being taken advantage of (both financially by loan companies and physically if they resort to prostitution to feed themselves or their children/dependants), and being made homeless.

starsandunicorns Wed 13-Feb-13 14:10:03

Floggingmolly most if not all angecy workers are paid weekly

Ragwort I understand what you are saying but the reason she gave it to me was beacause she was behind on her rent tops already I spent petrol to go and help her. I could of used the job centre website. Her way of thinking was the goverment would pick up the peices

Money mangerment needs to be learnt some people just dont care. I asked how she is going to pay rent and she said a crisis loan.
In my town the HA and counicel make people go to a money mangerment course before getting their tennacy( in a town where universal credit is being trailed) which I think is a good idea

Rhiannon86 Wed 13-Feb-13 14:13:10

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

starsandunicorns Wed 13-Feb-13 14:15:27

Booyhoo yes maybe ref neighbour but i honestly dont think so she used laugh that I began to do a degree saying I get to stay home and watch tv. Also I do understand that many cant budget and even weekly pay is a struggle. So think it will get worst sadly

JakeBullet Wed 13-Feb-13 14:31:27

I actually DO believe that Rhiannon, I am on benefits becaise my son is disabled. ....monthly payments won't be an issue for me as I am used to a monthly salary (while I was in work).

My best friend is disadvantaged by a seriously abusive childhood which has left her with massive mental health problems. She really cant work.

I work with many benefit claimants who cannot read or write adequately. ...this is a massive disadvantage and I am currently working very part time(paid) plus more (voluntary) for a charity set up to tackle this.

I coukd go on....

Obviously it doesn't apply to all claimants but msny are very disadvantaged in some way or other.

Booyhoo Wed 13-Feb-13 14:34:07

yes rhiannon. do you not? think of disabilities, MH illnesses, carers, pensioners, people fleeing domestic abuse, people without adequate education, people with language difficulties, people with learning difficulties never mind all those people who haven't met enough of the criteria to get a diagnosis but are still very much unable to work and those who aren't even on the radar as vulnerable (too afraid to seek help/dont know they can seek help, no-one supporting them to get help)

i'm sure someone will come along with the right statistics to show this. i haven't a clue where to find them but yes i do believe that most people in receipt of benefits in the UK are vulnerable or disadvantaged in some way.

Booyhoo Wed 13-Feb-13 14:35:10

xpost with jake

Delayingtactic Wed 13-Feb-13 14:41:45

Surely just by being on benefits that makes you both vulnerable and disadvantaged to some degree? People are subject to the govt changing the goalposts and completely throwing their lives into disarray and benefit claimants are socially disadvantaged because it seems a lot of people just assume they're feckless and work shy.

I also think a lot of people in above NMW jobs are just assuming that everyone gets monthly. I certainly didn't when I worked in a nursing home. I queued up with everyone else on a Friday to get my little brown envelope of cash. Budgeting comes easily to some but for others is, and always will be, a struggle. For those just saying get on with it, what do you expect will happen with the most vulnerable? Or don't you care because you don't live in area with those kind of people?

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 14:48:23

actually, most people in receipt of benefits are working Rhianna. The number of claimants who are fit and able for work and are on full benefits is actually very small compared to the vast number receiving working tax credits, housing benefit and council tax benefit, but who have jobs.

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 14:49:05

And yes, we are disadvantaged simply by the fact that we cant find jobs.

sashh Wed 13-Feb-13 14:49:56

I suspect the queue for crisis loans may be round the corner for the first few months whilst people adjust to the change.

I had to get one of these recently, I started work but couldn't afford to get to work (£15 a day) but that is beside the point.

There is a message before you get to speak to a person that says you cannot apply for a crisis loan if it is because your benefit has started to be paid monthly.

Are the payments monthly or four weekly? Because four weekly is much harder to manage since it is not always easy to manage direct debits if you don't have a set pay date each month

Benefit rates are based on weekly amounts so is the amount you get going to change each month? Or are they going to pay 4 weeks worth of money a calendar month?

Other things that are geared towards people on benefits such as social housing rent and payments at rip off outfits shops like Brighthouse are worked out weekly.

Do you really think that the vast majority of people on benefits are vulnerable or disadvantaged in some way?

Would you be on benefits otherwise?

SuedeEffectPochette Wed 13-Feb-13 16:02:54

Checking back in to see that most people do agree and some interesting points made. I wonder if the monthly payment will be made on the same day for everyone? Eg. if it is 1st of every month, NHS are going to have be busy on 1st and 2nd of each month I would have thought, much like Friday nights (payday for lots) now.
Sorry to hear about the poster who works in a shop and anticipates increase of anti-social behaviour (stealing/threats) when the changes come in. Of course most people on benefits won't behave like that but it only takes a small percentage increase to make life more difficult and challenging for people who work in shops where shoplifting is common.

JakeBullet Wed 13-Feb-13 16:15:00

Yes...forgot to add to my post that the vast majority of claimants getting benefits will be working....and being paid very little for doing so...even if full time. NMW is not that much tbh and when I decided to find work the advisor told me that to be financially better off Id have to be in 30 hours at NMW. I am not and so not any better off, however I am not any worse off either, it's just that a portion of my income now comes from a job and not entirely from the taxpayer.

IneedAsockamnesty Wed 13-Feb-13 16:19:58

Just to freak you all out a bit more,

you do know they are completely doing away with the whole crisis loan system, and my understanding is that they are not replacing it with anything, they are keeping the special hardship payment system but its also keeping the same rules the important one being that they do not make payment where a paying claim is current

So no the crisis loan que will not be very long because there will be no crisis loans.

aufaniae Wed 13-Feb-13 16:45:45

YANBU.

There are going to be many people who won't manage with getting paid monthly, losing money to the bedroom tax, and to sanctions.

Also with only one person in a couple now getting all the benefits paid to them, many partners in abusive relationships will find they don't have access to any money (except CB).

And as has been said, no crisis loans.

There seem to be some very short-sighted people around IMO, who are only concerned with laying blame ("well they should have though of that before having children" etc etc).

I am more concerned with what will actually happen to people who lose access to the bare minimum needed to live on, and/or lose their homes?

We are looking at a massive rise in homelessness, child poverty, diseases associated with poverty (e.g. TB - linked to overcrowding - children already need to be inoculated against TB in some areas e.g. many inner London boroughs) and social ills such as a rise in crime, once these policies bite.

From a totally selfish point of view - do you really want to live in a society like that? I don't!

I am constantly amazed that even the most selfish of people don't seem to realise that increasing poverty in this country may well affect them too! Possibility not directly, but very likely indirectly. (e.g. failing economy, higher crime rates, leading to higher insurance bills, higher incidence fo diseases lined to poverty, bigger burder on the NHS, etc etc).

Bogeyface Wed 13-Feb-13 18:41:16

aufaniae You're completely right about this affecting everyone.

People who turn to crime have got to burgle someones house! This whole plan is very short sighted, but then so are all of the Tory plans to batter the "underclass" into the ground.

