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 was under the impression having it on a timer thermostat - if you have one and keeping the place heated to a certain temp was better than putting it on or off whenever ?

As in energy saving ?

I take it that retirement at 31 is a typing mistake. But you've enough saved to retire at 31 and be self-supporting for the rest of your life. But you have a DH working to support you and own property that is rented out. Presumably all financed on your own. Not sure how this adds up.,

Only if it very cold should you have it on all day very low to protect the pipes. Used to live in Russia. Know about this stuff. In very cold countries the pipes are on the inside but not here where it is only occasionally freezing cold.

Not that it matters but mine usually comes on at 18 or below - less if I’m away for the weekend as you say for the pipes.

But I really did think it was more economical. Perhaps not.

I don’t think it’s impossible to live of benefits, however it’s a real struggle for some people.

I work alongside this sector and some people are hugely struggling and require food banks etc... then others are having nights out and takeaways several times a week and buying cigarettes (I’m not even sure if that’s spelt correctly ) , the people who I see mostly affected are people with real disabilities, and those with young children and this time of the year is hellish for some of the people on benefits.

And when I say those with real disabilities, it because I’ve met many of frausters who apparently cannot walk with support etc... then evidence comes to light of them working on building sites/competing in physical sports competitions

I bet the ones flashing the cash are getting it by other means ..

I bet the ones flashing the cash don't exist...

I’m sure they do. Fraud does happen. Not as much as the daily mail would like us to believe but it happens.

No typo I invested my savings so could support myself on my returns. The support from dh would be for treats. I don't live in a big house a small two up two down as wanted to pay it off and just never left. Also haven't decorated downstairs at all but have got a new kitchen that we will fit to save money. We do all the work on our cars and if always driven an old banger so it's cheap. I budget well for food and have a basic phone contract.

I get maintenance from my dd dad so that helps and is £150 per month which pays for her clubs. It's so doable if you are willing to do the hours and go without. Also good paid jobs help.

I very much doubt there are many benefit fraudsters. I don't know any

That's good, I hope you accept other people's personal anecdotes just the same as you want others to treat yours.

I do agree about unclaimed benefits though, stats do show that it's a larger number than the percieved benefit fraud, but it's not a zero sum game.

In the UK and the way UK boilers are designed it’s better for a boiler to be on 24/7 on an even temp, not long attended a multi agency conference in relation to this.

Our boiler is pretty new and, no, along with all the energy saving info, we were not advised to keep it on all day. Unless there is a risk of freezing pipes.

Sorry that should also say it’s more economical, more cost saving and more energy saving also.

Still not going to flush my money down the toilet by heating an empty house unless there is a risk of freezing pipes.

Fraud happens, yes but in miniscule numbers and generally not to the extent that fraudsters are waving wads of cash in the faces of strangers.

Mostly, they're people who are taking low paid cash in hand work to make ends meet.

The total fraud across all benefits is estimated to be worth 1.2% of the whole budget.

Each to your own, it’s only advise not law. Everyone has there own way of doing things.

My boiler isn’t on all day. Only if the temperature drops it comes on for a few minutes until it rises again.

Thanks Haud. I will look into whether it is more economical to have it on low all day. But I'd need some convincing.

I think we should have a basic amount for all people, a universal income. That doesn’t change with income.

I think those unable to work at all or need extra for disabilities should have an extra amount.

Universal income is an interesting idea. Don't agree with it but keen to hear the arguments.

And when I say those with real disabilities, it because I’ve met many of frausters who apparently cannot walk with support etc... then evidence comes to light of them working on building sites/competing in physical sports competitions.
Only you haven't met many of them have you, because the government's own figure is less that 0.05%.

Do you think the figures are low for Freud as they just don't get caught

I think there are many arguments, interested to hear the anti ones too, but as I’m Pro here are some:

• it rewards everyone for working. There isn’t a benefit trap where you are better off not working
• it takes away all the incentives not to work or to play the system I.e. there isn’t more if you are single vs married
• it lifts everyone at the bottom, whether in low paid work or not, to a higher minimum level. Even that small increase at the bottom is a huge reduction in inequalities.
• it takes stigma away from ‘choices’ that are still contributing to society - caring for your mother, being a volunteer.
• it starts from a position of looking at individuals as positive contributors rather than scrounging dependents - assume someone contributes and in all likelihood they will.
• quite possibly, according to some economists- same amount of cost as the huge complicated benefit system already.

I don't see how they can not get caught when they're parading around their 60inch TVs in the back of their 4x4 on the way to their fifth holiday this year and every MNetter and their dog knows exactly what they're up to

But, no. You have to show a lot of evidence to receive most benefits, so they'd be pretty hard to scam except for in obvious ways i.e taking on cash in hand jobs on market stalls and take-outs etc aka all the places the DWP check on a regular basis.

For the most part, the Gov tend to overestimate fraud.

Only you haven't met many of them have you, because the government's own figure is less that 0.05%.

Gilead I’ve met thousands of them, as I’m the one trying to get the overpayments back. (Housing benefit)