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.

@MyWhatICallNameChange
That is a ridiculous amount! It’s shocking the suppliers can get away with charging so much more!

" No you won’t get luxuries"

I saw an item on the news tonight where a woman was very upset because she couldnt afford to get a small present for her daughter to give her teacher.

Quite aside from how heartwrenching this was it also means there will be less spending in the cheaper shops which ppl on a lower income tend to shop in so they may go under.

When Sam Baker was still the editor of Red she wrote a really good piece about this for the accompanying website explaining why Peacocks nearly went under but Burberry was thriving.

I'm not sure what the future holds, but I could be caring for my son for the rest of my life. He may go into supported living, but funds are being cut everywhere. And why would the government want to pay thousand a day for that when they can get away with paying me £62.70 a week for being a carer?

So I might never "get back on my feet" and could be on benefits for a long time and don't deserve any luxuries ever because my son is disabled. And therefore neither does he, because I doubt he'd ever be able to get a full time job.

MyWhat

@Lollipop30
It wasn't a serious suggestion. I was just pointing out that perhaps those who think life on benefits is so easy and have no empathy for those who are might change their mind if they'd experienced it personally.

Actually, I was thinking earlier about women and jobseeking and expenses.

When I started college, I borrowed a tenner off my ex to buy hair colour and had DD chop off my waist length, frizzy, dry, damaged hair with surgical scissors we loaned from my ex. There's no way I'd have had the confidence to start college otherwise. I only managed that because some lovely MNetter's sent me their old clothes. Without their help, I'd have had literally nothing to wear to college that wasn't stained with bleach, worn and misshapen.

I was fortunate that I had the know how to teach DD how to cut my hair in a reasonably professional way due having done an NVQ level 1 in hairdressing when I was 16. I'd been working full time up until a few months before starting college but after bills, school trips and a seemingly endless demand for school shoes and tights, there was nothing left to spend on me.

If someone on a low-income, manual labour job (i.e factory work etc where you get a uniform and don't need smart clothes) loses their job, they're unlikely to be interview ready in terms of smart hair, clothes, shoes. How do they afford it?

@Fintons I know, but it actually really interests me as I’m well aware I’ve never actually experienced it.

MyWhat - so as a carer you get the same amount as someone just looking for work? Even taking into account your/your sons circumstances?

I have many friends on benefits with and without children. All have their rent paid, council tax paid, repairs paid for. They go on a couple of holidays each year, get tattoos, go drinking on the weekend, new clothes etc. It really isn't as black and white as it seems. When I see people on the news talking about fully able bodied people on benefits being hard done by if we don't give them even more money I just feel deflated as I see the reality of it around me.

I grew up in South East London, so I would say 40% of my associates and family are on full benefits and they have a brilliant time! (They do like to moan about it bizarrely though, like they're hard done by and should get even more would you believe it haha.)

The most common reason I hear for people not working is: when my rent is paid, children's school is paid for, council tax paid for and I have money left over to live comfortably why would I go to work just to pay for it myself when it's already given to me to stay at home?

£62.70 is for carers allowance. Plus I receive £45.35 income support (reduced because they take into account the carers allowance) tax credits, which are increased because I get DLA for my son, and then child benefit, the housing and council tax benefit , though i do pay some rent and council tax.

At least they understand I can't look for work (even if some people here don't) so I don't have to go in for meetings etc.

I can't bear to read about UC anymore. I'm on ESA in the support group because of depression and anxiety. The stress of the assessments and appeal nearly tipped me over the edge. With a teenage daughter and renting privately I can barely live on what I get now. And next year I'll be moved to UC and have even less. Housing benefit doesn't cover the rent, so part of my ESA is used to top up the rent. My house is damp and single glazed but all I could afford so heating costs a fortune. I don't know how I'm supposed to afford Christmas. And the five week wait for UC is a joke - rent has to be paid monthly, everywhere .. what were they thinking? My life won't be worth living and I'm not sure I'll have the strength to continue. I'd work if I could and hope to one day but at the moment I can't.

@Lollipop30
Ah, ok well, if you're really curious you could always live on that amount for 3 months discounting your actual rent / mortgage and subtract £250ish from the figure as though you were paying a rent shortfall. You could put the rest of your usual earnings into a savings account to enjoy at the end.

"In our area you get direct payments for sen children and adults to employ child care or adult supported living".

In our area you might get 4 hours a week if your child is very severely disabled. It 's for respite not childcare. The LA do not fund childcare. Then you have got the difficulties of finding someone to do it.
Childcare for some children can cost £30 an hour again with the difficulty of finding someone ( or 2 people as some children require 2:1) with the skills to do it.
The adults that I know of get up to 16 hours a week if they are deemed severe enough and this isn't free. The majority of their benefits are taken to pay for this.

Hedgehog your friends without children on benefits would get very very little beyond rent paid and council tax. They wouldn't get tax credits or anything else. I am amazed if they are going on holidays because my friend who was on benefits for a year really struggled just to live, I think after gas/electric/water etc was paid there was just over £30 left for food and everything else per week. He managed by being a good cook but there was certainly no extra money for holidays or unexpected expenses.
If you know people with no dependants managing holidays etc then my guess is they have extra income from somewhere else.

