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

whether any job profits you is a calculation of income less tax/ni less transport/childcare costs/ less reduction in benefits received...Vs total potential benefit entitlement without that job.

for some this does indeed result in work not paying, or not paying enough to be seem worth it - and that dynamic can stretch well beyond the 'minimum' wage bracket.

THe point with benefits is that they are supposed to be a stop-gap - something that steps in for the short duration someone is down on their luck. This short duration may be longer for some than others, depending on circumstance.

For most people, a temporary spell of unemployment is just that - temporary. If all they need is help for a few months what possible benefit is there to making them lose their home or rehome their pets? All this does is contribute to an economic downturn and a rise in animals in rescue shelters. Does it get the temporary unemployed back into employment any more quickly? No, not if there are no jobs to be had or if each job is so oversubscribed there are 250 good applicants going for it.

In the current climate, temporary can mean anything up to a couple of years. Is the unemployed person responsible for that economic climate? No. Big business and unregulated banks are. If we can't afford current benefits because claimants are claiming for longer, perhaps the answer is to take more from the people who helped cause the mess, rather than to kick those already suffering the consequences of people who deal with money like they were playing a game of monopoly.

THen of course you have your third-generation-never-worked claimants. Why have they never worked? Is there not an argument that these people have been let down by a society that has allowed local industry to disappear and not replaced it with anything that those people can train for? An area where sink estates have the catchment area for failing schools in which children leave unable to read or write, let alone find a way out of the benefits trap. Deprivation is a real problem for some children in the UK. Those children grow up into the sort of adults we all love to point the finger at and blame. At what point do they cease to be victims and start to become the scourge of society? Should not our government be doing more to change this around rather than criticising people for not having the tools to live a life that our current society demands of them? It's short-sighted. The money spent on education, sure start, etc is far less than the cost of maintaining long-term benefits or adult services (including prison). Yet these are the exact services being cut.

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?

They aren't provided. Maybe families with pets keep their other spending low.

"Pets be provided" rabbity? REALLY?

You think the dole paid for me to buy pets?

Ffs {bangs head on wall}

I had children and pets when I W-O-R-K-E-D.

Should I have taken my kids and pets to be put down when I was made redundant?

{frantically flushes tropical fish down the loo} before anyone finds out.

Rabbity
I have a family member who has not worked for 20 years because he is a lazy bastard. Yes, I get annoyed when I read that he is on holiday, but I don't think that everyone should have their benefits cut because some people take advantage of them.

The problem with basing your opinion of a subject on anecdotal evidence (such as a relative who doesn't work) is that you are ignoring the statistical evidence that shows benefit fraud to be much less common that it is perceived to be.

Froggy
Tropical Fish??? FFS. I could have overlooked a goldfish from the fair, but you have got expensive forrin fish here? Living off British tax payers' fish food.

Indeed Mme.

They is forrin fish, and every three months or so I spend about £2.50 of British taxpayers money feedin' em...and they even ask for seconds.

Well they did, until I flushed the scrounging little b'stards.

You didn't have children on your own Froggy, there was someone else involved in their creation. He should be made to pay more, and if he was involved in you obtaining a pet, then he should have to pay towards that too.

I'd be happy for the state to spend double what it does on benefits to force people to pay for their responsibilities. It would have a much better effect on society.

Well, I should think so too, Froggy. They can search for their own food, the forrin scroungers. They cannot expect us to subsidise their expensive eating habits, and penchant for tacky wee castles.

What a sense of entitlement those fecking fish had, I tell you.

What about your dogs dad froggy , or your forrin fishes dads? ,take em to the PSA I say

Mme Lindor, owning pets and being able to go on holiday, even a cheap weekend away is a luxury. They are not human rights at all.

The fact that there are people around that think they are entitled to those things is exactly where the problem of a benefits culture started.

KitchenRoll
Oh, yes. The errant father debate.

You do know that the CSA is to be scrapped, and single mums will be made to PAY for the pleasure of having the government chase the father of their children? Fuckwits, one and all.

Yes I had heard. Bollocks isn't it?

Think I should mention my pets .

I have 2 rabbits and a scabby fairground goldfish, from yonks ago.

In fairness dh works very hard , and I am carer to dd4 ... We do get some tax credits .

But when the tax credits get stopped , and Dds dal is taken away at least I can cook the pets and feed the kids .

Is that ok kitchen roll ?

Of course it's ok FFS, two of you work!

There's really no need for the sarcasm. My POV really isn't that outrageous.

"You didn't have children on your own Froggy, there was someone else involved in their creation. He should be made to pay more, and if he was involved in you obtaining a pet, then he should have to pay towards that too.

I'd be happy for the state to spend double what it does on benefits to force people to pay for their responsibilities. It would have a much better effect on society"

Really? Fuck me KR, I didn't realise that.

Im well aware thank you that my children have fathers. If you're not up on current benefit rules let me educate you. Maintenance is not considered when claiming jsa or income support. It makes no difference whatsoever. For what its worth I get very little.

No, my exp was not involved in my obtaining a dog (or my fish), although we did buy one of the cats together. I have not yet claimed for cat maintenance.

Again...drum roll. I worked when I obtained my pets and children, I could afford them. Ta daaaa.

IUseTooMuchKitchenRoll, two people, same age, same family situation, each on benefits, both get £100 a week.