Has Call me Dave been tested for Myopia?

Is it really true that Dave didnt want IDS to bring this in?

If so, why is it happening? Surely the PM has some kind of say?

IneedAsockamnesty Wed 13-Feb-13 19:12:04

Aufaniae,

Am I correct in thinking that ids ( sorry I refuse to put his initials in capitals) is making attempts to limit the hb/LHA/ rent part of UC to 2 year support only if your unemployed or under employed?

Or have I made that bit up cos I'm not sure now?

Feenie Wed 13-Feb-13 20:12:39

Someone flouncing?

<crosses fingers>

It cannot be healthy to post on the same type of threads, every night, having ruck after ruck, so it's probably a good idea really.

motherinferior Wed 13-Feb-13 20:21:02

The thing is, lots of people are not madly good at managing money. But if you've got quite a bit of the stuff, comparatively at least, it doesn't matter too much. My partner isn't very good at his own finances (weirdly enough he's excellent at it at work confused) but he isn't having to manage the pittance that benefits provides. And even when he does get into hot water, he's got access to loans or overdrafts. A lot of people don't have those options.

delurked Wed 13-Feb-13 21:38:34

It looks like the Govt has said that there will be some flexibility to make more regular payments to vulnerable claimants: www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2013/feb-2013/dwp020-13.shtml
Quote: All cases will be considered on an individual basis, and some people in vulnerable circumstances, for example people with a history of addiction, mental health conditions, or those at risk of domestic abuse, could be eligible for alternative arrangements. In cases like these, payments direct to landlords, more frequent than monthly payments, or split payments between different household members could be considered.

aufaniae Wed 13-Feb-13 22:06:13

Sockreturningpixie is housing benefit going to be limited to 2 years? Possibly I'm not really sure either!

None of the newspapers seem to have reported it. But plenty of people are talking about it online.

It was mentioned in this DWP document: "Explanatory Memorandum for the Social Security Advisory Committee"

Limit on Payment of Housing Costs

91. There is to be a time-limit of two years on payment of housing costs to claimants in the full conditionality group of Universal Credit. When such a claimant has received help with housing costs for a period of two years these payments will stop and will not be reinstated until a claimant has had a break in claim and has served a further waiting period. This is underpinned by the principle of providing short-term help through the benefits system and because it is not considered appropriate that this help is provided indefinitely. This is intended to focus the help that is given through the benefits system on those on low income when they need it most."

As with much is the rest of this mess, it's not clear exactly what is meant. Some people seem to think that this only applies to mortgage payments. I believe now there is already a 2 year limit on mortgages. However the way it is worded doesn't mention mortgage payments, and so it's very reasonable to ask if this applies to rent too. Their justification doesn't mention mortgages at all does it?

If they really are going to remove the housing element after 2 years, I can't imagine the trouble many families will be in in a couple of years' time. sad

aufaniae Wed 13-Feb-13 22:07:45

I should say, that document was put out in June. It's very possible things could have changed since then - does anyone know?

aufaniae Wed 13-Feb-13 22:25:29

Johnny Void's blog seems to think it's just applicable to home owners.

"Support for Mortgage Interest (SMI) payments are designed to help those who find themselves out of work – whether through redundancy, sickness or disability- to continue to make interest payments on their mortgage.

Payments are limited to two years except for those over 60 or those judged unable to work due to sickness or disability. Payments are currently only available to those working less than 16 hours a week and in receipt of Income Support, ESA, Job Seekers Allowance or Pension Credit.

As the recession began to bite in 2009 and house repossessions soared, the waiting period for SMI was cut to 13 weeks. Despite the Tories plunging the country back into recession, the Tories are consulting on increasing this to 39 weeks in January 2013 ...

It will mean householders who face unemployment will now have to wait nine months before receiving any support with housing costs. Few mortgage companies will be prepared to wait so long before calling in the bailiffs. The capital limit, which is the size of the mortgage that can have payments claimed against it, is to be halved from £200,000 to £100,000 ...

The Government is considering making payments recoverable, should the householder die or sell the property. Currently those who are long term sick, have children or are pensioners can have mortgage interest paid indefinitely. Those who are simply unemployed have payments stopped after two years. The Government plans to extend this two year limit to include those with children or those who have been moved from disability benefits to job seekers allowance.

The new death tax will see these payments recovered when the claimants dies. ... The Government is considering making all SMI repayments recoverable on death.

... The next sentence in the Universal Credit regulations do contain one key phrase which tells us everything we need to know about where welfare reform is heading:

“This is based on the principle that it is reasonable to expect owner occupiers to make some provision, whether by insurance or savings, to fund their housing costs for a period in the event of a change in their circumstances such as unemployment or sickness.”

The inference is clear. Decent people will be expected to take out redundancy or income protection insurance as the Welfare State is whittled away. The uninsured squeezed middle may now find themselves plunged into mortgage arrears and repossessions should they lose their job or fall ill.

This dovetails with George Osborne’s bungled Child Benefit cuts for higher earners. The intention to undermine the Welfare State is clear. A universal system means that everyone has a stake in the Welfare State. This is being eroded. When the changes to SMI are introduced – which will also see SMI stopped for those who take on a few hours of work a week whilst looking for a full time job – huge numbers of people will no longer have a safety to ensure they can keep their home should they have to give up work ...

The end result, if they succeed, will mean people paying more money for welfare insurance than they ever paid through the tax system, whilst receiving far less comprehensive protection.

All the benefit bashing, the suicides, the disability hate crime, as well as the poverty, homelessness and ill health that has been inflicted by welfare reform has had one key aim in mind. A big fat payday for private sector sharks"

He also mentions that the document (linked to in my last post) was being put ut for consultation, so perhaps it has changed? Does anyone know?

rhondajean Wed 13-Feb-13 23:15:41

The housing association I am involved with is gearing up for the two year hb cap so I think it's still on the cards.

IneedAsockamnesty Wed 13-Feb-13 23:29:30

I've had staff contacting LA/HA's in the areas my clients live in and nobody is able to give me any other info on that aspect of it no confirmation or anything

That's why I was starting to think I had imagined it.

IneedAsockamnesty Wed 13-Feb-13 23:31:04

Rhonda,

From what angle are they gearing up for?

Actual full tenancies or part own part rent or just a huge influx of homeless people needing housing?

rhondajean Wed 13-Feb-13 23:35:58

Taken on a money advice worker. Building stringer links with local agencies. Preparing for an increase in applications ( we get 170 a month and have about 12 vacant properties a month on average as it is). Working with existing staff and the local authority on priorities and arrears management. Getting info out to tenants ( where we have it).

Sorry for typos, on phone.

rhondajean Wed 13-Feb-13 23:37:58

But no as far as I know no proper confirmation yet. I'm attending a presentation by the local dwp reform manager on 20 th march ill ask specifically.

