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

froggy, take the tumbleweed with you but don't lose it just yet. You never know when you'll need it.

usual Is that why the impoverished Victorians had to make do with flea circuses?

Fleas are cheap yes , froggy, get rid of the dog and keep his fleas

The way kitchen roll is talking , shed grudge you a pet head louse.

FFA.

To the workhouse with the lot of you !

I just got a job where I will earn 24K. It will make us worse off as we will lose HB of 350 and TC of 450 four weekly whilst having to pay CM 1100pcm. It's crazy that we had to consider whether we could afford me working for 24K.

I don't want to pass on the oppprtunity either as I doubt i'd be offered the same wage later if I decide to be a SAHM for acouple of years now.

Do the PDSA treat unemployed fleas, though? If you took in a flea and tried to fill in the jobless benefits form, they'd say you were taking the piss, right you jobless fucker ?

Sorry Money I X-posted with your sensible post.

Will come back after Cox.

GoingForGoalWeight. Sorry but I simply don't believe you cannot find vountry work with school hours

I my self help out in a soup kitchen at a local church it's only open once a week 11-1
My firend is a Brest freed councillor what ever that is once a month 10-3

Sorry but I don't believe that with in the whole counil were you live their is not soup kitchen, a age concern that yu can be getting on with

You can't get voluntary work were I live either

usualsuspect what area do you live I can get you a list with in 5 minutes of vountry work

No thanks maypole

So can anyone tell me why it's good to give out so much money for nothing that people can afford pets?

If there was a good argument in favour of giving people more money than they need to live on, then I'd be prepared to listen and accept that I'm wrong, if I am.

Thought so

I'd sooner sit on my arse and watch Jeremy Kyle and I have my pet fleas to look after

It's ridiculous, we bought our house for 24k 11 years ago when dp was working in TESCO warehouse ( who actually pay quite well fwiw ) Our mortgage is around £160 a month and I was able to stay at home with the baby bells.

The people next door bought there's last year for 100k, small 2 bed semi, no garden. They're working 4 low wage jobs to pay for it. He works for the AA and delivers takeaways, she has two care jobs and went back to work when her baby was 6 weeks old.

The situation has got out of hand imo

I don't really understand begrudging people pets FFS, why shouldn't those who don't work have something that makes them happy too? I don't work and don't claim, but really can't understand this attitude of wanting those who do to bow and scrape and be generally miserable.

I'm back. Sadly doggy is no longer with me. I thought long and hard about what kitchenroll said. She is right, I was wrong. I let him be freeeeeee zing

{sob} but I have one of his fleas as a keepsake. I shall dry it and keep it in a glass case forever (sorry, sorry, plastic case) as a reminder of what once was.

My new snail is called gary.

Why would people have to be miserable? Money doesn't create happiness. I'm not saying that people shouldn't have enough to live on, of course they should.

You ask 'why shouldn't those that don't work have something that makes them happy too?'

I don't begrudge things that make people happy. I just don't think the state is responsible for paying for people's happiness. Those who are fit and able to need to take responsibility for their own happiness.

Kitchenroll
The pet thing is quite bizarre. I have a dog and I doubt she even costs me more than ?20 a month. Ok, I could be unlucky and she would need vet fees for something, but that hasn't happened so far.

I do not grudge anyone on benefits a pet, as I know how much our dog means to our own family.

What do you suggest people like Froggy do, if they get made redundant? Have the dog put down?

Can you not see that when a marriage breaks up and the wife loses her job, the continuity of a pet can be massively comforting to the family?

No, people on benefits should not be living the life of Riley - which they aren't, unless all you read and believe is the Daily Mail.

So can anyone tell me why it's good to give out so much money for nothing that people can afford pets?

What do you think they should do with these pets? Give them to the bursting-at-the-seams animal shelters?

Yes, but if they can't for whatever reason (i.e.: redundancy etc) then you want that taken away from them. I see basic levels of happiness and comfort (above and beyond subsistence) as a human right tbh.

Yes wages should be significantly higher than benefits.
But I agree with kitchenroll.
Of course we should provide food and shelter for those who can not provide for themselves but why should holidays and pets be provided when these things are out of reach of some working folk?
I have a family member who owns his own flat in a posh street and has had benefits for most of his life.
My Gran who worked all her's will lose her house when she goes in to care, he will keep his.
Uncle has chosen not to work as will not do certain jobs as he is "not psychologically suited".

minimum age is not too low. people with families are able to access additional benefits. kids earning pocket money don't need to earn over minimum wage. most of the people i worked with in X supermarket either had benefits top ups or were living in situations where the top-up was unnecessary (with parents, where it was a 2nd job, etc).

benefits = targeted
minimum wage increase = scattergun approach.

as minimum wage increases only help those who are capable of work, they are not the answer to helping the very poorest.

Exactly, Ninky.

A life of drudgery and misery is all that benefit recipients are allowed, according to KitchenRoll.

I think that being able to have a pet, or go on a cheap holiday is not a "luxury".

We went on a caravan holiday when I was a child and my parents were skint. Cost us £30 and the price of petrol. We did not go for meals, and Mum scrimped and saved to be able to even afford that. It was a great holiday.

Of course they should not be receiving enough to go for a fortnight to Florida, but if a person on benefits is careful with her money and is able to put a couple of quid away a week and can afford a weekend away once a year - why should she not do that?