to think many benefits punish the prudent people that do the right thing

[ladygingina]

Aibu to think that many benefits are counter productive and reward people that don't do the right thing?

I mean why bother saving any money because I'd you have a five figure amount in the bank you won't get many benefits. But if you just waste all your money and have zero in the bank the government will give you money.

Also it seems better to rent rather than buy so the government will pay all of your housing costs if you loose your job.

I just think many of these reward people that we silly with money and it doesn't encourage people to behave responsibly.

missunreasonable, I do agree with you there. Mainly because I blame successive governments for putting people in a vulnerable position regarding housing in this country. I'd quite like to see a repayable benefit for people with mortgages, so it's either repaid when circumstances change or on the sale of the property if it's a longer term situation, it's still an asset but people should have the assistance to be able to dig themselves out of a hole without becoming irredeemably financially broken.

YY. We have an investment that matures when my DCs are going to have to pay university fees, we've had it for 17 years now. As a result, we can't get council tax benefit.

Ironically I see that the OP is actually on benefits (see yesterday's thread) but isn't getting money towards housing as owns her own house.

Apologies for my earlier post as I didn't understand what you were getting at.

Gosh talk about getting the wrong side!

Right I mean why should someone that had expensive holidays yearly and flash cars get benefits but someone else that saved the money and didn't have these luxurious stuff not?

Im actually taking about increasing benefits

lady, sorry but what that actually sounds like to me is 'if I save why should I use that money to support myself?'.

Why wouldn't you? That's life, you may have earmarked it for something else but needs must and all that. Sounds more like an attitude problem to me.

Most people on benefits have either never had the earning potential to save that much or savings have already been depleted. There's not many who rush off to open a cayman island account before putting their Jsa claim in.

Right I mean why should someone that had expensive holidays yearly and flash cars get benefits but someone else that saved the money and didn't have these luxurious stuff not?

How could you possibly police that? Since saving is not mandatory, people can spend their money as they wish. Should they be unfortunate enough to need help through illness or losing a job, are they then less deserving?

The thing is I'm regretting saving money now. Wish I had of blown it all as would have been given more money.

Living on JSA is a joke. My boiler broke and no way can I get that fixed without using up most of my savings. If I hadn't of brought a house or saved I would be much better off now.

Is the op mr Cameron?

YABU.

Benefits don't 'punish' prudent people. They're there to stop people falling into poverty. You have given no evidence for your allegation that it punishes prudent people in your thread.

Some people take the p**s with benefits, of course they do, but I work with a lot of people on benefits and as soon as they are in a position to come off, even if it might mean a drop in the money they have coming in, most will do it.

I didn't unexpectedly lose a parent when young/get left with a baby to support/lose my job/have a serious accident/have a disability. This is not because I am a 'better' person, it's because I have been lucky. It could still happen. To any of us, OP.

Those five figures in the bank would soon go down.

Your boiler wouldn't get fixed if you didn't have savings either! I really can't understand this thinking.

I understand what OP is saying

Person A is prudent saves carefully then when down on luck for whatever reason is forced by the system to use their savings (right or wrong I dont know)

Whereas....

Person B spends their earnings on clothes, holidays etc and then claims the full amount benefits.

I dont know but you can't dictate to people how they spend their money. But I see how this may seem unfair.

But if people are down and need a hand up then thats what they should get. The thing is the benefits system is for those in need, and person A would not be in need.

X posts, how's that workable? If someone is irresponsible and could've saved but didn't then it's grating but social support has to work with real time facts.

What are you proposing? A previous five year budget analysis and if it's deemed you could've saved x amount instead of paying for that holiday/car then your getting nowt and you can think about that while your sitting in the gutter?

Or is it more that the savings threshold should be raised? Possibly - by a bit, but it still needs to be balanced. The pot needs to be shared out to those who need it most at the time. It'd be great for everyone to automatically get the same but we have a system that requires those who can pay for themselves to do so, so that those with nothing can have a larger share of the minimal resources offered at the moment.

I'd would get fixed if I was renting or if I didn't have savings as there is an emergency fund I could apply for.

I tried very hard to type a reasoned, intelligent and well thought out post but all I could come up with was,

Give your head a wobble.

You'd be better off how? Trying to find a LL who takes LHA? Eating lentils because you just paid the part of rent LHA doesn't cover? Going without heat and hot water when the boiler broke because the LL won't fix it, you're afraid of being evicted by the LL for bringing it up or you cannot afford gas for the boiler?

I'm not proposing anything, just saying the system is making me wish I hadn't bothered saving.

Land lords don't know if people are on benefits right? That's private information

PMSL at emergency fund you can apply for! That went the way of the dinosaurs a while back, and now even Wonga won't lend to you.

Sure, the LL would just waltz in and fix it. Hahahha! Hahaha.

Do you know what I like? Crisps.

I think you'll find the emergency fund is long gone.

If renting, your landlord would hopefully fix it, but you'd be trading the relative security of home ownership for the potential 6 monthly treat of having to move and find a deposit/advance rent.

And yes I would be better off as could get free dental, prescriptions, and half price train card

My fil said to me once that having a private pension is for mugs - he has friends who have them and they lose out on their pension credit/income support (that he gets) because of it.

But I think that he's very much a minority and most people who claim benefits do so out of no fault of their own.

FGS. I cannot believe I fell for this. Of course the LL knows if you are on benefits. You have to prove income when you apply to let the place.

Home ownership isn't secure!!!!! If I don't find a Job by mid next year I could be repossessed!!!!

Only secure housing is council IMO.

You get a free plasma screen telly and a goat, too. Brighthouse gives them to you.