IneedAsockamnesty Wed 13-Feb-13 23:39:26

Temporary Absence
26. Universal Credit brings together several benefits and credits with a number of separate sets of temporary absence rules which require simplifying and aligning across adult claimants, children and non-dependents. Under Universal Credit there are two categories of absence that would generally make a new adult claimant ineligible for Universal Credit. These are being outside GB and being in prison. In addition, where a new claim includes a child in prison or one that has been taken into Local Authority Care the child will similarly be ignored for benefit calculation purposes.
27. However where a Universal Credit claim is already ‘live’, we will allow a temporary period of absence for these reasons to avoid the need for frequent changes of circumstances and to offer a level of stability when someone is removed from the household. This means allowing, for existing members of a Universal Credit claim (whether adults, children or non-dependents):

^^
Hmm this reads very much like your not allowed to go abroad on holiday and remain eligible.

IneedAsockamnesty Wed 13-Feb-13 23:41:57

Is that meeting in Exeter by any chance?

If so see you there as I've been invited to a dwp thing on that day.

aufaniae Thu 14-Feb-13 00:03:51

"Hmm this reads very much like your not allowed to go abroad on holiday and remain eligible."

That's currently true for JSA. IIRC correctly you can go on holiday for 2 weeks within the UK and still keep your claim (you have to fill out a holiday form), but you can't go out of the country.

If they are extending this restriction to everyone currently now on WTC that's a massive difference!

scarlettsmummy2 Thu 14-Feb-13 00:07:17

The HA I work for, although I personally don't work in housing, has taken on three money advice/ benefit advice workers in preparation for the changes. They are expecting real issues with tenants not paying and the knock on effect this will have on building new developments.

Bogeyface Thu 14-Feb-13 00:43:45

Cant see the holiday thing being a problem, we couldnt afford to go away when H was working, much less now. And with further cuts being made a week in a tent will be beyond most claimants reach.

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 14-Feb-13 00:56:15

It sounds like that's whats intended but its from the same the link you posted.

If a employee is able to have 4 weeks holiday a year they should be able to go where they want.

I know loads of families who club together to fund adult children and grand children's holidays or ones with there only family abroad, or and ones who go without to save to take children away on cheap holidays.

So they are now turning holidays into a priviledge only available to the rich.

Disgusting.

JakeBullet Thu 14-Feb-13 06:18:17

I can't afford a holiday anyway so it won't be an issue for me unless a wealthy relative gifts one lol. Be interesting to know if this will be the case though. I have serious worries about a friend of mine who has real mental health problems and lots of debt. Can see her going into HB money to pay stuff ....simply because she IS unwell and not always able to manage her money.

Rhiannon86 Thu 14-Feb-13 06:26:35

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

JakeBullet Thu 14-Feb-13 06:30:49

Honestly ...I really don't know how ANYONE on benefits can fund a holiday abroad. I am currently in that position and cannot afford to do so....and I get higher benefits because DS is disabled....still doesn't stretch to foreign holidays....or even UK ones.

JakeBullet Thu 14-Feb-13 06:32:42

....though am interested to know what the position would be if a generous relative paid for one. My last holiday was a treat to us from exH parents and fully paid for including meals and travel. Be interesting to know the position in that situation.

I am not talking about someone on the full equivalent of JSA. I am talking about someone who is working and gets topped up with the equivalent of TCs.

If they are working hard and saving for a holiday they will lose their llTCs for the two weeks they arent here? Because the govt refuses to do anything about high living costs and low wages they get penalised? Thats fair? No I dont bloody think it is.

FWIW I have never been on holiday. I dont really care about it for me.

Rhiannon86 Thu 14-Feb-13 07:08:41

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Why should the govt have any say where they go on holiday?

Rhiannon86 Thu 14-Feb-13 07:17:39

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

It is a big deal.

The govt arent topping up benefits for the good of the people. They are doing it for big businesses and so they can have control over peoples lives. Its truely horrifying.

It might not be to you, but when you rely on the help and then get told you are scum for doing so it gets a bit annoying.

sashh Thu 14-Feb-13 07:22:30

Cant see the holiday thing being a problem, we couldnt afford to go away when H was working, much less now. And with further cuts being made a week in a tent will be beyond most claimants reach.

But there are always reasons/different circumstances.

One of my friends has a teenage son, when he was 10 - 14 and she was working and claiming CTC he went to stay with his grandmother for the summer holidays. He was too young to leave alone at home.

His grandmother happens to live in Spain. And that is not so unusual.

It's also not unusual for pensioners to go abroad for holidays, are they going to be stopped?

NC78 Thu 14-Feb-13 07:30:12

Some people have relatives abroad who will put them up, so are not splashing loads of cash on a holiday. People should be able to see their families.

Dawndonna Thu 14-Feb-13 07:30:43

Many, many years ago, I had signed on for various reasons. A family member paid for me to go on holiday to help look after their dcs. I was happy to provide childcare for the cost of a holiday. The point is, that somebody may have a holiday offered, so before you start your Daily Mail, knee jerk reaction of my tax shouldn't pay for their holidays, have a think before touching the keyboard.

JakeBullet Thu 14-Feb-13 07:46:07

I went to Disneyland Paris, exILs paid for the travel, the big pink hotel and all meals....was lovely.

With regard to holidays here and abroad all I can say is that from my years of working and holidaying it seems cheaper on many occasions to holiday abroad. Odd but true.....might have all changed now though.

Rhiannon86 Thu 14-Feb-13 07:47:42

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

rhondajean Thu 14-Feb-13 07:47:45

Are some people really as - innocent lets say of the realities of life, so I don't get deleted - as they come across on this thread?

I'm in Scotland sock, so no not exeter. Tbh and to be completely fair Thr scottish government are working hard to negate some of the effects of reform where they can but I'm interested to see how that would pan out if there is a yes vote in this stupid referendum next year (would also like to know how much that vanity exercise is costing that could be spent better elsewhere).

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 14-Feb-13 07:57:31

Rhiannon,

Why not they do now.

aufaniae Thu 14-Feb-13 08:50:50

"people shouldn't be going on holiday if they are reliant on benefits. Particularly foreign holidays. It serves absolutely no purpose."

Woah! This is a really dangerous attitude!

We are not talking about people who are put of work and currently claiming job seekers (they are already restricted from leaving the UK).

If this applies to everyone on UC, then we are talking about hard-working people on low wages (teaching assistants in our DC's schools for example) - anyone who currently gets assistance with housing benefit or through tax credits to top up their wages.

Why shouldn't a Teaching Assistant get to go on holiday?

Freedom of movement is a basic human right. If this applies to all on UC, then they are talking about restricting the freedom of movement for everyone on low wages basically, that's really serious.

Rhiannon86 Thu 14-Feb-13 08:54:26

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

aufaniae Thu 14-Feb-13 08:55:11

Also, the going abroad thing seems to apply to DCs too. If the child of someone on UC gets an opportunity to go abroad, why should they be stopped?

