To think that bit is impossible to live off of benefits?

[Rolf38]

So Universal Credit rates are £498.89 an adult couple over the age of 25. This is meant to last them one whole month. So £250 per adult which works out at about £60 per week or just £8.57 per day.

How is someone meant to buy food, pay their bills and maintain a jobsearch at these rates?

I understand that some may think that by setting benefits at a low rate, there will be a greater incentive for recipients to return to work. This I understand and agree with to a point.

Surely though that danger of setting benefit rates too low is that it has the opposite effect. Claimants may reun the risk of getting in to debt, depression and lose the desire to maintain an active job search, along with any ambitions and aspirations they ever had.

Is met ting benefit rates too low a precursor to the increase of long term benefit claimants, simply by affording claimants less resources and willpower to maintain their job search?

After all, say if have been unemployed fir or three months. In this time, you have been so cash strapped that you haven't even been able to go to the cinema or meet an old friend, as bills and increasing debts have taken priority.

Without just a bit of enjoyment to boost morale, how less determined would a claimant be to give their job search their all as they would be if they could take their mind off of it for a bit.

For the couples payment too, I wouldn't be surprised if such a low payment to sustain two adults for a month may cause friction in the relationship, adding further restrictions to morale and job search.

Of course taxpayers money should be treated with the utmost respect.

However, is keeping benefit rates at such a low level proving more costly in the long run?

Why not add an incentive for job search for claimants? Increase UC payments by 10% for those who continually do all they can for their job search over a sustained period (say three months).

Such an increase, just form he most committed in their job search, would act as a continued incentive for the most determined to find work quicker (thus reducing long-term burdens on the taxpayers). Restricting an enhanced payment to just the most committed would also ensure that those not committed to athe or jobsearch and envisage a long-term existence on benefits find that this, beyond subsidence level, is not sustainable.

If you are doing everything you can in your jobsearch, why should you be unable to afford very basic enjoyments (even on a very occasional basis)? Why are those who put in the effort, in testing times, not differentiated from those who show no desire to come off benefits.

Perhaps in addition to sanctioning claimants who do not fulfill their commitments, the government should do more to help and reward the positive attitude to do all they can to get back to work.

I think a portion of benefits should be adjusted for tax payers - so beyond a base amount, people who have worked would get extra based on their tax contributions.

Raving that makes sense .

Ps however I don't think it should apply to disability .

A child is their responsibility and if they won't step up then we should have harsher penalties. So many seem to think their chidren shouldn't cost them anything as that's down to others to pay

So...parenting classes, budgeting classes, fines, community service, prison sentences, removal of children into the care system temporarily or permanently...what use is any of this? How will telling someone their child is their responsibility so budget better help anyone? How will removing children into the care system not cost the State (ergo the tax payer)? You know ‘care’ for the majority is anything but, don’t
you?

I don’t personally believe the majority believe someone else should support their children. I do believe that many people don’t live in the same world as the rest of us and don’t get the obstacles many face in working. Some obstacles just can’t be overcome.

A child is society's responsibility and not just that of the parents. Harsher penalties for parents affects the children who cannot change their circumstances.

Society needs to invest in children but it doesn't beyond providing the basics of education and healthcare.

There are thousands of children struggling out there and as a society or even as neighbours we need to ask ourselves what we are doing to make their lives better.

I attended a wonderful Christmas party on Saturday run by a group of volunteers. The party was for children who care for disabled parents. A young Carers project funded entirely by donations and goodwill of adults who want to make a difference. I went as Carer to a lady whose teenage daughter does lots of care for her. At the party were children of all ages able to let their hair down and have fun. A national supermarket chain provided all the food and the prizes. A DJ provided two hours of music before he had to leave to go to work in London, another adult offered face painting and the rest interacted with the children and helped them have a great time. It was an honour and privilege to be there.

Instead of talking about harsher penalties for parents we need to be looking around to see what we can do to help children living in difficult circumstances and how we can make their lives better. The Government doesn't fund any more than the bare essentials.

