Is receiving £30k pa on benefits “living in poverty”?!

Well some people who earn that amount think they’re living in poverty so maybe it is.

It's experience rather than paper qualifications. Trouble is, you never know exactly what a potential employer is going to look for so you try to tailor your CV to the very sparse info in the job spec. Cut too much out, or put too much in, and you're stuffed.

Anyway, this is way off track for the main purpose of this thread so I'm going to stop there. I have a job now at the right level for me, that's what matters.

For me its very simple - it comes down to housing costs. If 3/4 of income goes on rent or mortgage then your forced onto poverty levels

Because it costs a fortune to run/administer and it denies people the autonomy and choices that those who are able to work take for granted, amounting to discrimination. As well as putting people in a complicated position if they don't eat food and use commodities in the correct ratio as determined by those who make the rules. And people will need things frequently that aren't covered by the vouchers and also just sometimes want things that are totally reasonable. Things like buying a meal out to be able to attend a friend or family member's birthday so we aren't excluded socially and don't lose all of our hard won relationships through no fault of our own. I have friends I would never even have met if they'd been forced to live off vouchers and been denied any autonomy over their own spending and lives.

Supposedly it is “othering” for people to receive benefits in voucher form; also they just sell them in return for cash. However, like you I think it has to be worth a try, as it should be possible to build in some checks and balances to reduce the risk of vouchers being sold on (ID check when using them perhaps - appreciate that is still open to abuse but the harder you make it to cheat the system the fewer people will do it).

Why not just take the quals that make you over qualified, off your CV?

No I'm not suggesting that at all. But I AM saying that however hard some people try they just can't get a job. For example, I have a physical disability which means I can only do a desk job, and can't cope mentally any longer with a higher level job. But I kept getting told I was over qualified for everything I went for.

Not everyone can fit in doing every job. Not every personality fits in everywhere either.

Now that would be good

means can’t spend on booze and tobacco but will never happen

if only a bit like the milk vouchers

So what are you saying? Because it's difficult, it gives you a free pass not to even try? There are jobs out there, but you cant just focus on what you want. You have to just take what's there.

I will be er understand why benefits aren't done in voucher form - so many for supermarkets, uniform, bills etc.
Budgeting support, healthy meal cards given out and budgeting to buy the meals.

Only having monetary benefits if you have a genuine severe disability.

All other benefits should be temporary and much stricter.

Loving the way people on here are casually saying for people to "just" get a job. If you don't fit the employer's view of the type of people who they want then you just can't get one.

Ignoring for a moment people who have any physical issues, not all of which may be classed as a disability but can prevent manual work, I've known far too many people (me included) who have been turned down for jobs due to being over qualified. There's also personality "fit" - a lot of companies don't want anyone who is too assertive or too passive, too bouncy or too quiet, too loud or too quiet etc.

Even getting a supermarket job, which seems to be a go to suggestion on MN, doesn't seem that easy; I know a good few people who have been turned down for that too with no explanation given who are pleasant, educated people who just want a job where they can have less mental pressure.

Chances of getting a job in an area you haven't worked in are very slim, and most of those roles only seem to want school leavers who a) are cheaper at minimum wage than over 25s and b) they can mould them into what they want.

Be out of work for any length of time & your chances of even getting an interview are greatly reduced too, and heavens forbid you took time out to raise a family.

The taper rate means that you effectively lose more than you keep of any extra earnings. Then maybe factor in the cost of actually doing the extra hours - travel, parking, childcare. In some cases you barely break even. For all the pontificating about incentives who would go and do extra work at the cost of time with their family to end up either no better off or only keeping a few pounds? Not the people who consider £80k to be struggling by I'll bet. UC keeps people in their place and prevents the less well off from progressing and building a future because most won't achieve the kind of pay needed to come off it altogether and will spend years tinkering round the edges with the odd fiver "better off" here and there and no real savings allowed anymore. Then it's an impoverished old age.