How is that in the best interests of the country?

aufaniae Thu 14-Feb-13 09:03:09

Rhiannon vast numbers of people exist on low wages, and get top ups from the government. The main two reasons for this are the high cost of housing, and low wages - both things that government has the power to make a difference in.

If vast numbers of hard-working people need top-ups from the state just to make ends meet e.g. to be able to afford a home (as is the case now) then there is something wrong with the system. It's not that we have a huge army of the feckless (this is spin!) the reason we have so many people reliant on the state is because of the failure of successive governments to address housing issues and low wages. We are now into a triple dip recession because this government are hell-bent on following policies which are steering us further into the red. (The cuts are not working!)

If you tell vast numbers of people they will lose their means to support themselves and their families - possibly putting their homes at risk, than I would say that is restricting the movement of the poor.

No, no one is standing at the border refusing to let them out, but cutting off their means of survival is not far off don't you think?

Rhiannon86 Thu 14-Feb-13 09:06:49

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Rhiannon

People are on the breadline because of the very government that is claiming its helping them.

Osborne was warned by the IMF. He was told his cuts wouldnt work. He went ahead anyway. They know they are stagnating the economy and they dont care aslong as their mates are alright.

And you are buying into their drivel because its easy to blame the poor isnt it? Why dont they just earn more eh? They dont deserve a holiday do they? The care assistants, the cleaners, the lorry drivers, the classroom assistants. The people who keep the country functioning. They should just shut up and get on with it shouldnt they!!

angry

Dawndonna Thu 14-Feb-13 09:17:18

Rhiannon I need a holiday. I work an eighteen hour day, seven days a week, no time off for good behaviour. If offered the chance of a holiday, I take it. That doesn't make me feckless, lazy or anything else. It makes me a carer of four people with disabilities.

Booyhoo Thu 14-Feb-13 09:25:46

rhiannon

have you even tried to properly understand other poster's comments or get a grasp on what these rules actually mean? because you do seem to be struggling to get it. what is it you're having trouble with and maybe someone could explain it for you?

aufaniae Thu 14-Feb-13 09:26:57

Rhiannon why should it be for the likes of you, or the government to say whether people go abroad or not?

How about the following:

- A teaching assistant whose elderly parents live in Spain and are now too old to travel. She saves and get enough money to get a cheap flight to visit in the summer to visit them.

- A teenager whose school has arranged a (very cheap) field trip to France, to support their History GSCE

- A child who's dad lives in Holland. The father is also on low wages but he has saved to pay for the coach and ferry so his daughter can visit.

- A nurse who has worked saving lives for 40 years. She works part time so that she can look after her elderly mum, her husband with dementia and her adult son with special needs. The only reason she can still work part-time is other members of the family help so she can continue to go to work. She never gets any time off, she is caring for people from the moment she gets up to when she goes to sleep. Her family have saved to send her and her daughter on a week's holiday, and arranged care while she is gone. It will be the first time in years she's had any time to herself.

Why should these people not go abroad?

FWIW I made the first 3 up, but the last one is someone I know in RL.

aufaniae Thu 14-Feb-13 09:30:39

(The RL person is not quite as old as I made her out to be! Hope she doesn't read this grin Her caring responsibilities are exactly as I described in the example however. She never gets a break, I don't know how she does it)

BertieBotts Thu 14-Feb-13 09:32:54

Fucking hell! I'm shock at the holiday thing! angry that's utterly disgusting.

Also I know the thread has moved on, but it's always been the case that when you transition from in work to out of work or vice versa, or any other change of circumstances like a partner moving in or out or a child being born or even changing job, it takes them 6-8 weeks to sort this out in which time you receive absolutely nothing aside from child benefit. It's extremely difficult. <eyes up dodgy credit card invitation junk mail sat on desk>

BertieBotts Thu 14-Feb-13 09:37:17

And exactly - some people have family who live abroad. You can't cut someone off from visiting their family!

Plus school trips etc - utterly unfair to say that DC cannot go on overseas school trips if the parents are receiving benefit, even if a grandparent pays or the DC has saved up themselves, perhaps from a paper round or birthday money or something. It reminds me of that scene in Robin Hood where the tax collector comes and takes the boy rabbit's birthday money angry

5madthings Thu 14-Feb-13 10:05:37

Err if universal credit is to include child benefit? And i think it is going to? Then that means anyone who.gets child benefit cant go abroad on holiday?! Or child tax credits? You dont have to be a low earner to get those... Tho i am nloody shocked that if you are on jsa you cant go abroad, if you budget and pay for it or its a gift from a relative etc its not up to the government to dictate if you can leave the country?!

What about children on school trips etc?

5madthings Thu 14-Feb-13 10:09:36

And yes it includes anyome getying carers allowance or dla?

I thought the idea that all benefots and tax ctedits and child benefit etc are included in the new universal.credit? Thats a hell.of a lot of people who then cant go abroad. And what uf they need to go abroad for their job?!!

Booyhoo Thu 14-Feb-13 10:28:50

yes 5mad it's because JSA is supposed to be a payment received in return for job seeking and if someone is in spain they are unavailable to attend job interviews (that probably wont materialise) in the UK so aren't entitled to the money.

sashh Thu 14-Feb-13 10:31:49

If you are on the breadline, where the loss of any money is putting your home at risk, you should not be going on holiday!

Do you remember the swine flu? When Britain had run out of ECMO beds and someone had to be sent to Sweden?

Should their benefit (if they were claiming) be stopped? Do you think a family member might want to be at their bedside?

What about Granny in Pakistan getting near death and the family fly out to be with her, but on one is on benefits, so a brother/sister/cousin pays - should that risk the person's home.

Or my friend I posted about earlier, she could not afford childcare, it was cheaper to put her son on a flight to Spain.

School trips?

Medical Treatment?

OK let's get really silly now. What about someone working on a cross channel ferry, or one to Ireland or Spain. Should they have their CTC stopped because they have got a job that involves them leaving the country.

My parents are travelling to France soon, my mum wants to go before she dies (terminal cancer) my dad has a car funded through DLA/motorbility, should they not be able to go? Should my dad's car be taken away from him?

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 14-Feb-13 10:54:56

Sas,

Medical reasons for traveling outside the uk are allowed.

Everybody else.

I fund holidays abroad each year for certain low income families why the bloody hell should they not be able to have them.if I'm funding them.

aufaniae Thu 14-Feb-13 10:58:45

5madthings just to provide a small glimmer of good news, neither DLA nor child benefit will be included in UC.

But you're absolutely right, if this is to be applied to all people on UC then that's a hell of a lot of people who then can't go abroad, as it will include:

• Child tax credit
• Housing benefit
• Parts of the social fund
• Working tax credit
• Income support
• Income-related employment and support allowance
• Income-based jobseekers allowance

It's not clear whether this will apply to everyone or not (if people make enough fuss about it hopefully not!) but in the document linked to above it certainly sounds like that's what's intended.

cortneyfigel95 Thu 14-Feb-13 10:59:03

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

5madthings Thu 14-Feb-13 11:12:26

Well we get the basic level.child tax credit so we would be affected as would a lot of people. Its madness.

