Who really gets £500+ weekly state benefits?

[vivizone]

I find this shit so hard to believe. Reading the media, you would think this was a common figure on life on benefits.

Yesterday and today's Metro newspaper - people writing in saying they agree with the cap of £500 and why should people be sat on their arse and be rewarded by £500 per week. . Why should they earn £200 per week working and people are getting £500 a week doing nothing.

Seriously, who gets this £500 per week that is being peddled out of the media? I spent 7 months out of work after redundancy and I could not live on the pittance I received for me and my children. I do not know how people do it. I really don't. I had a decent redundancy package and that was the only way I could make it.

How many people do you know (forget the newspaper stories) that are RECEIVING £500 or more every week? I thought so.

How come if life is/was that cushy on benefits, not enough people are/were packing in their jobs to join a life of riley?

We have been had. Life on benefits is HARD and DEMORALISING. I have tried it and I can tell you you get PEANUTS.

The reason why stories run on people living in million dollar homes/getting thousands a week in benefits is because it is RARE. It is SO rare, that it gets reported on.

BBB, I couldn't get one either. The council gave me an advisor who lied (as I later realised) to stop me claiming LA benefits. After five years of believing I didn't qualify for benefits, I ended up needing acute mental health support and the MH team gave me a support worker. She was fantastic.

I'm on WRA ESA and read section 225 to mean I will have to do what the jobcentre considers the maximum hours I can handle, not necessarily 35. They've already increased my appointed from six-monthly to monthly, so presumably the objective is to determine my hours.

Yes, this means I will lose my HB after two years.

I think there will have been further developments by then, so it's worth waiting to see how long they get away with this.

My landlord's getting antsy anyway, now they've realised my capacity to pay is going down instead of up - they are HB aware, but latest developments took them by surprise as well as everyone else.

Yes, looks like completely non-medical DWP staff will get to set the number of hours (or equivalent earnings) that people not fit to work are required to work.

Makes no difference to me whether they set it at 35 hours or 10 - I can't do either. And there's no such thing as a job that can be done in 2 half-hour sessions a day from bed, with gaps during bad periods.

Even self-employed, it's not possible to keep clients at that work rate - especially when you realise that has to include dealing with clients as well as the booked hours, plus trips to the post or face-to-face meetings.

I read, in the Guardian, that welfare reform may bankrupt some housing associations. If this is true, it's very frightening.

I have nothing of any use to add to this excellent discussion. Just want to sit down here and stare into the middle distance a while

It's a fucking sorry state of affairs, it really is. A welfare state is the only humane way to live. It makese cry to think that it is being eroded. It also makes me RAGE because I voted Lib Dem. Shan't make that mistake ever again.

Surely the conservatives will be out next election? Is this all reversible?

I just don't think the Conservatives will be out in the next election. I've spoken to a few people that agree with quite a few of the reforms even Labour voters. There will be a welfare state only a fairer one. Where somebody isn't getting the equivalent of about five times the national average wage because they want to live in Kensington. Somebody somewhere is actually paying tax to pay for all lthose benefits that's why they need to be looked at again. I won't be voting Labour next time because I don't think they have any answers.

Of course there should be a welfare system- I agree that it's the mark of a civilised society. I also think this is way beyond party politics. It needs to be an affordable and above all FAIR system.

I agree that it's wrong for some people to receive massively more than average earnings, in public funds, simply to enable them to live in a specific location. OR, if we're going to apply the argument that people shouldn't have to move from an area where they were raised, where they have extended family, support networks etc, then apply that argument to EVERYONE, because there are hundreds of thousands of people who don't receive benefits who have to move away because they cannot afford to live where there support networks are.

I think the real issue is the lack of equity.

How is it fair to make people homeless every two years because they can't earn minimum wage, Vivienne? They might be unable to earn it because there aren't enough jobs, because they have difficult home circumstances, because they're ill and all sorts of things.

Did you understand that this is what the previous page was about?

I just don't think the Conservatives will be out in the next election. I've spoken to a few people that agree with quite a few of the reforms even Labour voters,and I,ve spoke to a lot of people who agree that the cuts are too fast,you have to remember that they couldnt win the last election with a clear majority so I think its a bit presumptious to assume they will win the next one.

To be honest I work in a job where most of my clients are unemployed (for many reasons) and I think that in some cases (the majority in my experience but this is because of the client base I work with not a true reflection of society) it is a lifestyle choice and work doesn t always pay.

However- some of these people (who choose to remain on benefits) have been let down big time by society and are in third generation of being lifetime unemployed. Which is why I work closely with them, to show work does pay (which is hard in this currant benefit system) as minimum wage barely covers the cost of living and you loose all sorts of benefits which take a long time to re register for if you enter short term contracts.

