to worry that some people on benefits won't manage when payments are made monthly

[SuedeEffectPochette]

Of course, many people on benefits are doubtless great at managing a budget, but at the moment people are paid weekly, so if money runs out, it's only a day or so (still bad enough). But when payments are monthly, some people may have a couple of weeks of no money - what is going to happen to them? Also Housing Benefit won't be paid direct to landlords any more, which will lead to a massive increase in homelessness if that money is not passed on. If you have run out of money for food, you won't be paying any to your landlord will you? I think the government should stick to weekly payments.

The two issues are not the same, saying employed people can't leave the country for a short time is restrictive with no good reason other than punitive,

Committing staff or weekly/ fortnightly payments to those most vulnerable in our society protects those who need it,who would need to ask for it and want it is supportive with no punitive intent.

Boooyhoo - I have read the thread; my opinion differs from yours obviously, but I'll ask again - which services would you cut to cover the increased cost of payments remaining on a weekly basis?

The country is in massive debt and can not afford to continue in the manner which far too many people have become accustomed; paying benefits monthly is going to save a fortune in terms of costs to the government and I would rather see this cost cutting rather than any more services being cut. For those who are arguing against it; which service would you prefer to cut rather than save this money?

The service I would like cut is the service that is being given to the fat cat industry bosses of subsidising their workers wages with the tax credit system.

Increase NMW by £3 per hour and you would remove the need for most the benefits being discussed. The vast amount of benefit claimants in this country have jobs, yet because wages are so low, they have to claim housing benefit, council tax benefit and child credit just to be able to live.

If companies were forced to pay a decent days pay for a decent days work then HB etc would not be need by 90% of the claimants and the benefits bill would be halved at a stroke, with no one suffering but the bastards who have been creaming the top off for decades.

Some people on benefits are not capable of budgeting, people with mental health problems or those with learning difficulties for example.

Deter.

Well done you must be very impressed with yourself.

Do you have addiction problems perhaps coupled with mental health issues, are you considered vulnerable due to being trafficked or intrenched in the sex industry,have you just left care and/or have any significant learning disabilities a are your kids on a care plan due to your mental health and has anybody tried to kill you in the last few weeks?

cricketballs you will see then if youhave read the thread that i agree paying monthly is a good thing, for some. i have said that i think there should be choice for those that think they will struggle with monthly payments, and there will be people who will struggle and it wont be just because they cant be arsed to budget.

what would i cut? how about the massive survery big dave carried out to find out the happiness levels of the nation? or what about the fucking vulgar lumps of steel being created to 'decorate' the entrance to town after town where i live? or lets take a look at all the money being lost through tax avoidance and evasion by massive companies? hows that to start with?

YY booyhoo.

That fucking cow (you know the one I mean?) cost £25k.

And I dread to think how much the Belfast balls cost.

What was the outcome of the happiness survey?

yes i know the one. it enrages me everytime i drive through and big old paddy waving goodbye to everyone in my town aswell. haven't a clue how much he cost.

don't know the outcome, i didn't take part. i just heard something a few weeks back about it and almost fell down at the idea of him doing this with all the other shit that he's doing. as IF he cares who is happy other than his chums.

the loopholes are being dealt with in regards to tax avoidance

the decoration is down to your local council and therefore coming out of your council tax

the survey - I will give you that one

those who work and get paid monthly though don't get a choice so maybe it should be changed to those who are identified as vulnerable; anyone else who does not have a special need needs to live like the rest of the population and learn to budget.
For example when dh changed jobs many years ago from a weekly paid to a monthly paid we had to go the month without any money coming in, so we had to make that weeks wages last a month (this included paying gas and electric on the keys, petrol etc) it was tough and hard going but it was a case of if we didn't then we would survive - such is life and we learnt a lot from it so I'm sorry if I don't sound sympathetic but if those that work have to deal with it then why not those who depend on the state?

happiness index to cost £8million-Sun link

What is your view on NMW Cricket and what I said above?

cricketballs i'm confused. you seem to be agreeing with the majority on this thread that those that are vulnerable should have weekly payments.

His face gives me the heebies.

And those questions. What nonsense! Ask people how they feel, but then ask why and figure out how to fix it.

And 200,000 homes is hardly an adequate sample.

define vulnerable? Those with special needs i.e. learning difficulties then yes but the DLA which covers the majority of their benefits is not changing. The vast majority then no; people need to stop being nannied and learn to deal with life like the rest of us (I say this as a dsis of an alcoholic who held down her own business and managed to deal with the basics of life like paying her bills whilst she was killing herself with this disease)

Cricket, sorry, it isn't as simple as that. There are many people with huge numeracy and other issues who will NEVER be able to budget their money. I work with many people in this boat and it's heartbreaking.

One alcoholic who still paid her bills is really not an example most people can recognise. I am sorry to hear that she was an alcoholic though. Its a hard illness for all concerned.

Addictions engulf people. Twice monthly payments might atleast give some addicts a couple of days of eating a month instead of one.

Also your sister presumably is of a similar level of intelligence to yourself, so therefore could have some concept of how many days between payments, how much she would have per day, how much needed to be set aside for the various bills and how much that would leave for food etc.

scarlett - she was also of the intelligence that she drunk herself to death

Cricket I ask again, what of the NMW issue that will cut benefit costs at a stroke? Why are you ignoring that question?

apologies for the tone of my last post but I did want to make the point that even those who many on this thread have been defending are capable of the basics and maybe we are doing them a disservice in 'nannying' them and maybe also enabling them by not forcing them to take action into reality. It is also costing the country money we can not afford

But addictions dont fit around reality.

No amount of subjecting an addict to hardship will make them any less addicted.

I mentioned the NMW as an example that people who are on the lowest amount of income are also having to budget with monthly pay so why should those on benefits be exempt from something the majority of the population have to deal with?

she was also of the intelligence that she drunk herself to death

You clearly dont understand addiction. Intelligent people get addicted too, but often they have the earning capacity above poorer people to fund their addictions and to hide it. Peter Cook, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Dylan Thomas, Graham Chapman, all highly intelligent men who died from alcoholism.

Cricket I asked what you think of the suggestion that rather than cutting costs in delivering benefits, the NMW is increased to the point where benefits are not needed by working families.

Bogeyface

If NMW was put up by £3 whats to say it wouldnt just put up prices on everything else?

I think it needs to be more than just that. The cost of housing really needs addressed.

Labour are today talking about a 10p tax rate. But why are none of the parties really looking at housing?