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.

["[who's going to ] Clean their schools and serve their lunch? Who will empty your bins, sweep your streets and tend to your parks? Who will cut your hair, manicure your nails and spray tan your skin?"
Happy to clean and sweep etc. My hair isn't cut by a workshy person. I do my own manicures and think spray tan looks shit. But I know the people who do that have trained for it. I respect them as I respect anyone who works or is actively looking for work or is genuinely unable to work for health reasons.
I don't respect people who don't bother.

Yes I totally agree to respect where it's due.

But if you've never worked how would you ever know? Assuming it's 'not for you' isn't an excuse.
Why do some people just get the choice not to work then because it's hard and others have to suffer because they don't have the option to just go on benefits?

I have had periods of not working and the main difference for me is not financial but my mental health. I have one friend who doesn't work I think working would be good for her.

One of the reasons I do work is for my daughter. I don't think her seeing me doing nothing constructive is a good example.

Do you know what, im quite happy to support people who are less able, less fortunate, who have less chances in life, who have all of the lack of opportunity that comes with poverty.

And if that means the odd workshy able person gets a few quid in the process so be it.

Better that than one person or child in need goes without.

And as for this concept that the poor shouldn't have children

I totally despair of some people. I don't know how you become so brittle, so lacking in empathy, so small and narrow minded and shallow and selfish. But I sure as heck know none of them are admirable characteristics and I do feel sorry for their inability for personal growth.

And I do know what I want to model to my children and how I want them to remember me. Not as a grasping nincompoop.

Everything Rjnomore1 said. Well said.

So it's ok to have a child that you can't support Then? It's ok to let people sponge? Maybe it should be a choice for people who can help others who they help. It could be time or money or teaching skills.

It's ok to teach children if they can't provide for themselves it's ok to get others to provide for them.

To be absolutely honest no it isn't cabin.

Because it's wrong as a society for people to be in a position where they can't afford to. And it's bad for everyone.

If you're genuinely interested I suggest you go look for and read "the spirit level" to understand how equity in society benefits all.

But I suspect you're not interested at all apart from being able to come on here to try to rip holes in other people in some attempt to make you feel superior.

No I'm not trying to feel superior I'm just sick of my money going to people who are work shy and don't even try to improve there situation.

And I'm sick of reading unsubstantiated tosh.

It's not your money anyway. If you want to keep it fair enough as long as you're willing to opt out of using state funded medical services, schools, environmental services, subsidised public transport, public roads, state pensions, street lights, etc etc etc.

Then come bleating about "your" money being misused and I'll listen to you.

But to be honest your current "it's mine" argument is making you sound like a four year old with a bag of sweeties.

It is "my money". Just as it is my money that pays for schools etc.
And I don't mind it helping the welfare of those who need it. But I do mind it going on people who waste it.
If it's not my money and your money and other taxpayers' money, whose is it?

What's wasting exactly? Would you care to define? Are we back to to the Victorian deserving and undeserving poor? That worked well...

It's society's money. It's the contribution we make to live in a civilised society where we have access to services and infrastructure and support for those less fortunate at times - even if our own experience and empathy is so small we cannot even begin to comprehend or imagine how and why they are less fortunate.

So not wanting people to have children they can't afford means no empathy or being selfish?

Is it not selfish to have children to have children you can't afford? Who does that? The children suffer for the parents selfish decisions. In turn it creates another generation of workshy people as they will simply copy their parents as that's all they now. It doesn't matter how much teachers do, children usually follow their main role models example.

Most people have the children they can afford, most people aren't benefit scroungers, most people are tax payers who are massively struggling in the current economy with little if any safety nets, provision for the future etc. I'm sure we all know that.

Everyone in low paid jobs is at risk of needing benefits....everyone.

I am in a street which has a lot of social housing I know only two houses where nobody works. One is a disabled lady ....severely disabled plus in and out of hospital. The other is ....a nightmare...to us and certainly a nightmare be to any potential employer and she is not employable. The rest of us work...the woman three doors down from me works three jobs to support her family,

So no workshy people here but plenty claiming benefits to top up poor wages so they can survive.

Seeing comments like "stuff the poor" rankles me because most of us in that situation did not choose it. Instead life threw us a curve ball and we cope the best we can when that happens.

I thank goodness I am no longer in that situation and life is much easier.

I also give thanks that I am not a cold hearted compassionless entity unable to see that life can sometimes be very hard.

Where are all these workshy people, apart from in the daily mail?

