to think benefits are a safety net against poverty, not a cushion against an uncomfortable life ?

[TalkinPeace2]

Prompted by a thread where somebody said "DH has lost his job, what benefits are we entitled to?"

Sorry, but its the duty of ALL those on more than average wages (£26k per household) to put money aside for a rainy day.
No wonder the country is up to its eyes in debt if people first think about benefits rather than self reliance.

The benefit system should be to prevent true poverty, no more.

The American system has too many gaps. Most European systems, including that in the UK, provide far too comfortable a cushion, at far too high a cost to the next generation (as historically current over generous benefits have been kicked down the road to be paid for by our children who will never be entitled to such things).

I think everyone supports a benefits system that is there for when people need it. But, it should always be a temporary thing, except in cases where disability or illness is impossible or makes working detrimental to health.

There is no other excuse for people being on benefits long term, and there is no excuse for becoming pregnant while on benefits.

Fair enough Mamma. But 45% (if that's accurate) of not very much is not very much. And as the poorest people are the ones that take the most out, I think it balances ok. The higher rate tax payers pay a huge amount to the treasury, and take the least out so I don't think they deserve to be hot for any more.

There is no other excuse for people being on benefits long term, and there is no excuse for becoming pregnant while on benefits.

There are no jobs in my area?
There are 473,000 job vacancies and 2.59 million people unemployed?
The condom split?
I got sacked because I'm pregnant?

Aren't they good enough reasons?

Not really, no.

Someone who got sacked while they were pregnant would have not got pregnant while they were on benefits.

I realise there are contraception failures, but as contraception is well over 90% effective when used correctly, I don't believe that that can contribute to the high numbers of children who have two parents out of work. There are children in the third generation of families where no one works. That is wrong.

I also realise that unemployment is high. I don't think that is a reason to have children you can't provide for. If you haven't got a job and neither does the person you are having sex with, don't conceive a child.

I know 5 people who have been made redunadnt while preganat or on maternity leave.

Last year, while in my 'secure' job we tried to get pregant. Having been unemplyed now for 17 weeks I am relieved it failed.

Relieved to not fall pregantn with a much wanted child. THAT is the current climate.

BENEFITS - For Those Who Think It's a Picnic

I a single parent on benefits. Here's the breakdown per week.
Income support = 67
CTC. = 50
CB. =20
Total. = 137

Utilities. = 30
mobile + TV lic = 08
School transport= 30

That leaves £67.00 per week for food, clothes, haircuts, extra transport (to/from supermarket, visiting friend's/family, days out) Christmas, birthdays (DS's and friends whose parties he is invited to, my family are happy with homemade), school extras (trips etc), extra curricular activities (swimming).

I am extremely fortunate. My family help out with clothes and shoes and treats for DS. If one of my appliances breaks down, I am fucked.

Life on benefits sucks. Why do people think it's great?

Sorry, I meant £69 per week.

Not that it matters but others in my position are in private lets. That have to put £100 from their benefits into rent. They are truly fucked.

I think it's a scandal that people on £12,000 a year pay tax. I'm talking about single people with no families. The tax threshold should be no lower than £15,000 per year.

There is such a discrepancy on the amount a person receives in benefit. I read that tax credits brings a single parent's income up to £446.00 a week. Can this be right.