She says no small kids. Not sure if means no kids or older kids

So if have kids then at school meaning can and should work full time

I can def think of a few in that camp !

In my lifetime, and I am nearly 70, most people died within a few years of finishing work. Now some do (Dame Jenny Murray was only 75) and some don't (my DF is 92 and lives with dementia, but his wife copes -- very very bravely). My DM died without any illness or trauma at 89. She worked, because she needed to earn money, until she was 78 years old, but not FT, as a carer in a MH team.

I really object to the casual denigration of older people as parasites.

Everyone who has worked full time since leaving school should be entitled to the state pension. They have paid for it. It is a pittance compared to pension rates paid elsewhere in Europe, and any other income over £12,570 is liable for income tax. It is expensive now because the post war generation of Boomers was enormous, but they will die. And the costs of pensions will decline.

Do you really want a million geriatrics wandering around on the streets in all weathers? The young and old are the most expensive bits of the population. We don't expect children or their parents to pay for education because the costs will be recovered once they begin work. But no society has ever had to deal with a huge number of geriatric people, until now and we are feeling our way to doing so.

Or maybe one parent works full time and earns £26k - 28k, and the other parent works part time and earns £2 - 4k annually... ...

If the state pension were to be uprated by earnings only instead of the triple lock per ONS / IFS data the annual savings would be:

2027-28 £6bn
2028-29 £11.1bn
2029-30 £15.5bn
2030-31 £18bn
2031-32 £21bn
2032-33 £24bn
2033-34 £27bn
2034-35 £30bn
2035-36 £33bn
2036-37 £36bn

If implemented from April 2029, this could fund:

• doubling of early-years funding
• removal of the worst marginal tax trap at £100k by making the personal allowance and childcare funding universal again
• make child benefit universal again
• significant lowering of the UC taper rate

This would significantly improve standards of living and remove perverse economic incentives and increase tax revenue and growth.

If the state pension were to be means-tested and tapered away so that those with household income over £40k after tax and housing costs (i.e. significantly more than most working families with children to support) then this would save £100bn per year which could almost double both our education and defence budgets. Nearly 30% of those in receipt of state pension welfare are millionnaires. It is the most wasteful public spending, by far, while everything else has been stripped to the bone at the expense of young people’s futures.

If this country is ever going to have rising living standards and prosperity again then a significant redirection of public spending must take place focusing on young people. 15% of the population is over 65 yet they consume over 50% of public spending - far more than they paid as a cohort in lifetime taxes in real terms. We cannot afford to continue this largesse to those in that cohort who do not need it.

People's circumstances can change dramatically. If your husband/partner dies or ups and leaves, you can easily end up in that position. Where I live, the average (private) rent for a 3-bed place is £1,900 a month. If you can't move out of area for work or other reasons, you just have to suck it up while you look for somewhere cheaper.

I agree in my situation my eldest is autistic but is fine working and independent my middle is also autistic and mild learning disability but that didn't really begin to become obvious until after my third was born he is the one that has the most difficulties i honestly feel if my third was first I would have stuck to one as sad as it sounds I think my middle child will struggle but ultimately he will get on with support my third may well need lifelong support

Ah no i didn't.

Yes, although it depends on circumstances. If you're in a household with 6+ kids then 30k is probably going to be quite close to poverty. Our benefits system is way too generous in the vast majority of cases.

But did you go on to have three more once it became clear that neither you nor your husband could continue to work due to his condition and you child’s needs? That’s what the family in this case did.

These is such a tedious, hackneyed response trotted out as a “gotcha” on these threads. Of course this individual family can’t send their children back; the point is that the case raises questions about a system which incentivises people like this couple to keep having more children when neither is working and they knew full well at the point that the younger ones were conceived that (1) the older ones had disabilities and therefore would need more care and (2) neither of them had any prospect of getting a job if they kept having more kids.

Yes makes me cross when my own dds are bringing up dc, working and having small families

illness never seems to stop irresponsible procreation

I didn't agree with the 2 child cap being removed either