Glad that dla is not included.

What is the threshold for child tax credit, its quite high isnt it and about £500 a year for a child and then.payments go.up depending on income?

Rhiannon86 Thu 14-Feb-13 12:18:19

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Rhiannon86 Thu 14-Feb-13 12:19:05

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

xmascow Thu 14-Feb-13 12:29:17

This has been an interesting debate. Bogeyface do you like in a high unemployment area?

xmascow Thu 14-Feb-13 12:29:38

live i mean

Bogeyface Thu 14-Feb-13 12:39:51

Well traditionally, no. But recently there have been hundreds and hundreds of redundanies so the town is now suffering for it. There are hundreds of applicants for every job, which is why we are not getting any responses. DH has 30+ years of experience but isnt even getting interviews sad

We are also in a high immigration area which is obviously contributing to the problem. There arent enough jobs to go around as it is although that said, there is a shift going on where the large Polish community is shrinking, probably due to the lack of jobs.

Bogeyface Thu 14-Feb-13 12:42:40

Actually where I live is a bit odd. There is now lots and lots of unemployment, but also has a larger than average proportion of high earners. I live just down the road from the owner and CEO of one of the largest engineering companies in the UK!

THere is lots of money here, but its all in the same few pockets, so lots of poverty too.

Rhiannon, every employee in the UK is entitled to paid holiday. While they are on that holiday, they are still employed by their employer. Therefore, they still satisfy the criteria for the benefit they receive.

So what gives the government the right to put restrictions on where they can go during their holiday period?

THere is lots of money here, but its all in the same few pockets, so lots of poverty too.

You could use that statement to describe the whole of the UK.

aufaniae Thu 14-Feb-13 13:17:58

"I'm not reading it as they can't go abroad, I'm reading it as they aren't entitled to the benefits why they are abroad."

It's not clear what is meant. It says you will become "ineligible for UC". None of this has been properly documented and explained, so we can't be sure this even applies to holidays, but if it does it seems likely to me they'd mean the claim will be stopped completely from the wording.

StormyBrid Thu 14-Feb-13 13:22:18

Re holidays:

27. However where a Universal Credit claim is already ‘live’, we will allow a temporary period of absence for these reasons to avoid the need for frequent changes of circumstances and to offer a level of stability when someone is removed from the household. This means allowing, for existing members of a Universal Credit claim (whether adults, children or non-dependents):
• Up to 1 month temporary absence abroad for any reason (e.g. holiday, visiting relatives)1; or a longer period of up to 6 months temporary absence
abroad for reasons of medical treatment2.
28. During this time Universal Credit is to be payable as normal but after which the person will no longer be recognised in calculating the Universal Credit Maximum Amount.

I read that as you can't make a new claim while you're abroad (fair enough), and if you're already on universal credit you can spend up to one month per year out of the country for whatever reason without it affecting the claim. But a holiday of longer than a month means they'd reassess, and whoever's off on holiday would be classed as not part of the household, thus reducing how much the household is entitled to.

Rhiannon86 Thu 14-Feb-13 13:31:13

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

aufaniae Thu 14-Feb-13 13:32:39

StormyBrid I'm also having a look at the detail This document if anyone else wants a read!

It could be read to mean that, I hope it does. It depends what they mean by a "new claim"

" Temporary Absence

26. Universal Credit brings together several benefits and credits with a number of separate sets of temporary absence rules which require simplifying and aligning across adult claimants, children and non-dependents. Under Universal Credit there are two categories of absence that would generally make a new adult claimant ineligible for Universal Credit. These are being outside GB and being in prison. In addition, where a new claim includes a child in prison or one that has been taken into Local Authority Care the child will similarly be ignored for benefit calculation purposes."

I would hope that by "new claim" they mean the point at which any claim is new and once it becomes live then point 27 applies. However I think they are also talking about differences in claims (I forget what now?) depending on if you are coming over from the old system or are a new claimant, so it's possible it means this I guess, in which case it would affect many more people.

I am less worried on that point however having read more from the document though!

It's ridiculous that they are rushing this all through without explaining the detail. This stuff affects people's lives!

The reason we're all speculating on what it all means is it's so hard to get reliable information on this!

aufaniae Thu 14-Feb-13 13:34:56

Rhiannon86

A few minutes ago you were saying it was reasonable to stop everyone who gets UC leaving the country.
Now you're saying it is reasonable for them to leave the country.

Do make your mind up, which is it?

Or is your criteria simply that whatever the government says must be reasonable?

StormyBrid Thu 14-Feb-13 14:31:41

And of course, those regulations are nine months old; who knows whether it's the most current version? Point 6 says they'll be continuing to refine until the Autumn, so in theory there ought to be a newer, revised version floating around.

Point 44 is making me raise an eyebrow - looks as though for single parents we'll be losing the current system whereby whoever gets the Child Benefit gets all other associated benefits. Hmm.

118 and 119 - that looks suspiciously as though disabled couples are going to get royally shafted.

229 is of particular interest to me. Was it this thread or a similar one that mentioned the grey area surrounding claimant commitment in families with children aged between one and four? There's reference to "a claimant who is a lone parent of, or nominated responsible carer for, a child between the ages of one and five years old". Would a "nominated responsible carer" be whichever parent is staying home to look after the kids? And how on earth does that fit in with the requirement for the earnings of the entire "benefit unit" to be high enough - would it mean a couple with a young child only need to be earning the equivalent of thirty five hours at minimum wage?

This is making my head hurt.

aufaniae Thu 14-Feb-13 15:24:15

"looks as though for single parents we'll be losing the current system whereby whoever gets the Child Benefit gets all other associated benefits. Hmm."

AFAIK UC will be paid to one person in a couple only. (So for many that will mean all benefits except child benefit.)

This will be a disaster for people in abusive / controlling relationships.

aufaniae Thu 14-Feb-13 15:28:16

Oh I'm sorry I totally misread what you wrote StormyBrid!

You're talking about lone parents and I'm taking about couples. Sorry blush

StormyBrid Thu 14-Feb-13 15:52:23

All benefits except child benefit for now. I can't imagine it'll stay separate forever. You're right though, the potential for financial abuse is definitely worrying. Wasn't that part of why they brought in child benefit for mothers in the first place?

chris481 Thu 14-Feb-13 15:58:03

For those who missed it, delurked posted above that their will be special measures (more frequent payments allowed) for people who can't cope with monthly. So the OP's question is answered.

chris481 Thu 14-Feb-13 16:00:29

there

I do know the difference, just frequently find there is a disconnect between brain and fingers.

(Have just corrected "no" to "know" in the previous sentence. Wonder if I need to see a brain-doctor.)

Booyhoo Thu 14-Feb-13 16:01:50

which question are you referring to chris?

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 14-Feb-13 16:19:25

It does not actually say that. What it does say is support could be available and a different way of paying is being explored but nothing about this is mentioned on the dwp info.