And in helping children I don't just mean the Young Carers of this world but all children living difficult lives.

I am speaking from experience. I know people on benefits who smoke and drink. Actually there family I'm ashamed to say. They are the people who can get jobs and can work. Instead have two kids and neither work but have a nice drug habit. Something somewhere is going wrong if people who need the help aren't getting it.

Cabin, there are people like that. They live on credit. But they're not the common denominator. Why have they got a drug habit? There are usually reasons. Are they getting help?

The majority of us on benefits are living very frugal lives and panic overtime the post drops through the letter box.

He smokes cannabis for fun and because it's the norm for them. It just makes my blood boil that there are people unable to work and struggle while they are living it up so to speak and both able to work.

I feel it should be the way that if you work your better off then not but I'm guessing that is already the case.

Jux, yes to pretty much everything you have posted.

And separately,relying to this from,sorry can't find who...

Gilead where I come from it's one man for himself ..mothers sleeping on the streets with new born babies because the government won't do nothing. You don't know how privileged you're. This sense of entitlement is why people don't come off benefits.

We don't have this here ( yet...) because we have a welfare system,because in the past as a society we decided that it was wrong for anyone to have to live like this.This may be a privilege but it's also because of a deliberate choice.Our society decided child labour was wrong.It decided that the workhouses were wrong.It decided that people should not starve if they could not work.People in this generation didn't make those choices but our ancestors did - it's not a random set of jolly useful benefits dropping from the sky,on entitled and overprivileged people beneath - it's the result of choices and changes our society made,because of judgements as to how humans should be treated and be able to live.

And to all those posters saying "don't have children if you can't afford them" exactly how much poverty and deprivation are you happy for those children to suffer because of their parents' poor choices? Because once the baby is here,it's here.I was talking to DS about the Romanian orphanages yesterday,and he didn't understand why children were there at all.We talked about how families couldn't afford to care for their children....

I'm retired. DH cleaned cars when he couldn't earn enough in his self employment. He couldn't get any unemployment benefits because I worked. It took two incomes, neither of us were big earners, to support the two children we had chosen to have. Fortunately they were savvy enough to realise they needed to get into careers with long term prospects, plus be prepared to move for work. Both are doing ok.

Now I volunteer for a charity, and people who are unemployed are sent on placement. The ones who have mainly worked muck in, take advantage of the training, and several have moved fairly quickly back into paid employment. But there are some who haven't worked in a long time (if ever), often because they have been SAHMs. Not because their partner earned enough to support them, but because benefits made it an option. Their kids then see not working as the norm, and so the cycle continues.

but because benefits made it an option. Their kids then see not working as the norm, and so the cycle continues.
Please look at the Joseph Rowntree research that clearly demonstrates that this is a myth.

He smokes cannabis for fun Is this your opinion or is it fact? What's his self esteem like? You have judged that they are able to work, perhaps they are, equally, perhaps there are underlying issues with which they could do with help. If they indeed are solely reliant on benefits, then they'll be having to log 35 hours a week job searching or they'll be subject to sanctions. I do not see how you can assume that they are living the high life on £73.00 per week, that is jobseekers allowance at the moment. It isn't a lot and if they're smoking and drinking they're heavily in debt. That is worrying too.

Explain why it's a myth or provide a link, please. Genuine request.

I would always prefer toive in a society which gives to a few undeserving members in order to ensure that no one in need goes without, than a society which fails to give to some in needinorder to avoid giving to a few scroungers.

Thst is the question underlyin everything here.

Which sort of society do you want for future generations?

And while you’re thinking about that, remember that the answer will also apply to the Justice System, the health service, education - all State provided services. Does your State act benevolently, catch all in need and a few chancers, or is it overly stringent and some who need lose out but hey, no scroungers? A few innocent go to jail but no guilty get away, and so on.

Disabled people are dying in this country because of the benefits system. Dying. Here. Now.

And their fulltime carers who have had to give upm their carreers to manage them fulltime, who save the Govt BILLIONS a year. (Only 'earning0 just over £1.00 an hour for 35 hours only).

and there ARE THOUSANDSof benefit scroungers out there who somehow are getting away with it. ,ost of them live in my area. and they boast and are smug about it.

