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 would always prefer to live 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 need in order to avoid giving to a few scroungers.

If only it was that easy. How do you achieve this without creating a benefits culture and actually incentivising a lot of 'scroungers' over generations to live on benefits?

why do SAHM get demonised if they are supported by the benefit system but not if they are supported by their husbands/children's fathers? what is the difference between a SAHM supported by the childs father and if the childrens father cant or wont support their children?

single mothers living on benefits are the source of all society's ills but the fathers who are not paying or doing their share get no judgement.

The difference is when supported by a partner your in a partnership. It is agreed by both parties that this is the case. Normally the stay at home partner does the graft at home supporting the other partner to work.

When claiming benefits it's your choice not the tax payers which is unfair. If I didn't have to pay towards people who don't work I wouldn't. We both work to provide a good life for our family and I'm at home ready for my dd at the end of school before anyone says I'm a crap mum for working

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?

www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/cmpo/migrated/documents/wp278.pdf

Most people who have partners both work....and tax credits will provide a top up which recognises the main caregiver often cannot work full time.

Or that's how I understand it.

Argh yes, the left wing Joseph Rowntree Foundation

OP, YANBU. Nobody can live off benefits. The solution should of course be that companies should pay a decent wage, housing costs should be much much lower, childcare better subsidised etc. I don't see any of that happening ever, so then we are left with the option of cutting benefits and increasing poverty or bringing benefits back to the level they were and help to further prop up the housing market etc.

Kath which bit of people dying aren't you getting. You do know that left wing is neither an insult nor a dismissal, don't you?

I liked Maggie t. She ruled the country well. "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Dog eat dog. Stop taking off the rich to feed the poor.

Your find that people are supporting those who need it.

Can you get a sen child minder? I say this as my employment until last month was in a sen school and I did extra hours childminding. All above board with insurance.

Thanks for that Frequency but until I read it properly a quick scan does not back up the Rowntree report.

Nobody said it was common, it was that Rowntree was based on a flawed data, which that study you linked proves.

Dog eat dog. Stop taking off the rich to feed the poor.

As much as I like to be a contrarian to stir the pot, that is just malicious shit posting and no decent person thinks that way.

Of course lots of people think that way. I only have to go to my local pub for a drink to share like minded views. I begrudge paying 40% tax on a fair whack of my wages and it has been pointed out it isn't going to the right places. If you can work then work and you shouldn't get anything if you don't. When people are hungry they will soon think twice.

And before anyone says I'm heartless I do my bit for society by volunteering to help those that need it

And before anyone says I'm heartless I do my bit for society by volunteering to help those that need it
how do you decide who needs it?

I begrudge paying 40% tax on a fair whack of my wages and it has been pointed out it isn't going to the right places.
What a shame. I never did.

kikisparks only on page 11 but wanted to give you a cheer for your list of necessities for a family.

I would only add "some disposable income for the small luxuries that keep you in touch with your peers who could help find you a job (and generally help keep your sanity intact)."

Obvious bait is obvious Cabin

If you're going to shit post you need to up it a little, your alternative username is gping to love this...

Well people who help themselves. I actually spend time arranging activities for a nursing home and keeping the clients company. Take them out.
Not a shame really just a bloody cheek of people to have such entitlement. I guess the gutters will always be occupied and maybe there is no place for such people in a civilised society.

What is this world coming to when people think others money should be shared

Well technically I can work, but I don't because I can't find childcare for a disabled 15 yo. So am I not deserving of help? And no, I know there is no childcare because I was in a meeting last week and another mum said she may have to give up work as there is no one to look after her 12 yo with SEN and even the council have admitted there is nothing out there for families who want to work but have children with disabilities.

Longwalk, that's scary about your friends child and PIP. My DS turns 16 next year and will be moved to PIP, and I'm terrified he'll be turned down despite the fact he can't be left at home alone or go out alone and although his speech is good he just repeats things over and over. My friends son was apparently miraculously cured of his autism according to PIP assessor! Amazing how turning 16 means you're no longer autistic.

I was so worried about going on to UC when I split up with my husband but it hasn't been rolled out here, so tax credits dealt with my claim fairly quickly.

And how do you know those people in nursing homes haven't spent their life on benefits? Have you checked out their financial situation first before deeming them worthy of your help?

Well the thing is they can't change there situation now can they so therefore need help.

In our area you get direct payments for sen children and adults to employ child care or adult supported living. I know because I used to do it. Also I have friends who worked at the school with me that have sen children but still managed to work. Ummm

Well lucky people in your area. My friend has been asking for 3 years for direct payments for her child who has severe mental health problems amongst other diagnoses. She's only just been told she'll be considered. Not accepted, just looked into. So they may still say no.

I have friends at DS's school who work too. They are lucky enough to have family or friends to support them. I know more who have had to give up work because there is no sen childcare here. Which as I already pointed out our local council have admitted to. Maybe they're lying?

Push as hard as you can. In Swindon borough council. Got some amazing sen schools here and an sen community that's so supportive to each other. You may lose hours if you use supported clubs such as top skip and jump.