To ask what's the beef with benefits?

Yes, I think that's what happens, so you don't actually hand the prescription in yourself, just collect it when it's made up.

notauniquename

^LuisSuarezTeeth
Before you know it you're apparently earning at 40 hours a week and you're quids in. Right? NO. Then the council, HMRC and everyone else who wants a piece of you is demanding their share.

Welcome to the real world! that income tax, and council tax etc is what has supported the services that you happily relied on before you got to be working 40 hours. it's only fair and right that as you work 40 hours that you SHOULD pay in the same as everyone else does in order to help the less fortunate.
That is of course unless your position in that you should be able to claim benefits, and then able to work, but should have no deductions from your work because you dn't want to help people in a position less furtunate than yourself?^

I should have added that because you have 40 hours one week, your claim is re-assessed making the assumption that you earn that every week. Which with zero-hours contracts is uncertain. Consequently you are left with not enough to pay your bills.

The system cannot cope with variable pay.

Of course it's fair and right to pay your way - no need to be so bloody patronising

Do you? I generally use the two nearest the dr and both make you pay upfront if you're not waiting. Suppose it reduces wastage if they can't reuse meds.

Although I suppose some people get their prescriptions sent to the pharmacy?

You pay when you collect the medication at most pharmacies. So if it was free, why would you not bother to collect it?

Notaunique the poster WASNT working 40 hours a week . Read the post the point was it was assumed because they got those hours once on a zero hours contract they would get those hours every week.

Generally you pay when leaving your prescription, not on collection, so it seems more likely that they're free ones.

Although some could be waiting to be picked up by nursing homes etc.

Just reading this thread is weird. (but I read it all and have lots of responses.)

There appear to be:
Those who have work and have money, that say "i'm happy to support people down on their luck"

Those who have work but also have no money who say, "Whilst I'm happy to support people down on their luck, that must only be subsistence living"
I.e if I can't afford luxuries because I'm not paid much and taxed a lot, why should people who do not work for whatever reason get paid enough to afford the luxuries that I can't" - I.e around page 2 someone said they like a glass of wine every now and again their benefits pay for that, and why shouldn't they have that? - without realising that many go without that.

Those who apparently have jobs, but poorly paid jobs, who get tax credits, and save this money to afford luxuries

Those who had work and still have some money, who find that the money quickly runs out, and they can't afford to heat of light their houses.

Those who had work, but never really had money, who manage to get by (it's not as big of a fall from grace)

Those those who's partners walked out on them leaving them with no job, no money, little confidence...

I think that all in all the "beef" against benefits is (as mentioned numerous times) the shit stirring TV programmes and news papers, whilst the people who make those news stories are in a minority... it does bring up the question:

on the premise that:
There are people on benefits who can afford a house, to feed kids, and multiple subscriptions to Sky TV and Cable TV (was on one of those trashy shows.)
There are people on benefits who manage to cut back enough to buy their kids video games consoles for Christmas, maybe multiple consoles and games etc (was in a paper a few years ago)

How is it that some people believe that they are not getting enough through the benefits system?
(The answer must be different standards of living??)

There is a question asked "how can someone earn less than a child minder?"
the answer that they don't earn less then just earn so little after child care fee's that it's not worth going back to work. to work a week and only be £10 better off after child care is paid for.

That is the wrong attitude to have, it's completely wrong to decide that you'll live off the work of others because you don't feel that you'll get to keep enough money! and funnily enough, if less people took that attitude then more people could keep more money since there would be less people claiming benefits.

I.e go to work, you'll be £10 better off, AND the country will be just a tiny bit better of without having to support a person that "chooses" not to work. -and yes, to "chose" to stay at home because it is the more comfortable "choice" to make when faced with an "option" tha you "could" work, and be marginal better off is a "choice"

And the fact that anyone would "choose" to stay on benefits rather than work any kind of job, because it "suits" them and their "lifestyle" is bad.

to those who say that's barely a choice, of course it's a choice, if you could work and have enough to pay rent and bills, or you can choose a life on benefits with only enough to pay rent and bills, then of course the easy choice it to take a life at home, (and spending time with a child is good), but that has to be offset against the basic tenant of a welfare state, those who can, should provide for those who can't.
(i.e if you can work then you should work, and you should help provide for those who can't.)