And I have an inkling that that perticular line has been inserted to appease the masses with no meaning.

It is rather woolie.

aufaniae Thu 14-Feb-13 16:44:58

chris they said "All cases will be considered on an individual basis, and some people in vulnerable circumstances, ... could be eligible for alternative arrangements."

Do you trust them to identify every case where people may have trouble with monthly payments? Or to make accurate assessments?

Don't forget this is from the same set of reforms which the Tories announced would not make anyone worse off. Actually the Chartered Institute of Housing estimate that the poorest 400,000 in society will be worse off, and the Institute of Fiscal Studies estimate that in total, 2.8 million people will find themselves worse off.

This is going to be administered by the DWP, and outsourced contractors, who have a terrible record of accurately identifying those fit for work for example.

"Of the claimants Atos found fit for work(for claims starting between October 2008 and November 2011), 20 per cent of those decisions were overturned either by DWP staff or appeal tribunals." Link here

Reports looking at a longer period found a third of Atos decisions about fitness to work overturned in appeal. BBC article here

So, back to the OP, YANBU to worry that many people won't manage.

rhondajean Thu 14-Feb-13 18:06:43

The last time I met &#373;ith a dwp reform manager his take on it was that it was likely that they would have to make some modifications for people who got into trouble but that at the moment they (as in operational staff) have been given no indication at all that it was to happen.

Ie he was almost saying, it's going to be a balls up but they (government) are going to wait till there is carnage before doing anything.

I know a lot of you will disagree but I feel really sorry for a lot of th staff having to implement these changes, many of them are decent people and have their own bills to pay.

Booyhoo Thu 14-Feb-13 18:28:01

i agree rhonda. it's the front line staff that will take the brunt of this day after day when the shit hits the fan. it wont be shiny dave or IBS (his initials make me think of IBS and his policies make me feel like i have IBS)

grin @ IBS. I think the same.

Booyhoo Thu 14-Feb-13 18:46:57

grin

sapphirestar Thu 14-Feb-13 18:47:55

My wages and tax credits/child benefit all come monthly, my housing benefit also doesn't go straight to my landlord but I've never missed a rent payment in 5 years. Yabu to think people who receive some benefits are crap at managing money but I agree that a minority perhaps aren't very good at passing on housing benefit

Bogeyface Thu 14-Feb-13 19:19:58

Well whenever he speaks I think "Bullshit" so IBS suits him pretty well.

cricketballs Thu 14-Feb-13 19:37:20

just going on the title of the thread - YABU; lots of people in work (even NMW) have to budget for a month so why should those on benefits be any different?

I have read through this thread and I have noticed that people are up in arms that the state it making people stand on their own in regards to budgeting and not 'nannying' them but on the other hand are angry that the state is nannying them about not going abroad; you can't have it both ways.

The country is in massive debt and can not afford to continue in the manner which far too many people have become accustomed; paying benefits monthly is going to save a fortune in terms of costs to the government and I would rather see this cost cutting rather than any more services being cut. For those who are arguing against it; which service would you prefer to cut rather than save this money?

I will make this clear - I hate this government with a passion and hope they get voted out asap, but I also am dreading the alternative. I don't read the DM either and have had to rely on benefits in the past

Dawndonna Thu 14-Feb-13 20:58:32

Cricket Lots of people on NMW are on benefits.
Oh, and yes, this country is in massive debt, with a government that is vilifying the poor and increasing the debt, having said that, I'm inclined to agree with you to some extent, in that I'm also worried about the alternative, because currently, there doesn't seem to be one!

determinedma Thu 14-Feb-13 21:22:04

I work and have to budget monthly. The last days of the month are grim.
Why should it be different if you are on benefits? ( and I have been on them before and grateful for them but I still hold this point of view)

Booyhoo Thu 14-Feb-13 21:29:06

are people not reading the thread?

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 14-Feb-13 21:39:39

The two issues are not the same, saying employed people can't leave the country for a short time is restrictive with no good reason other than punitive,

Committing staff or weekly/ fortnightly payments to those most vulnerable in our society protects those who need it,who would need to ask for it and want it is supportive with no punitive intent.

cricketballs Thu 14-Feb-13 21:57:13

Boooyhoo - I have read the thread; my opinion differs from yours obviously, but I'll ask again - which services would you cut to cover the increased cost of payments remaining on a weekly basis?

Bogeyface Thu 14-Feb-13 21:58:06

The country is in massive debt and can not afford to continue in the manner which far too many people have become accustomed; paying benefits monthly is going to save a fortune in terms of costs to the government and I would rather see this cost cutting rather than any more services being cut. For those who are arguing against it; which service would you prefer to cut rather than save this money?

The service I would like cut is the service that is being given to the fat cat industry bosses of subsidising their workers wages with the tax credit system.

Increase NMW by £3 per hour and you would remove the need for most the benefits being discussed. The vast amount of benefit claimants in this country have jobs, yet because wages are so low, they have to claim housing benefit, council tax benefit and child credit just to be able to live.

If companies were forced to pay a decent days pay for a decent days work then HB etc would not be need by 90% of the claimants and the benefits bill would be halved at a stroke, with no one suffering but the bastards who have been creaming the top off for decades.

Dawndonna Thu 14-Feb-13 21:58:56

Some people on benefits are not capable of budgeting, people with mental health problems or those with learning difficulties for example.

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 14-Feb-13 22:00:35

Deter.

Well done you must be very impressed with yourself.

Do you have addiction problems perhaps coupled with mental health issues, are you considered vulnerable due to being trafficked or intrenched in the sex industry,have you just left care and/or have any significant learning disabilities a are your kids on a care plan due to your mental health and has anybody tried to kill you in the last few weeks?

Booyhoo Thu 14-Feb-13 22:04:58

cricketballs you will see then if youhave read the thread that i agree paying monthly is a good thing, for some. i have said that i think there should be choice for those that think they will struggle with monthly payments, and there will be people who will struggle and it wont be just because they cant be arsed to budget.

what would i cut? how about the massive survery big dave carried out to find out the happiness levels of the nation? or what about the fucking vulgar lumps of steel being created to 'decorate' the entrance to town after town where i live? or lets take a look at all the money being lost through tax avoidance and evasion by massive companies? hows that to start with?

YY booyhoo.

That fucking cow (you know the one I mean?) cost £25k.

And I dread to think how much the Belfast balls cost.

What was the outcome of the happiness survey?

