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?

Written before I became disabled I had peace of mind knowing I could hop on the 86 bus! Can you really not see the difference between want and need?
Also I hope to keep leasing my car for five years. Many people do not want a new car every three years. The advance payments and adaptations can run into thousands.

Notaunique I doubt your factual info re Hitler came from curtain twitching and the Daily Mail.

Notice I didn't say that they hadn't

like this coalition government haven't cut taxes for the rich

?

ok, then let me state the obvious. in the context of the discussion, with the evidence provided that is true.

that is not to say that "the rich" haven't had tax cuts (the removal of the 50p rate shows that "they" have had tax cuts. -and specifically in income tax!)
but the figures show that combined with said cuts have been tax rises as well.

Overall, "the rich" are currently paying more in income taxes than they did under previous governments. (I've linked figures that show this to be true over a number of years)

Do you know what, unique I really couldn't give a damn. If you look at my posts, one of them was around three o' clock this morning. Those poor, poor fuckers who may or may not have had tax cuts were being paid a site more than the 65 quid a week carer's allowance I get for what at the moment is a 23 hour day. I'm close to tears, I have to take dd for her PiP assessment later today, I have organised care for dh who is currently the main person disrupting my sleep. When I have lifted a 5'7", 11 stone woman in and out of the car, pushed her around somewhere that doesn't actually have disabled parking on site, sorted out her PiP stuff, I will come home, sort dh out and then cook for a family. I may get to sit down for an hour around nine. May. So, petty little arguments with those who somehow feel that they are in some way, superior, on the internet really don't interest me at present. If you've got something to say about benefits, I suggest you do so, however, try to do so with clear sentence structure, punctuation, capital letters et al, because your posts are a tad difficult to work out in their current layout.

Have some further info, though.

Benefits are clearly way too high. Obviously I did the sensible thing when I was pregnant, making sure I drank and ate soft cheese and pate* and everything to ensure a maximum benefit payout but even then I hadn't known that i'd get the really high amount of £61 a week in Carer's Allowance- it's a luxurious lifestyle I wish I'd adopted before my degree, I regularly berate myself for not making the wise choices in life sooner.

• If you need clarifying that that's crap, then you have issues. They have a genetic disorder (form of autism) that we didn't know DH carried until last year, youngest is six.

LMAO at the distinction between rich and poor: yeah OK. We were doing very nicely indeed until everything went tits up- it took the boy's needs and a redundancy to knock us back down. At no point has this ever been a work free household, but it's far from a well off one now.

Dawndonna- hugs. Eldest turns 16 in the inter and dreading the whole PIP thing. Luckily although he needs a lot of care he's quite bright and wants to study social policy so hopefully will be able to help turn things around for us carers X

And we paid more than enough over our lives so far to have the right to complain so that one can get stuffed as a concept;

I don't think an opinion gained from purely reading is as valid as an experientially derived one, though it has it's place as there are many things not everyone can experience. it's important though to listen to people in the system as well.

I DO think the system is flawed but a lot of that comes from recent changes, especially to the disability system. It would also be cheaper to run the welfare system if there were more social housing options rather than paying private landlords higher rents than in the social sector. I know many landlords are lovely and so won't criticise or generalise about that, but it's true that a social home saves money that way and remains a council / HA asset, where private rent covered by LHA is just dead money as far as the system is concerned.

'I can't see anyone who purports to receive benefits showing that they feel any empathy for anyone working struggling to survive and paying tax to provide the very welfare system that they are reliant on.

Are you aware how very many people on benefits DO work?

Something like 90% of all new applications to housing benefits (not sure if 2013 or 2014) were made by working people. Working tax credits are a benefit, some carers work as do many disabled people.

Husband works: self employed and very long hours. The hire company was only set up last year so it's early days but he does make a profit; I don't think he has had a day off though in that time, even if we are away he disappears off and works online. Away is a week in a tent: I am grateful for that, indeed I booked a week today and am excited, but it's far cost wise (£190 in fact) from the holidays we used to have. That's OK by me, but I swear some people see the word holiday and think we're off to the Med for an all inclusive for a fortnight or something.