DLA is also the road a lot of my clients try to go down (with varying sucsess) especially in substance misuse cases. Loss of limbs is common place as is DVT from injecting etc. This doesnt help the individual and often makes them a target for financial abuse.

I must add that the new system will help some of these issues but the damage it will cause in other areas far out wieghs the good it will do.

The payment 1 month in arrears- like a salary (very bad- nothing has been looked into what will fund this month- people will be made homeless and starve)
The payment only into bank account- you need id for a bank account- a very hard thing to obtain if youre homeless.
Payment only to the claiment and not the landlord will make landlords say 'no dss' more and ramp up rent arrears.

That is only my opinion that the Conservatives will get in again with a bigger majority. I don't know of course. I think there is a lot of resentment amongst people who aren't well paid and are paying taxes when they see the huge amounts of benefits some people are getting. That again is only my opinion. Some people live in miserable areas for the simple reason they can't afford to move to a better area. They can't afford to buy a house in a nice area with good schools. So why should they be paying for someone else to do what they can't do.

And completely agree with Janey68.

Most of us want a fair state welfare system, but it seems that fair to some people is only fair if it works in favour of claimants rather than taxpayers.

The simple fact is that the pot isn't big enough to give everyone a nice life. People need to be given enough to survive, no more.

Vivienne the fact that people arent well paid is down to their employer NOT down to what Joe or Joanne Bloggs down the road is getting. The demonization of claimants in the press really has worked a treat.
If Joe/Joanne loses benefits then will the people who are not well paid throw a big street party to celebrate? No because they will still be worrying about how to make ends meet themselves.
This turning people against each other AND the fact that its working shows up this society for what it really is. And shows a really ugly side of human nature.
"Turning man against his brother until man exists no more" Patrick Troughton quoting from the Bible in the first Omen film!

freddos but people wont get enough to survive under the new system...

I don't believe that people in government are too thick to come up with a method which stops people abusing the system but still ensures that people who need support, are supported adequately

They have devided and conquered, pitched the poor against the poorer and used the frustration as a reason to begin the dismantling of the welfare system

Fuckers. I hate them

What if the only work you can get are zero hours contracts? How's that going to work with UC?

www.net-lettings.co.uk/london/estate-agents/letting-agents-in-south-tottenham

as you can see, 3 bed flats are about £300 a week. Add money to live on, maybe working tax credits etc - easily £500 for family with 2 different sex dc.

most of it goes straight to private landlords.

Most of it goes to private landlords, chiefly thanks to the people having sold off the properties we owned (council homes) to private buyers who are now renting them out. The councils still pay the rents, but no longer own the homes.

There's going to be another massive sell-off. It's unlikely this money will be used to build cheaper homes, not even ghettoes, for rent.

If people won't get enough to survive, then clearly that's wrong. None of us want to see people dying of cold or of starvation.

But as long as people who live on nothing but benefits are known to have things that many of us would consider to be luxuries, then there are always going to be people that agree with the cuts.

I realise that private landlords are indirectly paid by HB/LHA, but can we stop blaming them for that? All they were trying to do was make the most of an opportunity, and they deserve to be paid for the service they provide.

A very close friend of mine is appalled that her benefits (including mortgage interest and middle rate DLA) are more than myself and DH, both in reasonably well paid jobs bring home. She wants to work but would be £21 a week worse off in the kind of role she wishes to do. How is this right?

www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/Medway/3-bed-flats.html
Medway - cheapest commutable to London
bus drivers/tube workers/nhs staff move here - inc. us

look at the rent!!! about £170 p/w - that leaves £320 for 1/2 adults + 2 dc. a couple gets £112, + about £30 per dc inc child ben.

supplements for eg disability are not counted, so it must go on rent I think

if they don't live in the area of their families they have more childcare probs if they get ajob

build council houses is the answer

And pay wages that are higher than benefits

Just seen this on Twitter about a report thats due out tomorrow.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-modern-face-of-hardship-8348392.html

'I realise that private landlords are indirectly paid by HB/LHA, but can we stop blaming them for that? All they were trying to do was make the most of an opportunity, and they deserve to be paid for the service they provide.'

They're getting a home paid for by the taxpayer, mainly off the backs of the working poor, since 80% of those who claim housing benefit are in work. And that's a service they deserve paid for because they were able to buy and the same folks who are paying their mortgage, as well as taxes themselves, aren't?

They're not providing a service, they have an asset that's paid for by the taxpayer.

Mainly off the backs of the working poor? How do you work that out just because people in work claim HB? The taxes everyone else pay contribute just as much.

Of course they are providing a service. When I was renting, I phoned my LL when the boiler broke. He didn't fix it out of the goodness of his heart, he fixed it because that's what I was paying for him to do. I paid him so that he would let me live in his property, and I paid him so that I don't have to do any of the sorting out when things went wrong in my home. I'd call that a service. It was a lot easier than having to sort it myself like I have to now.