Booyhoo Thu 14-Feb-13 22:26:56

yes i know the one. it enrages me everytime i drive through and big old paddy waving goodbye to everyone in my town aswell. haven't a clue how much he cost.

don't know the outcome, i didn't take part. i just heard something a few weeks back about it and almost fell down at the idea of him doing this with all the other shit that he's doing. as IF he cares who is happy other than his chums.

cricketballs Thu 14-Feb-13 22:32:10

the loopholes are being dealt with in regards to tax avoidance

the decoration is down to your local council and therefore coming out of your council tax

the survey - I will give you that one wink

those who work and get paid monthly though don't get a choice so maybe it should be changed to those who are identified as vulnerable; anyone else who does not have a special need needs to live like the rest of the population and learn to budget.
For example when dh changed jobs many years ago from a weekly paid to a monthly paid we had to go the month without any money coming in, so we had to make that weeks wages last a month (this included paying gas and electric on the keys, petrol etc) it was tough and hard going but it was a case of if we didn't then we would survive - such is life and we learnt a lot from it so I'm sorry if I don't sound sympathetic but if those that work have to deal with it then why not those who depend on the state?

Booyhoo Thu 14-Feb-13 22:33:19
Bogeyface Thu 14-Feb-13 22:34:41

What is your view on NMW Cricket and what I said above?

Booyhoo Thu 14-Feb-13 22:36:10

cricketballs i'm confused. you seem to be agreeing with the majority on this thread that those that are vulnerable should have weekly payments.

His face gives me the heebies.

And those questions. What nonsense! Ask people how they feel, but then ask why and figure out how to fix it.

And 200,000 homes is hardly an adequate sample.

cricketballs Thu 14-Feb-13 22:43:45

define vulnerable? Those with special needs i.e. learning difficulties then yes but the DLA which covers the majority of their benefits is not changing. The vast majority then no; people need to stop being nannied and learn to deal with life like the rest of us (I say this as a dsis of an alcoholic who held down her own business and managed to deal with the basics of life like paying her bills whilst she was killing herself with this disease)

scarlettsmummy2 Thu 14-Feb-13 22:46:47

Cricket, sorry, it isn't as simple as that. There are many people with huge numeracy and other issues who will NEVER be able to budget their money. I work with many people in this boat and it's heartbreaking.

One alcoholic who still paid her bills is really not an example most people can recognise. I am sorry to hear that she was an alcoholic though. Its a hard illness for all concerned.

Addictions engulf people. Twice monthly payments might atleast give some addicts a couple of days of eating a month instead of one.

scarlettsmummy2 Thu 14-Feb-13 22:50:56

Also your sister presumably is of a similar level of intelligence to yourself, so therefore could have some concept of how many days between payments, how much she would have per day, how much needed to be set aside for the various bills and how much that would leave for food etc.

cricketballs Thu 14-Feb-13 22:55:50

scarlett - she was also of the intelligence that she drunk herself to death

Bogeyface Thu 14-Feb-13 22:58:17

Cricket I ask again, what of the NMW issue that will cut benefit costs at a stroke? Why are you ignoring that question?

cricketballs Thu 14-Feb-13 22:58:48

apologies for the tone of my last post but I did want to make the point that even those who many on this thread have been defending are capable of the basics and maybe we are doing them a disservice in 'nannying' them and maybe also enabling them by not forcing them to take action into reality. It is also costing the country money we can not afford

But addictions dont fit around reality.

No amount of subjecting an addict to hardship will make them any less addicted.

cricketballs Thu 14-Feb-13 23:01:11

I mentioned the NMW as an example that people who are on the lowest amount of income are also having to budget with monthly pay so why should those on benefits be exempt from something the majority of the population have to deal with?

Bogeyface Thu 14-Feb-13 23:02:25

she was also of the intelligence that she drunk herself to death

You clearly dont understand addiction. Intelligent people get addicted too, but often they have the earning capacity above poorer people to fund their addictions and to hide it. Peter Cook, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Dylan Thomas, Graham Chapman, all highly intelligent men who died from alcoholism.

Bogeyface Thu 14-Feb-13 23:03:22

Cricket I asked what you think of the suggestion that rather than cutting costs in delivering benefits, the NMW is increased to the point where benefits are not needed by working families.

Bogeyface

If NMW was put up by £3 whats to say it wouldnt just put up prices on everything else?

I think it needs to be more than just that. The cost of housing really needs addressed.

Labour are today talking about a 10p tax rate. But why are none of the parties really looking at housing?

Bogeyface Thu 14-Feb-13 23:05:11

Actually, GC didnt die of alcoholism, he died of cancer, sorry. But he was an alcoholic, it can happen to anyone.

Booyhoo Thu 14-Feb-13 23:05:15

cricketballs
my aunt is an alcoholic. she also holds a position of great responsibility within a hospital (i wont say what incase it is too identifiable) that if she made errors, could cost lives.

her brother is an alcoholic and cant get out of his armchair some days because he is so stiff from sleeping in it night after night when he has drunken himself to unconsciousness.

both raised the same way, both alcoholics. both affected very differently by the disease. i'm sure you are capable of seeing that addictions of any kind affect each person differently and whilst one can continue to function in a seemingly normal life others just cannot.

scarlettsmummy2 Thu 14-Feb-13 23:06:37

Cricket- sone will NEVER be able to grasp the basic numeracy to budget for a whole month, they can barely cope as it is! I think you need a reality check on the fact that there are a many long term unemployed who sadly do not have the skills to be able to budget and will never manage to sustain employment.

Bogeyface Thu 14-Feb-13 23:08:07

But how can the cost of housing be addressed?

Short of devaluing property to a state agreed level, there is nothing that can be done. We will go round and round in a cycle of everyone renting as no can afford to buy, everyone buying because wages have caught up with property prices, property prices going up due to demand, everyone renting because no one can afford to buy.

Why should the state subsidise low wages?

Fuel prices are a major issue too, as it travel due the outrageous tax on petrol. It isnt down to property alone.

cricketballs Thu 14-Feb-13 23:11:33

I agree with that wanna that subjecting addicts to hardship will make them less addicted but are we not enabling their addictions by conceding to every issue?

Yes, I agree. The housing was just one example. I am all for raising the NMW. I just worry that nothing would really change because the cost of everything else would go up.

If companies had to pay their staff more they would increase prices rather than absorb the costs.

Building more social housing, building more affordable housing, rent caps. I dont know what the solution is, but the cost of living needs looked at. Fuel prices are ridiculously high.

scarlettsmummy2 Thu 14-Feb-13 23:16:36

Cricket- addicts will just steal it or worse, drink alcohol substitutes. And many are already getting DLA to fund it so twice as much as if they were on JSA. The government is already giving them money for drink in addition to living costs.

If you think we are enabling their addictions then surely giving them money at any time of the month is doing that.

So what do we do? Cut them off so as not to enable their addictions? Or support them by trying to make life a little less difficult?

Bogeyface Thu 14-Feb-13 23:21:33

I was talking about this with mum earlier and was thinking.....

Family A and family B are both having to pay their rent top up out of their benefits because their housing benefit doesnt cover it. But they are in fuel poverty and struggling to buy food and clothe their children properly. So they both get evicted due to non payment of their full rent.

They are then homeless and the responsibility of the local authority, who doesnt have enough housing stock to house them.

The LA then puts them into private housing, with a rent top up needing to be paid.

6 months later it happens again.