Yes when you have a benefits system there will always be those who take the proverbial. However how do you tackle that without causing more suffering to those genuinely claiming? My friend above could not have coped with anymore cuts to the benefits he got. Ironically his new job is working on UC claims ...he hates it because he says he can hear people in real despair with nothing and he can't do anything about it. Meanwhile several colleagues seem to have had the same compassion bypass that some posters show on this thread. They are judgemental and rude about claimants....my friend has to bite his tongue several times a day.

Very few families with disabled children or adults get Direct Payments. It's a nightmare to demonstrate enough need.

I am employed by a lady who does get them....she has severe mental health and physical health issues. These are not new health issues and have been present for a number of years. She's only been getting Direct Payments for the past year though as it's taken that long for the authorities to see that she really needs them.

I'm rather surprised hearing about people without children getting enough on benefits to live on comfortably. As a single person I get the standard £73.10 per week (ESA currently) and a reduction in council tax (though still have to pay some). I worked for many years and bought my own home on a mortgage so I don't get any housing benefit paid. Ignoring that mortgage, it still isn't really enough to live on when you include food, utilities, travel, insurances, general household products like shampoo, shower gel, cleaning stuff, loo roll, washing powder etc. I have internet access at home because it would cost me over £30 per week to go into the nearest library or the job centre.

I would LOVE to be working. However due to depression and anxiety (mainly brought on by my last job) I can't go for anything high level. But when I apply for lower level work I get told I'm over qualified. I have arthritis so can't do manual work, but not bad enough to count as an official disability. Yesterday I drove a 75 mile round trip for a job interview, that would be my daily commute if I do get offered that job. I had to pay for the petrol for that out of my massive £73.10 per week.

I work extra for little luxerys like extra holidays. I was in sen teaching and I volunteer for the nursing home. My partner is a high earner so yes tax is paired at 40% from both of us for whoever questioned it. The extra I work has to a decent amount of hours to make it pay off when 40% of the wage is taken away. So I work 10 extras hours in the hope we can have a treat with the money and pay £40 In tax leaving just £60 earnings meaning as it a low paided extra job I'd have to work another 8 hours to make the money. I work the low paid job as I enjoy helping the families and my main job is salary so no extra to be made

Your income tax isn't based on your partners earnings.

If you're earning £10 an hour and paying 40% tax you've got a hell of a refund due. Unless you either don't live in U.K. Or earning over about £46k in your main job.

Income tax is personal not household based unless you're using married persons tax allowance. And even that's only on £1100.

Like I said It is my extra job my main work is taxed at 40% it's around the £45000 Mark. I top it up as we save money for kids uni funds, deposits on property to invest.

Cabin have you thought that if you didn't do that "top up" work, someone else currently on benefits could be earning a wage?

Also my partner is 40% tax payer. Our tax bill is huge and I can't see where the money goes? Emergency services are struggling, cut backs leading to specialist services being shut down, no funds for equipment for the elderly. This is why we save so when the government can't provide essential needs for us if we were to become ill then we will have the money to fund it. What if I have a disabled gc? At least there will be money there for the child's extra needs

Well I took the work as parents were desperate for the break and I was qualified and insured to do the work. I am stopping it now as it's becoming a full time job, trouble is the parents can't find anyone wanting to do it or with the experience to do it. Also it's not very reliable work some weeks there may be none then the next it's overbearing.

Frequency So you have a basic hairdressing qualification?

You were living in poverty yet had a skill you could have used?

Sorry cabin I misunderstood your post where you said you were paired with your partner for tax.

And how do you suggest she afforded to buy a hairdressers kit Kath? They cost hundreds of pounds.

A level 1 qualification isn't enough to get a job in a salon either but you'd be expected to have your own kit there too.

Plus you need to be nicely dressed (not expensively but nice hair and look ok not in washed out clothes) if you work in hair/beauty.

No, I do not have a basic hairdressing qualification. I have a level 1 NVQ, which is a gateway to a level 2 qualification, which I am currently undertaking.

You cannot gain employment with a level 1 qualification. Level 2 is junior stylist, level 3 is fully qualified.

Also, I was 16 the last time I picked up a pair of shears and didn't face poverty until I was 30 and fresh out of an abusive relationship. Until finding myself trapped in an abusive relationship, I was doing quite well for myself. Abuse erodes everything you are. I was unwittingly pressured into leaving my well paid job for shop work, which I had to quit when my eldest suffered a mental breakdown.

By that time the qualification was useful for nothing more than trimming the kid's bangs.

She's now doing better. I'm now doing better. He's never done anything but land on his feet, such is the way with abusive men. I am working from home, not earning a fortune but enough to scrape by (assuming nothing important breaks) and I am at college again doing level 2 hairdressing, after which I will possibly do freelance hairdressing alongside my current job.