I've said (many times now) that I'm in complete understanding with you, and I fully agree that carers (both full and part time) Should be paid more, because this is after all a real job, (and if you weren't there to do it then a carer would be provided that got paid a shed load more than that anyway!) and that respite care should be available to carers, (not just an hour to go get your hair done or some other trivial thing, but actual "time off".)

However, what I am also saying is that it's not difficult to understand that there is only a finite amount of income for the government, that endless borrowing isn't a solution for government, and that practically everybody pays more tax than they can comfortably afford. (there are only a few people who don't have a hard time.)

it's not difficult to understand that there is only a finite amount of income for the government

Fine. Let's get the tax take up then.

We can start by increasing the NMW to Living wage levels (with an initial exemption and phased introduction for employers who are SMEs) and legislate to cap private rents.

That will get the tax take up, reduce the bill for 'in work' benefits and give people a smidgen more in their pockets to spend on the things they need, thereby stimulating the economy.

Win, win, win.

BTL investors have done well, Fat cat employers have done well. BOTH groups lavishly subsidised by benefits.

Conversely, I've yet to hear of someone who needs their income topped up with HB or Tax Credits or an unemployed individual who would inspire envy in any sane person.

wow - this thread is an eye opener. I had always believed that the benefit system was unfit for purpose due to the payments being too low, that fraud was such a tiny problem in monetary terms that it was more expensive to fix than leave, and that if there was anyone at all who actually chose to engage with a 'benefits life style' then society owed them its guilt for not encouraging them to set their sights higher, and not its hatred.

I feel this position I have held on little evidence is now rock solidly supported by the links and evidence put forward here.

Also there are vastly more people unemployed than their are job vacancies at any one time. So if people got employment it would be at the expense of someone else?

How can a rational person hold the idea that people who are unemployed actually WANT to be unemployed at the same time as these facts?

ice

Completely agree, and just imagine what the statistics would be like if all those "lazy" carers and "sponging of their husband" SAHM had to find jobs as well

This was typed from a laptop that's tied to my job (as I can't afford to buy my own computer)
from a cold (because I can't afford to run the heating) house

that's shared with 3 adults (because we can't afford to live alone)
(well was once a house, now divided into multiple houses) -we can't afford anywhere bigger,
As I look down it occurs to me that all of the clothes that I wear have been gifted to me, (either Christmas of birthdays over many years) because I can't afford to buy clothes.
soon, I'll drive to work in a car that's a couple of decades old (because I can't afford a new one)
that I've had to learn to service and fix myself (as I can't afford to use garages -and could certainly never afford to go to a main dealer where parts may be just on the shelf),
I'll work all day and when I return home we'll eat left over stew that has been hiding in the back of the freezer...
(and yet I don't qualify for benefits -my problem is the amount of debts I built up when I was younger, this will continue for at least 5 - 10 years (if not more) as I can only make the minimum payments -which barely pays for the interest added each month)

My job also expects me to work all day, and then when I get home I'm frequently "on call" and get woken up through the night as well. I fully understand what it's like to barely focus, to be so tired that your head hurts and you can barely keep your eyes open, and to then be told that you should be grateful for what you have.

So I do know some of what you are going through. I know what it's like to be told to "suck it up" (though that's not what I'm doing.) I do empathise and sympathise with you.
I know exactly what it is like to struggle to meet the basic needs of living and to have gone for years without the things that I want

Being on benefits is not a walk in the park, but then neither is working!

Without wanting to start some sort of infighting war, but you say that your basic needs (such as some respite car to enable to to sleep) are not met, don't you take it to mean that the system is broken if you can't get sleep. yet others get by quite happily in benefits, and manage to save vast amounts to just service their wants
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246104/Unemployed-single-mother-benefits-spends-2-000-Christmas-20-presents-children.html
www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6134355/Meet-benefits-couple-who-plan-to-spend-15k-on-Xmas-splurge-paid-for-by-YOU.html

(No, I don't think that's the status quo for benefits, and I don't think that those papers are quality journalism.)
but I do standby the statement that society has become somewhat warped on what are basic needs (food and clothes), and wants going away for a holiday, or wanting wine or beer to drink in the evenings, lots of Christmas presents.

I'm aware that many people receive benefits as well as working, (free nursery hours, working tax credits, housing allowances etc.)
As I said earlier I'm also aware that those on benefits also pay tax, and that tax helps to fund "the welfare state system".