Person one shops thriftily, cooks from scratch, shops in the reduced section, keeps their electricity down. They manage to save £10 a week and spend it on a holiday.

Second person, buys ready made meals, leaves lights on. No money for a holiday.

Why should the person who lives so thriftily get less money?

But it is .

Pets help with depression .

They help teach kids responsibility . Responsible kids grow up to be responsible adults . Responsible adults work and keep their families going .

They give the unemployed a reason to get up everyday ....once they are up they will look for work.

I know someone who found a job in a pet shop because she went to buy a £ 2 packet of fish food. Had she not had fish she would not have found that job.

She had been looking for months and was very very grateful.

It's not like the people on benefits are feeding their dogs royal canine ...more like cheapest stuff available.

Sending the message that pets are disposable assets that can and should be discarded if necessary simply encourages the consumerist, disposable society that is arguably at the root of the problem in the first place. It also encourages a lack of personal responsibility.

Just made a rabbit casserole - delicious.
If your dh is working you deserve help to have decent living income.
I really think child care should be free to those on a low income at least for the first two kids.
Froggy I am bitter about career beneficiaries but no I do not think pets should have to be abandoned immediately upon losing a job through no fault of your own.
But years later, yes giving them up should be expected other than rabbits which can be bred and eaten.
You stated you wouldn't care for kids well to me that means you would turn down a job because you do not want to do that type of work.
Why should you have a choice?
School should be free - uniform, shoes, meals, materials and activities - the wealthy pay for it anyway and it is a good way to meet the needs of those who need such things and wont get them otherwise.

Totem, IMO they should both get less money and both should be shopping thriftily.

Froggy, you don't need to keep banging on about the fact that you worked when you got your pets. I got it the first time. Fact is, you don't work now.

I am aware that maintenance doesn't get taken into account when working out benefits thanks. That doesn't make it right. It only happens that way because absent parents are allowed to get away without facing up to their responsibilities. If that were changed, the rest would follow.

KitchenRoll
well, it doesn't really solve anything though. The non-having of pets.

We spend £20bn a year on housing benefit, the vast majority of which goes to the "working poor".

We spend another £20bn on DLA, another in-work benefit.

Just over £76bn goes on pensions/winter fuel allowance and pension credits.

Job Seekers Allowance only accounts for £3.6bn. And Income Support £8.3bn.

So should we ban all of those from owning pets? They all receive benefits.

Or just those not working?

Or those with flat screen tvs?

It is a simplified answer to a complex issue. Taking the economic independence away from those on benefits would be wrong.

We give them benefits so that they can survive. We cannot and should not dictate what they spend that money on.

Droves, there are other things to do that can help depression, there are another reasons to get up in the morning, and there are other ways to teach kids responsibility.

Or do you think every depressed or unemployed person or every child needs to have a pet?

What a load of crap.

The only reason people who don't work should be able to keep pets is because it's not nice for the pets to have to be moved.

I'm only halfway down page two, but here are some points I need to make: A LOT of people who have disabilities do NOT get any benefits in respect of those disabilities. I have uncontrolled epilepsy, yet no longer (since the Coalition Government took power) qualify for disability benefits. The criteria wrt epilepsy for claiming Incapacity Benefit in the past was that you had at least one seizure a week. Which I met, so I got IB. When it came time to transfer over to Employment and Support Allowance (the benefit that has replaced IB), the criteria for qualification on the basis of epilepsy had changed to at least 2 seizures A DAY. So it jumped from qualifying if you have 52+ seizures a year (thus possibly 52+ days off work a year) to 700+ seizures a year.

So while my epilepsy hasn't disappeared, hasn't improved to the point where it is possible to gain AND KEEP paid employment, I now no longer get ANY disability benefits. I have been told that when DS3 is older and I am meant to transfer over to JSA from the IS I am currently claiming - I will NOT be eleigible for JSA as I will not meet the fitness to work criteria. So I will be unable to claim unemployment benefits that are paid on the basis of being FIT to seek full-time work, but I will also be unable to claim ESA on the basis of being UNFIT for work due to my disability. And a LOT of other people with disabilities will fall into this catch-22 situation where they will not be eligible for ANY state assistance.

Also, I am the person that has to pay £52 a week to get my dc to school. My 8yo DS2 has EDS type II, Hypermobility syndrome, Hypotonia, and Chronic Brittle asthma that has nearly killed him 6 times. My dc were not placed in my closest school, they were placed in my fourth closest school, which is 1.999miles away (as the crow flies - it is further by the shortest walking route). I can't get transport paid for him, my LEA uses a 3-mile 'as the crow flies' distance as the qualification for free transport, despite any SN the child may have. I get no disability benefits for my DS2 though. I also have a slightly older DS1 (9yo), who is too young to safely cross the 3 main roads, that don't have pedestrian crossings on, to walk to school himself while I take DS2 by bus. 3 dc have been hit by cars on that route this year alone that were walking to the Secondary school, no way is it safe for a 9yo to walk. My 'free' bus pass that I get due to having epilepsy cannot be used before 9.30am. I have to catch the 8.15am bus to get the dc to school. Also, my local buses charge children a FULL ADULT FARE before 9am. At least in the afternoon, their fare is only 2/3 of mine...

Take away my current level of benefits, and I would be unable to get my dc to school.