Family A and B will efffectively be swapping houses every 6 months and no one is better off!

Where are all the families that will end up homeless due to the cuts/top ups/bedroom tax/etc actually go? There isnt enough social housing now so what the jeff is going to happen when it goes critical?

cricketballs Thu 14-Feb-13 23:26:40

Bogeyface "You clearly dont understand addiction" can I ask if you have had a close relative die of addiction? My sister (in case you missed it) died of alcoholic liver disease following years of laxative abuse etc - I have lived through addiction and of course intelligence is not linked to addiction but did you read the post I was replying to?

cricket, you were suggesting that a hard dose of reality would make an addict wise up and start thinking beyond their addiction.

It just isnt that simple.

cricketballs Thu 14-Feb-13 23:37:33

maybe though wanna it could be for some

Bogeyface Thu 14-Feb-13 23:39:35

I was responding to you implying that she wasnt so intelligent if she killed herself with alcohol. I am genuinely sorry that she died. I was with my MIL when she died in ICU after not making it through emergency surgery. The surgery being needed and her death were both a direct result of her alcohol addiction. I saw what it did to her. She knew that she shouldnt be drinking as she did, she knew it would kill her, but she couldnt stop. Thats what addiction is, a total loss of control of the thing you are addicted to.

The surgeon said to me regarding the risks of her anaesthetic ".....a woman of her age......." and I told him she was 56. He said "yes, but she had the body of an 80year old". Thats what drink did to her.

And for some it could lead to starvation, homelessness, even death.

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 14-Feb-13 23:46:36
Bogeyface Thu 14-Feb-13 23:49:08

My (now ex) BIL (her son) is also an alcoholic and he really is the sort that would go on a 5 day bender on a months money. I saw him walk into my house sober and get totally hammered in half an hour without taking a single drink. Turns out he had down a half bottle of whiskey just before he came round as he knew he wouldnt be able to have a drink while he was here.

He is one of the very people I would expect to be a casualty, literally, of this plan. He would be dead within a year, and that is a generous estimation.

cricketballs Thu 14-Feb-13 23:51:56

wanna - but there are agencies there to watch out for those situations wanna - social services, charities

Bogey - my reply was to the post from Scarlet who was questioning that someone who was of a similar intelligence to myself and their how it changes their ability to manage their addiction

Bogeyface Fri 15-Feb-13 00:00:56

In response to your reply to Wanna, an addict has to be aware of those people. My MIL and my ex BIL weren't/aren't.

Intelligence does change the ability to manage addiction, I said as much myself. But it doesnt change the nature of the addiction, if it did their your late sister would still be with us, as would my MIL sad

How can SS cope with the fall out from this? They are already stretched.

I just think that we have a duty to look after the most vulnerable. And if that means twice monthly or weekly payments for some people, then so be it.

Bogeyface Fri 15-Feb-13 00:02:25

Sorry for the typos, on the pad which I still cant work out the cut/copy&paste on!

Bogeyface Fri 15-Feb-13 00:03:01

Wanna daily payments for addicts was suggest above, which I think is a really good idea.

Yes, daily payments for addicts is a great idea.

Booyhoo Fri 15-Feb-13 00:09:11

"wanna - but there are agencies there to watch out for those situations wanna - social services, charities"

SS and charities are massively struggling already. they cant cope with the current number of people needing their help and it's going to get worse. dont kid yourself.

and anyway, why should SS and charities be put under increased pressure? it doesn't need to happen. monthly payment DOES NOT NEED TO HAPPEN. it is a cost saving excercise that will end up costing the nation massively, including financially. it is a very short sighted move.

olgaga Fri 15-Feb-13 00:12:46

Blimey, I said as much on this thread and got my head bitten off for being "patronising".

Bogeyface Fri 15-Feb-13 00:25:59

On MN I think alot depends on the political leanings of the first member of "Royalty" to post! Sad but true.

I read your thread and though of The Handmaids Tale, not sure why!

Bogeyface Fri 15-Feb-13 00:26:39

thought

WishIdbeenatigermum Fri 15-Feb-13 08:26:42

There will be deaths. sad

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 15-Feb-13 10:24:55

People are going to die, muggers are going to have a field day. Dare I say it I predict a riot.

I've always wanted to have a legit reason to say that.

sashh Fri 15-Feb-13 13:08:07

define vulnerable? Those with special needs i.e. learning difficulties then yes but the DLA which covers the majority of their benefits is not changing.

DLA is being scrapped, it will become PIP, and DLA is not the majority benefit. SOmeone with Down's syndrome might get £35 a week.

JakeBullet Fri 15-Feb-13 13:28:45

Can confirm DLA is going..had a letter yesterday about DS' s DLA. It won't affect him initially as he is under 16 but will become PIP after this.

Even those who have lifetime awards of DLA will be reassessed ubder PIP.

motherinferior Fri 15-Feb-13 15:10:19

'there are agencies there to watch out for those situations wanna - social services, charities'...

Have you any idea - any idea - of just how many charities are folding every damn day? Of how many applications for funding cross the desks of grant-making agencies (my partner works for one of these) and have to be turned down because there just isn't the money, and/or because it's clear that'll just be throwing good money into a lost cause? Do you know the grim decisions facing social services, about what to cut and what to up the charges for?

TheBigJessie Fri 15-Feb-13 16:44:26

Monthly? Oh dear... I remember (back when I was a hostel resident) how many of my peers couldn't make their money last a fortnight!

This is going to be a disaster for the many vulnerable people on benefits.

scarlettsmummy2 Fri 15-Feb-13 21:26:27

There will be many people of low intelligence with poor levels of literacy and numeracy who will not be entitled to DLA, and most likely will not have much current involvement with social services. It is this group who will be harmed the most by monthly payments.

There will be many people of low intelligence with poor levels of literacy and numeracy who will not be entitled to DLA, and most likely will not have much current involvement with social services. It is this group who will be harmed the most by monthly payments.

I personally know someone who falls into this category. He did have DLA because of his epilepsy but its been taken off him now. He cannot even budget with the weekly payments he gets now. There is no support for him.

Sadly, if people looked at a snapshot of his life they would throw him into the "feckless" category. But they wouldnt see how he gets taken advantage off on a daily basis. How he gets beaten up by his "mates" for money. How they are all laughing at him behind his back but going to his house on a sat night and making him buy them drink while they sit there eating his food.

People like him are getting lost. Not together enough to function in society, but not on the radar of proper diagnoses and support.

We have already had to give him money for food and elec before now. I dread to think what will happen to him because we dont have the money to give. sad

TheBigJessie Sat 16-Feb-13 01:07:48

I remember some girls who had just left care at 16-18. They weren't even not bright",. But they had poor numeracy, poor education in general, poor impulse control with any budget over 50p. They blew their fortnightly job-seekers' payment within a few days. A lot like lots of university students! But they had no parents to support them and help them with it all. They ended up in debt, of course.

Those quickloan companies will make a mint out of this.