LuisSuarezTeeth
Before you know it you're apparently earning at 40 hours a week and you're quids in. Right? NO. Then the council, HMRC and everyone else who wants a piece of you is demanding their share.

Welcome to the real world! that income tax, and council tax etc is what has supported the services that you happily relied on before you got to be working 40 hours. it's only fair and right that as you work 40 hours that you SHOULD pay in the same as everyone else does in order to help the less fortunate.
That is of course unless your position in that you should be able to claim benefits, and then able to work, but should have no deductions from your work because you dn't want to help people in a position less furtunate than yourself?

for all the chants of "that's just one person". no it's not.

It's more than one person who will not apply for a job they feel is beneath them
It's more than one person who doesn't apply for a job because they don't feel it's in their "field"
It's more than one person who says, I can't get child care.
It's more than one person who can't find hours that they'd wish for.
It's more than one person who honestly does find it easier to go through the motions of applying and playing by the rules, but not really seriously looking for work.
It's more than one person who gets given more than they "need" in benefits.
It's more than one person who claims a disability, whilst their are actually playing football etc. (I.e fraud)
It's more than one person who consciously choose to live apart so that they can get more benefits.
It's more than one person who consciously chooses to SAY that they are living apart when they are not - to get more benefits.
It's more than one person who can't work because of their disability, but can't get that recognised because they were assessed on a "good day" when they could actually walk five steps rather than a bad day when they could walk none.
It's more than one person who doesn't eat breakfast of lunch so that their kids can.
It's more than one person who doesn't get to "do" anything, at any time because there is never money to do it.
It's more than one person who gets their benefits stopped for trivial reasons.
It's more than one person who gets talked at like their a petulant Victorian child or a piece of shit whenever they interview at a job centre.
It's more than one person who applies for every job they can find.
It's more than one person who believes the adage that "mcdonalds is always hiring, and yet at the same time more than one McDonalds manager who thinks that a person with any kind of education is actually not going to make a good worker. -because they'll get trained, get bored and apply elsewhere (and the company has to recruit and train again costing more money)

The amount of situations IS huge...
But there are a few people on here who are saying that they are pretty much consciously making a choice to have a hard life on benefits, and then saying that they want more.
And that (of course) makes those that work and pay tax to fund that feel like they are being taken for a ride.
it stops being about providing for people's needs, and giving in to people's wants.

Someone said that they never heard a politician talk about "runaway fathers" on Fathers day on 2010 or 2011 David Cameron specifically said that he wanted the CSA to have more powers to chase fathers who refuse to live up to their responsibility.

However it was phrased in such a way as to suggest that it was always the mans fault that a relationship broke down, and that no fathers supported their children at all, and so it was quickly brushed aside as if it never happened.
-reading around I'm led to believe that what came after CSA was even more messed up and even more powerless than the CSA was...

I'd invite anyone to try reading the thread twice over.
first time take the stance that benefits aren't enough, you'll sympathise with the stories of cold and hunger, feel angry that people who are sick and those that care for them as a full time job don't get anything near the minimum wage for what they are doing all day, and all night all week.

then read the thread again with the stance that you're someone in work, you'll start to feel angry when you hear people say thaty are entitled to their glass of wine, or their smoking is the only pleasure they get, or their provided car isn't big enough for two push chairs (neither is mine but nobody will help me!), or that they deserve luxuries...

Dawn:
On occasion it's even okay to put adult needs before the needs of the child. Plenty of people do it, but it's only questioned if the people concerned are on benefits.

