to think its not that benefits are too HIGH, its that the minimum / average wage is too LOW.

[MistyMountainHop]

inspired by a load of recent threads about benefits (which may or may not be bullshit a bit of a stretching of the truth) and lots of mnetters (and a lot of the general public) up in arms about people choosing to be on benefits rather than work and that benefits are too high

well i think that the average wage is too LOW and vastly disproportionate to the cost of living. when people can "earn" more for NOT going to work than they can working then something is badly wrong. and i have been on benefits (single parent) abou 5 years ago and its SHIT. me and dc were POOR. i certainly didnt have this fictitious daily-mail benefits lifestyle with lots of spare cash, luxuries etc. hell no. i had enough to cover my rent and bills with a bit of change to feed me and dc. but if i had have worked at that time i would have probably only managed to get a minimum wage job which would have been pretty much the same as what i was receiving anyway. so shoot me, i decided i didn't want to work because it just wasnt worth it. (disclaimer for any dm readers: i do work now and have done for a while and now married and dh works too so no benefits apart from a little bit of tcs)

i know people on min or very low wage get "topped up" with tax credits and all that shit etc but IMO there is something really wrong with the world when people can work full time and still need financial help from the government to pay their rent and bills.

so surely in the final analysis its not that benefits pay too much, its that employment pays too little?

i am not very good at getting my point across so i hope this makes sense! but this was just something me and my friends were having a drunken conversation about at the weekend. and thought i would put it to the aibu jury :o

Yeah I do think the thing the thing that annoys people about how close NMW and benefits are makes it seem pointless working. I dont think it is as you are attempting to support yourself even if you have less time, have to get up early, have to chip in 30% of your childcare, getting to work costs, clothes to wear etc.

Yes I am serious.

They should walk or take public transport. If they have children with SN then they come under a different category because they have additional needs.

Why do you think people that earn nothing yet are fit and healthy should have pets. Pets are a luxury. I know how much our dog costs us for insurance, food, injections etc. there is no way someone who could work but doesn't should be able to afford that.

When public transport costs so much that it is actually more expensive?

When many people live in areas that don't benefit from much in the way of public transport? Fine if you're in a city or town, but if you live rurally where a trip into the nearest town - where the nearest supermarket is - is 10 or 15 miles away and requires 3 buses?

I agree with IUseTooMuchKitchenRoll.

I know someone on benefits and they pay £90 per month to have SKY tv! Have several dogs, and other pets, dont have to pay rent, dont have to pay council tax get reduced water rates (did you know if you ring and ask there is a form you can fill in to get it at a reduced rate) go on holidays every year run several computers, have many games consoles 3 x Nintendo Wii, 1 Xbox 360, 1 Playstation 3

i dont think the benefits system is as good as it could be but i am v glad to live in a country with a benefits system.

i hope the current, rushed overhaul does not screw it up. the US system with less state support make sense...until you see the people who it utterly fails through no fault of their own.

e.g. middle aged women, worked all their lives, having to sell their furniture to pay for food & heating.

it could be worse than the current system!

Not read whole thread yet, but something which deeply annoys me is that being on benefits is viewed as something to be ashamed of and there is a sense that people in receipt of state assistance shouldn't be having a standard of living which is anything other than subsistence level. Often people lose their jobs or need state support through no fault of their own - why should they be forced to live in poverty because of that? Claiming benefits should be no more shameful than claiming off your house insurance if you have a burst pipe. It's a form of insurance against the worst happening.

I'm not against people being asked to do something in return, for society, but while they are doing that or while they can prove that they are seriously searching for a job, they shouldn't be punished by having absolutely no money.

Agree that rent/house prices need to be lower, along with general cost of living.

Will now go back and read thread, having got that off my chest.

Karma - I believe if you are claiming and looking thats fine but the op is talking about claiming when you could work but it seems pointless as you dont earn much more than if you did work. Personally I do think that is a bit shameful

Karma, the difference is that you have to pay something in to an insurance policy to see the benefit of it when you need it. People can get money out of the state having contributed nothing.

My ex, and his family are people that have been on benefits for the majority of their lives (and their parents did the same). They see it as a way of life. The only thing is, they aren't your 'regular jobseeker'. They have managed to tweak the system, getting them other benefits due to their 'disabilities'. They are the types that will dance around their living room, get to the front door and walk like an absolute invalid. THESE are the people that should be targetted. Their 'disabilities' are created from a life of no activity and unhealthy habits.

I doubt that they will ever have a reality check though, as they have managed to claim they have all these health problems, and so therefore, there are bound to be people that ACTUALLY deserve the extra money... not to mention, wouldn't make the government look good would it?

I will highlight one issue though, that making the jobs better paid would be a cost to the employer, which would just mean they get them doing more work for the money, and cut any other available posts. This would then just have a large number of people on benefits that can't get a job, whether they are looking or not?

It is so dependent on where you live. Where we are, NMW would barely get you out of the gutter, in others it would ve very liveable. Fuel is my big bug bear at the moment, we are being completely screwed on that front and it affects so many things.