Meanwhile , disabled me and disabled DC are freezing here. and BTW Im on a PAYG thing for any internet use, limitd, PC was given to us, as nearly everythings done online these days.

YANBU. It is. We wouldn't survive without help from family.

Oh, and to Yellow (and perhaps others?) when I said ‘our children’ the children I was speaking of were future generations, not my dd (though her too), not your children (though them too), and the children of their generation and the children of that generation and the children of the next and the next and the net.

But after a long discussion with my dd last night, I am much more hopeful that her generation - the under 25s - will make a better job of it.

Th8ng is that nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors.

Locally people might think my client is a work shy scrounger putting on her disability.

There are times she can walk the length of the town centre. There are times she can hang wallpaper and do all other manner of activities. What they don't see is that after doing any activity like this she is in bed for 2-3 days in pain. When she feels able to do stuff she does it....because she is a 39yr old woman who wants to do the kinds of things others of her age do. She pays for that and then some when she uses her rare pain free days to try and live.

Mostly she leaves the house by foot....she gets to the car and we might go to town and I take the wheelchair because actually she cannot walk very far.

We might go and drink coffee if she feels up to it.... mostly she doesn't.

People seeing her out might think there is nothing wrong with her, she can work etc etc but reality is that she can't and is unlikely to ever do so again.

You cannot say there are thousands of scroungers without knowing the ins and outs of each family you speak of.

They openly boast about not working. There are no self esteem issues just pure laziness and entitlement. They are getting into debt and have been helped on many occasions to pay it off by us. I wash my hands of them, now there sponging off my fil. It drives me crazy, they moan that they can't go on luxury holidays but go to Pontins 3times a year.

People who can work should and if they don't then tough have no money

They don't boast the boost

but because benefits made it an option. Their kids then see not working as the norm, and so the cycle continues.
Please look at the Joseph Rowntree research that clearly demonstrates that this is a myth.

That research was flawed as it asked for people who had never worked a day so any teen jobs, student jobs etc made ruled them out. Plenty just get work for the maternity pay then become SAHPs on benefits etc.

Tax credits were so bad for society we will be feeling the efffects long after UC comes in and likely its replacement.

That research was flawed as it asked for people who had never worked a day so any teen jobs, student jobs etc made ruled them out. Plenty just get work for the maternity pay then become SAHPs on benefits etc.
No they don't. Do you not understand the way the benefits system works? You have to log on for 35 hours a week and demonstrate your job searching. Or go without.
There are other studies, by the way.

I am a SAHM....it's not a usual set up because I have an autistic child but I don't get anything like Jobseeker's Allowance because for that I would have to demonstrate I am jobhunting..lI am not. I work very part time as a Carer in addition to caring for my child. I get some benefits...Carers Allowance, some tax credits (although not loads as hubby works) and DLA for my son.

Nowadays people with children over 5 (I think that is the age limit ) have to demonstrate they are looking for work. Actively show this...not just say "yes I have looked" but be able to show evidence of it. Otherwise they get nothing beyond tax credits which do not go far if you are in privately rented accommodation and need to top up rent or pay because you were allocated a place with an extra bedroom due to a lack of smaller properties.

Most people have to work in some way or other and many with children cannot do fulltime....I though that's why we had tax credits...as a recognition of that.

Well maybe if everyone was given the same regardless of earnings it would be more fair. Saying that they would tax 40% back anyway so would still be unfair

No they don't. Do you not understand the way the benefits system works? You have to log on for 35 hours a week and demonstrate your job searching. Or go without.

IIRC the 35 hours documented job seeking evidence is a relatively recent thing, and the Rowntree report that was cited has been acknowledged to be floored by many across the political spectrum (unless they are point scoring) as being flawed as Yellow highlights

There are other studies, by the way.

None that try to cover the same assumption the the JR one did, unless you can point to some?

Damn auto correct, non proof reading and shitty network whilst I'm on the train.