To ask what's the beef with benefits?

[mytartanscarf]

Do people think they are too little? That they should be more?

There's always a lot of upset on here about them - about how wrong the government are and how awful life is on benefits. I've never been on benefits so obviously can't judge. But what are the solutions?

I suppose I am asking what should the government do?

MagratsHair what you probably heard was that the council will take a week to collect the old washing machine for recycling. They do that for everyone. Go check and post again about it.

Your post would have been more useful if you'd said "I have seen 1 person do this and 2 people do that". It's all very well saying: There are also others who lie and commit fraud, who live with working partners and claim as single parents and there are generations of families who do not work as their parents never did. But you only 'know' there are lots of them because the Daily Mail told you so.

Handcream you said It's funny, when someone mentions that their relative or neighbour doesn't work and claims more than someone in a low paid job they are almost called liars.

I can promise you that there are people on benefits who get more than the lowest paid worker. I should bloody well hope so. It would be an atrocity if we left a penniless woman (for example) to feed 5 kids on the wage of the worst paid single person. (and let's have a thread on how a working person can be so badly paid)

Bear in mind that the single working person can also get benefits to top up their income if needed. If they had 5 kids they'd have more then the person not working.

The system needs to be looked at as some seem to be doing well e.g, mother of flaky BIL's child has 3 kids from three (flaky) fathers, often in town getting nails done, massages, goes out drinking, big screen TV, cupboards seem to have food etc. But then I know people scraping by on incapacity benefit who are legitimately ill/in pain or having to care for partners.

Breaking There are always people who will appear to do well out of the system, any system. I also wonder just how much debt this woman is in, there are many who are have serious levels of debt just through 'keeping up appearances'. Many in the same amount of debt because they prioritise wrongly eg. nails and hair, and many in debt because the stuff they need to ensure their disability allows them to function properly is not covered by the benefits provided.

I don't have a beef with benefits, I do have a beef with the bigoted shit shown by some on here, Derek and Donna have been treated awfully by daisy and others.
Try living on benefits then come back and tell us how you get on.

Oooooo, I've now turned into benefit scum, I have TWO 32 inch tellies in my house now, along with a....gasp.......PS4. What a bad benefit scrounger I am.

I didnt buy the tellies they were given to me by family, the PS4 though was my xmas pressie to my self for working so damn hard for the ungrateful bastards that are Sainsburys.

But the point is benefits varies so much from family to family. Some people doing quite well and others barely affording to eat. That's what I just simply do not understand. They should be moving towards a flat rate. Because let's face it people don't get pay rises because they live in a more expensive area and have more children. It's far far too complicated and has grown out of control.

Viviennemary The benefits are not about what you deserve, but what you need. People on benefits are already in the area they happen to live in and already have children. If they need £xx to pay the rent and feed the kids your way would have them NOT having enough to pay the rent and feed the kids. How would you handle that?

Imagine for example the 1000s of people who worked for Citylink until xmas when they found themselves out of work.

Oh and don't forget that working people who happen to need more money for rent and kids food get it too.

BackOnlyBriefly, I agree that benefits should be based on needs which is why it is absurd that the state will one day be giving me a pension, free TV licence, free travel, heating allowances etc. I will be in the happy position of not needing these favours (unless struck by profound misfortune) but I will get them through entitlement.

Well I know what you mean. The pension part makes sense because that was the deal back in the olden days when I first went to work. I don't know why the other things are automatic.

Well, maybe I do. Lots of pensioners who vote? :)

Oh and the other thing about the pension is that you were not expected to live long enough to collect much of it.

If it's based on need, why do so many people object to the reduction in housing benefit so that it only provides people with what they need? I'm aware of the valid objections to the reduction where there is a valid medical need, but a lot of people oppose it even without that part of the issue.

Child benefit isn't based on need either, and nor is widowed parents allowance.

I'm all for universal benefits btw, and I don't believe benefits should only go to the poorest, I think it's better that we have a system that everyone can be invested in and know they can rely on. But that's not what we have, which is why I think a lot of people do have beef with benefits. The system isn't fit for purpose.

I dont expect to have the winter fuel, free travel etc. I will have to wait until 68 to claim my state pension even though my parents generation had it at 60...

At 60 you get free prescriptions ( think!) I was in the chemist the other day collecting a prescription and there were shelves and shelves of medicines waiting to be claimed. After two months they open them up and redistribute but it does show that when something is seen as 'free' some people just dont bother to collect, there is no pain felt and because after all its free!