Totally agree.

House prices are the real problem in my opinion.

Oh yes, and fuel. Which links in with house prices since lots of people are forced to live quite a distance from where they work.

Exactly. I have a friend who can't afford the fuel for work, it goes on a cc at the mo. But she can't move closer as it is too expensive. Public transport is crap, fuel going up and up...what is she to do?

Kitchenroll
The problem is though, that many of the cuts are initially aimed at those with SN. 20% cut in disability benefits - not because of huge fraud cases but because the government has decided that 20% needs cut.

It is very difficult to cut benefits without harming the most vulnerable.

Of course the lazy bastards who diddle the system should be forced to go out and work - they are the ones making it extremely hard for the most vulnerable.

I just don't see how you can develop a fool proof system to weed on the very few long term scroungers without hurting a great many of those in most need of support.

In 1979 , my father earned £300 a week . (electronics)

In 1990 , he earned about £ 400 a week (electronics)

Now he cannot find work in his field and is earning money through photography...less than what he earned in 1979 .

This is someone who worked for the government , often in dangerous places ( power stations , subs ect) .

I earned in excess of £300 a week 16 years ago ....now I can't find any well paid work .

Dh is the same ....he does a harder job , for less money. It's either that or no job.

I am interested to know where all these positions that will be required by April will appear from ? There will be more people looking for jobs by April ( which is a good thing) ,but less positions availiable . Employers will change from employing a few 16 hour workers to less 24 hour workers .

So more will be out of work. It's precarious enough with employers,who want more and more from their employees .

Time and time again you hear of people unhappy because the employers are demanding more work in less time. Often doing 12 hour shifts with no breaks because there was no one to cover them .

Illegal , but they get away with it because if you complained there was always someone waiting for your job.

I wonder if people would still vote the way they had if they knew what was coming ? .

Either way the country is in trouble and it needs sorting , but why don't they take money from silly stuff like yaughts for queen , and stop giving out aid untill the finances are sorted , do we really need all those weapons ? (ect).

How about an extra tax ...just for politicians and bankers ?
Get back the taxes from vodaphone et all ( even a little would help )

Stop stupid rents to private landlords .... At least for new tenants ( so existing tenants don't get chucked out and cap the amount paid .)

Banks that were helped , that are now back in profit should start paying back what they had to bail the out.

Stop civic dinners ect .... And does every old pm really need bodyguards 24/7 ? Sell the pms country house , they don't need it ...most have their own homes anyway .

There is really no need for this to turn into yet another thread about those with disabilities or SN and the money they receive.

I thought this thread was about other benefits.

They could cut income support while increasing incapacity benefit if they wanted to.

In fact the pm and chancellor should sit down with some of those single parents on benefits that they like to hit , and ask them how to budget with no money.

They might just get somewhere .

Kitchenroll
It is not about turning this into a thread about those with SN and their benefits, but simply a matter of fact that they are going to be the worst hit.

People with SN and their carers, and single parents. Those who cannot just go out and get another job.

Not to mention those who are unemployed through no fault of their own. Where are these new jobs going to come from?

kitchenroll

so why if your NOT disabled/sick be able to have transport,etc etc

why not tattoo a cross on all benefit claimants just so people know (leaving out disabled/sick of course)

the milk of human kindness,NOT

Single parents can get jobs. I did. There is a child are element of tax credits, but I cant remember what it's called.

I know that disabled people and their carers will be hardest hit with the cuts. But this was about minimum wage being too low compared to benefits, so presumably it was referring to people that can work. DLA might not be an out of work benefit, but others are.

I realise there are not many jobs around. But that doesn't mean that the taxpayer should fund unemployed people to have a better standard of living than they themselves can have. I feel for people who are out of work through no fault of their own, I really do. But they get given enough to live on, so what's the problem? It's a safety net to prevent people from becoming homeless and starving, it is not there to provide any more than that.

This will probably get lost in this thread but...

what is the main problem with the Universal tax credit idea?

I am abroad, and can't find much on it.

From what I have read, it does not sound popular ...why please :)

Because it comes with massive cuts, is actually more complicated, less easy to understand and isn't actual universal as they forgot about a load of benefits which aren't included.

The single parents are the ones who work the 16 hour jobs round here .

So they can be there for their children in out of school hours.

They are going to be hit hardest by this 24 rule.

Childcare is too expensive .

Unfortunately kitchenroll your opinions remind me of something I read recently on a US chat board.

Apparently many posters were in favour of a special shop where welfare recipients would be able to purchase groceries.In fact many of them were also keen for these recipients to only be able to buy the basics...say flour, kidney beans ,milk etc...

Why not do both lower the benafits and raise the minimum wage

It seems to me the futher away the minimum wage is from benefits the less exuses people have

Saying thing likes well I am better of on the dole also when you lower the benefits making a situation were all you can do is literally eat then we get away from people who don't working living better then people on low income whop do work

If people have enough spare money were they can by games console that costs £400 or £500 they have to much money in my view