I'm not trying to come across as superior to anyone, having a job does not make anyone superior, paying tax does not make anyone superior, earning so little that you're below the threshold for paying tax doesn't make you superior or inferior either.

As I said earlier I'd rather have nothing left to give than have lots more and live in a society that did not have a welfare system to look after the poorest

If you don't give a damn about anyone else why do you immediately expect them to give a damn about you?

notauniquename you just saw (and not for the first time) people saying that wages should be higher. Government allows you to be so badly paid and then if you qualify throws you some money to keep you quiet. This is a big help to your company as they need not pay you much.

If you're working you bloody well should be able to turn the heating on and get the other basic things along with some luxuries to make life worthwhile.

But they keep you on the edge and if people complain they are told that it would all be fine if not for people on benefits and then they say "hey look! they get as much as you do and their not working. How can that be right?" And it isn't right, but the joke is that YOU should be getting more.

As for the Daily Mail. When you see them print a story about a benefit scrounger (or someone who appears to be) every day for a week. Ask yourself why only a week?

Could it be that they could only find 7 in the whole bloody country?

If you're working you bloody well should be able to turn the heating on and get the other basic things along with some luxuries to make life worthwhile.

In an ideal world yes...
However, as said it was my choice to do stupid things that led me to get into debt. (that's a stark contrast to being put into a position of needing to rely on benefits). and whilst it's slow going and will take a long time, I can at least see an end in sight.

Heating isn't that much of an issue (since I have jumpers)
of course I want luxuries -and I want them all the time (who wouldn't). but I don't need them.

It's hard to say my life is incomplete without the occasional beer when someone says that they can barely sleep due to an incompetent system that leaves them without care, or necessities. (or when others need handouts from food banks)

I realise that the daily mail isn't the best moral bar.
however, ignore everything in the story that's been spun in any way shape or form, and you are left with more than one person who has more than they need and can make savings.
Which is a contrast to your own story of not having what you need.

Derek

Benefits mum wastes hard-working taxpayers cash on 69p magazine

Critics have hit back, saying Derek should read cereal packets and oven instructions instead. A government spokesperson said this was "unacceptable" and that an inquiry into all magazine-buying by benefits claimants would be launched.

Derek was unrepentant, pointing out that the magazine could be used as toilet paper as well as making a rather nice fire. She is quoted as saying "It's nobody's business what I wipe my arse on".

The shop that sells Derek the magazine has apologised for not checking her entitlement to spend the 69p, stating that "she looked quite normal".

Written before I became disabled I had peace of mind knowing I could hop on the 86 bus! Can you really not see the difference between want and need?
Also I hope to keep leasing my car for five years. Many people do not want a new car every three years. The advance payments and adaptations can run into thousands.

of course I see the difference. And I also see that security is probably more necessary for someone disabled. What surprises me is that is at all cost effective given the price of a leased vehicle. it seems like old vehicle + cabs during repairs would be much more cost effective, but I could be wrong.

legislate to cap private rents.

Effect: scarcity. You want rents to come down? Build homes, lots of them. Councils should do this, and they should also move the ridiculously tight planning restrictions to spur private builders to build.

I think you could also fiddle with a stamp duty. If foreigners are pushing up prices, have a foreign stamp duty tax.

Effect: scarcity.

Nonsense. If BTL LLs do desert the sector in 1000s, it will just mean that 1000s of homes come up for sale at once. Which might allow more people to buy AND keep the cost of starter homes sensible.

written We live rurally, a cab to and from the nearest hospital is £60.00. We have two appointments this week, two next.

notaunique those that appear to be saving a probably in as much debt, if not more than you.

It's not that I don't give a damn about you and others, I'm just currently too tired to give a damn about arguing. Give me a couple of hours though...

Nonsense. If BTL LLs do desert the sector in 1000s, it will just mean that 1000s of homes come up for sale at once. Which might allow more people to buy AND keep the cost of starter homes sensible.

so your theory is that the price will plummet despite there being a housing shortage? you'll remove a part of the market, but not a lot. Also, now you have just removed the incentive for anyone else to build any new houses.

price caps for scarce resources only makes the resource more scarce because you remove the incentive to bring more of the resource to the market.