But you can have a problem with benefits and not the people receiving them.

Yes, you can. Which unfortunately is a point that seems to pass many people by on these threads, because as soon as anyone has an issue with benefits they are accused of hating poor people.

You might want to consider the amount people get - it doesn't always differ that much tbh. It's about priorities.

For eg a neighbouring family with similar income to mine.

We buy food at markets in bulk and at Lidl to save money. We turn off lights and don't use the tumble drier. We only heat the hot water we use. We are on a water meter so we use grey water on the garden. We get hand me down clothes for the kids and shop online at Christmas and birthdays to get the best prices.

This enables us to have a bit spare to pay for respite, as SS provision has been cut. We can also have a week's camping holiday.

Whereas they have all the bells and whistles (from Brighthouse) and are constantly panicking over how to get food.

Appearances can be deceptive. We look like we have a lot, they do too. Neither of us actually does. We're resourceful, they have debt.

If it's based on need, why do so many people object to the reduction in housing benefit so that it only provides people with what they need?

Do you mean reducing the amount because you have a spare room, but not making it possible to move to a place with less rooms?

Well it answers itself doesn't it.

Yes Derek, I completely agree. I've had to cut family off because of their attitudes.

WooWoo you wouldn't have been banned if your stance was 'just an issue with benefits'.

Oh and WooWooOwl I said about being based on need, but of course some are entitlements just like when you claim insurance for a fire.

Still the discussion just then was about why pay the amount we do and I answered it.

I think the biggest problem with benefits is the inflexibility of the system.

I've met people who were made homeless and forced to live on the streets because their claim for housing benefit took two weeks to go through. Couldn't they have been given the benefit of the doubt for two weeks and thus avoided the danger that comes with homelessness?

I also know someone who was on unemployment benefit who was offered a very short term job, 7 days work or something like that. There was a slim possibility that this could have led to something longer term.

This person was told by their benefits officer not to accept the position. If they accepted it they would have been taken off benefits. They were told it would take up to 3 weeks to get them back onto benefits if they needed to claim again. It would be much better if the system was flexible and allowed people to take short term work without putting themselves at risk of being homeless and hungry.

There is also an unpalatable truth that some of the people who are currently on benefits are simply unemployable. There are those at the very bottom of society who have grown up in deeply abusive families with little or no education. They can barely function as adults and will never have the emotional stability to hold down even the most basic of jobs. Yet they get pushed through the mill of a system which seems to believe that everyone can be 'fixed'. They are treated as if they were scum when really they are unfortunate people who drew the shortest of straws in life.

Vivienne your post doesn't make sense. Benefits are the bare minimum amount of money a certain number of people need to live on. Wages are not the bare minimum, that why they increase with each child.
Also ever heard of London weighting?

Who was banned?

Soon - I am not sure what you mean? Wages increase with each child? Unless you mean that they get additional benefit.

Does London Weighting even exist for most people? I thought it was generally for the public sector, police officers, teachers etc and not for every role.

Whoever said delve deeper and you will find people who manage OK on benefits and someone who dont is 100% correct. An old friend of mine worked at the local council for 6 months helping people to budget on benefits. These were people who were in debt and claiming that there money didnt go far enough. The first thing she would do it list out the outgoings of a family and the differences were shocking. There were certainly a few who knew how to do it but the vast majoirty didnt. People putting their own needs above their children, nights out, smoking were seen as rights.

Oh it's no secret that some people budget better than others. That applies to working people too. Those who get benefits on top and those who don't.

Of course it's difficult to find truly matching circumstances. Consider all those people who recently lost their jobs. One person might have just paid out for new furniture, clothes etc and won't need anything else new for a while. Another might have to buy a new washing machine, school uniform etc out of their first months benefits.

That's why it's a bit of a joke when someone says "I could manage on £xx a month benefits". They don't count all the other stuff you have to pay out for that a wealthier person already has. they probably could manage for ONE month.

handcream you seem to have a problem with ppl using the NHS. You have mentioned it on a couple of threads now yet were conspicuous by your abscence on the binge drinking thread which also costs the NHS money. I have obviously drawn my own conclusions from this.

Handcream you are working on the assumption that all those prescriptions were for people in receipt of free prescriptions, which of course may not necessarily have been the case, presenting it as a fact is pretty ropey.