No, all people who put their needs in front of their child's needs are fundamentally wrong. If you work hard earn money and put your "wants" before your child's "needs" then you're bad regardless of where your source of income is derived. (going out is a want, having a balanced diet is a need.)

I guess maybe I'm just annoyed that nobody helps fund my car, which isn't a family sized car, perhaps I'm just annoyed that nobody pays my rent, (and I'm forced to house share because we can't afford rent with just two of us). perhaps I'm just annoyed that whilst my wage covers my needs, it doesn't cover my wants so I don't get to eat out, I don't get a litle spare for a bottle of wine or a packet of cigarettes that someone else paid for...

(of course I'm not really annoyed, as I said, a good society should have those who can work (such as myself) helping to provide for those who can't (for whatever reason). (and I would not want to live in a society that did not provide for "havenots")

It's just some (maybe very few) have been given an inch and taken a mile.

Clearly the answer is not food vouchers, or standard issues NHS glasses etc. but there must be an answer (regardless of how unpopular it may be)

(clearly there are lots and lots of problems though, slow to update systems, people with a sense of entitlement, people without a sense of compassion. people who need to turn over numbers. child care being expensive, houses being expensive etc)

(anyone who has been out of work at some point and found that they could walk into a temp agency in the morning, and get work should heed this story from my house mate.

he once was able to walk into a temp agency and get any work, he did it before he settled into a full time job.
he then decided that he wanted to retrain for a career change and thought he'd temp whilst doing the training (that he'd already saved up for).
far from walking into a temp agency and getting immediate work. more often than not he'd spend a day driving around to 6 different temp agencies begging for work and being told there wasn't any. (that was about ten years ago) -the situation is worse since then.
Anyone who believes that jobs are thick on the ground would do well to actually have a look at what there is and the conditions, and apply for some, and see just how many they can't get!

I guess what I'm really saying is that it's a very complex situation.

dawn thinking if it was free prescriptions would they not have been collected as they are free? maybe the ones that have to be paid for are more likely not to be collected

YY Back Only they are not redistributed. Its not allowed.

i wonder about people who feel they get nothing. my sister says i get much more than she does. she says she has no money is struggling. then tells day or so later she has a new car. has booked a weekend away... she also has her husbands wage coming in. she moans that i get rent paid but she gets no help with her mortgage. was the mortgage not their choice to take on? ... what does skint really mean?

im work part time i don't pay tax as i dont earn enough. i claim top up benefits and it cost more for me to work than when i was on benefits... how does that work.. well i know how it works of course but how can it be a good thing... ie single mother on benefits. now she's working aint it good that shes working. but they don't tell the bit where it cost more to keep me work than out of work... not saying i don't want to work i do. but just saying its not as it seems

I was in the chemist the other day collecting a prescription and there were shelves and shelves of medicines waiting to be claimed. After two months they open them up and redistribute but it does show that when something is seen as 'free' some people just dont bother to collect,

Trying to find out about this and I see in in Coventry they say "Unclaimed repeat prescriptions are also a problem as these medicines cannot be reused and have to be incinerated even if they are unopened."

Am still checking for nationwide, but if it's actually not allowed where does that leave the anecdote?

Hand cream sorry I meant that's why wages DONT increase with each child. They don't need to.

oh, and interestingly, I'm told by various services that it is my right to have a night out now and then. Doesn't happen, but a night out now and then isn't a bad thing, neither is a bottle of wine. On occasion it's even okay to put adult needs before the needs of the child. Plenty of people do it, but it's only questioned if the people concerned are on benefits.

Handcream you are working on the assumption that all those prescriptions were for people in receipt of free prescriptions, which of course may not necessarily have been the case, presenting it as a fact is pretty ropey.

handcream you seem to have a problem with ppl using the NHS. You have mentioned it on a couple of threads now yet were conspicuous by your abscence on the binge drinking thread which also costs the NHS money. I have obviously drawn my own conclusions from this.

Oh it's no secret that some people budget better than others. That applies to working people too. Those who get benefits on top and those who don't.

Of course it's difficult to find truly matching circumstances. Consider all those people who recently lost their jobs. One person might have just paid out for new furniture, clothes etc and won't need anything else new for a while. Another might have to buy a new washing machine, school uniform etc out of their first months benefits.

That's why it's a bit of a joke when someone says "I could manage on £xx a month benefits". They don't count all the other stuff you have to pay out for that a wealthier person already has. they probably could manage for ONE month.

Soon - I am not sure what you mean? Wages increase with each child? Unless you mean that they get additional benefit.

Does London Weighting even exist for most people? I thought it was generally for the public sector, police officers, teachers etc and not for every role.

Whoever said delve deeper and you will find people who manage OK on benefits and someone who dont is 100% correct. An old friend of mine worked at the local council for 6 months helping people to budget on benefits. These were people who were in debt and claiming that there money didnt go far enough. The first thing she would do it list out the outgoings of a family and the differences were shocking. There were certainly a few who knew how to do it but the vast majoirty didnt. People putting their own needs above their children, nights out, smoking were seen as rights.

Who was banned?

Vivienne your post doesn't make sense. Benefits are the bare minimum amount of money a certain number of people need to live on. Wages are not the bare minimum, that why they increase with each child.
Also ever heard of London weighting?

I think the biggest problem with benefits is the inflexibility of the system.

I've met people who were made homeless and forced to live on the streets because their claim for housing benefit took two weeks to go through. Couldn't they have been given the benefit of the doubt for two weeks and thus avoided the danger that comes with homelessness?

I also know someone who was on unemployment benefit who was offered a very short term job, 7 days work or something like that. There was a slim possibility that this could have led to something longer term.

This person was told by their benefits officer not to accept the position. If they accepted it they would have been taken off benefits. They were told it would take up to 3 weeks to get them back onto benefits if they needed to claim again. It would be much better if the system was flexible and allowed people to take short term work without putting themselves at risk of being homeless and hungry.

There is also an unpalatable truth that some of the people who are currently on benefits are simply unemployable. There are those at the very bottom of society who have grown up in deeply abusive families with little or no education. They can barely function as adults and will never have the emotional stability to hold down even the most basic of jobs. Yet they get pushed through the mill of a system which seems to believe that everyone can be 'fixed'. They are treated as if they were scum when really they are unfortunate people who drew the shortest of straws in life.

Oh and WooWooOwl I said about being based on need, but of course some are entitlements just like when you claim insurance for a fire.

Still the discussion just then was about why pay the amount we do and I answered it.

Yes Derek, I completely agree. I've had to cut family off because of their attitudes.

WooWoo you wouldn't have been banned if your stance was 'just an issue with benefits'.

If it's based on need, why do so many people object to the reduction in housing benefit so that it only provides people with what they need?

Do you mean reducing the amount because you have a spare room, but not making it possible to move to a place with less rooms?

Well it answers itself doesn't it.

You might want to consider the amount people get - it doesn't always differ that much tbh. It's about priorities.

For eg a neighbouring family with similar income to mine.

We buy food at markets in bulk and at Lidl to save money. We turn off lights and don't use the tumble drier. We only heat the hot water we use. We are on a water meter so we use grey water on the garden. We get hand me down clothes for the kids and shop online at Christmas and birthdays to get the best prices.

This enables us to have a bit spare to pay for respite, as SS provision has been cut. We can also have a week's camping holiday.

Whereas they have all the bells and whistles (from Brighthouse) and are constantly panicking over how to get food.

Appearances can be deceptive. We look like we have a lot, they do too. Neither of us actually does. We're resourceful, they have debt.

But you can have a problem with benefits and not the people receiving them.

Yes, you can. Which unfortunately is a point that seems to pass many people by on these threads, because as soon as anyone has an issue with benefits they are accused of hating poor people.