Not being able to comprehend that the desire to have children is a basic biological need which can become overwhelming for many people if denied absolutely is showing a lack of empathy.

To insist it should be denied to many on the basis of finance in a country where there are plenty of resources to go around is flatly disgusting.

And none of that acknowledges that even if the parents ARE being feckless, removing resources from the parents just punishes the children and pushes them further and harder into the extremely complex cycle of deprivation .

But rock on with the simplistic hate of the poor. I guess it's easier.

Or you have people who have children they can afford, and a mortgage they can afford, and a reasonable lifestyle they can afford, then the company who employs the main breadwinner does a round of redundancies and gets rid of all the higher earners. So you have a guy (we'll assume guy, could just as easily have been the wife but in this case it was the husband) out of work in their late 40s. They start looking round their own industry, but keep on "just missing out" to a younger guy, or someone whose uncle is a director, or belongs to the right golf club. No-where out of their industry will take them at anywhere near the same level, because they can get people who are the exact match rather than take a chance on someone.

Not me, but people I know & have known for years. He's now driving a home delivery van for a supermarket on not much above minimum wage, took him about 9 months to get that job. Strangely his "Daily Mail reader" attitude about "benefits scroungers" has changed a bit since then. He's still trying to get a better job, but once you've been out of his industry more than about 2 months nobody will even look at your CV. Can't get most of the jobs he applies for as he's overqualified "and will leave as soon as something better comes along" so the job goes to a school leaver. At least he's got a reasonable pension for when he can retire.

I lived through the 80s . I am fully aware of working people getting made redundant. We rightly have a welfare system that seeks to help people in that dreadful situation. It is not there for people to exploit.

A number of posters citing their own experience have shown that some people do try to play the system. I certainly know people who do or have done and have told me they do or have done.
Having children is not a human right. It just isn't.

Jesus, Marie Stopes is alive and kicking. Don't have children if you're poor because it equates to being feckless. Victoriana, right there.
What a disgusting attitude. The sweeping generalisations are ill informed, obfuscatory and the most narrow minded I've come across in years. Whilst some of you blab on about comprehending people hitting on hard times, you talk equally about not being entitled to have children, or not choosing to have them if you're poor. Who decides who is poor? What if a person on less than NMW and topped up with benefits chooses to have children? You would want to remove that from them? Listen to yourself, check out the path you're travelling on before you go any further, eugenics is scary.

I didn't know I was going to be in this position after having a child. However getting rid of her wouldn't have been an option.

I was working full time with no idea that smp was so low etc.

My own fault for not researching it but I can't change it now. All I can do now is work as much as possible to get money.

But if you know you can't afford to expand your family, you can't afford it. It isn't the path to eugenics. Very insulting to suggest you are a eugenisist if you think people, including yourself, should only have the children they can afford. Which I do. Me and my MS do not believe in eugenics but we do believe in being practical.

Does, you are an impressive person. Saying that doesn't put food on your table but I'm saying it anyway.

In an ideal world every child would be a wanted one and planned for one.

It's not an ideal world.

And we are supporting children who..let's face it, cannot support themselves.

It's not necessarily a given that children of workless parents will also be workless. I know a lady who had five kids....never worked a day until the children were grown. She now works on the UC helpline and is very judgemental about "scroungers who don't pay their way".

All her children are wither working or in full time education.

My sister started her adult life on benefits after falling pregnant as a teenager (antibiotics given without a warning they would affect her contraception). Her daughter is now 28 and a fully qualified teacher. Her other two children born when she met her husband also work full time. That said ....she was working once the children were old enough and her hubby has always worked full time.

Much more emphasis these days on preparing for work when pupils reach teenage years.

My son attends a Special school but twice a week he now has lessons about employability under PSHE. Next year he will start doing some work experience which will be interesting. He thinks life is hard now haha. ...oh he has a shock coming.

I think you need to read up on positive eugenics shh.

Btw the right to family life IS a human right. You may want to consider why you believe people are worth less and should be punished because they are in poverty.

The current divide and conquer undeserving approach of the government has admittedly done a good job but I think as UC rolls out and the low wages realise they're now lumped in with the unwaged in the im surplus to society's needs section a sea change will start to occur.

If you need the government to topup income then clearly you can't support another human so shouldn't have one. I feel I can say this as the reason I only had one child was because it would affect our lifestyle and money would have been tighter. Then there are uni fees and investments for the children's future.
I would happily pay for all the services I use. Already pay for bins etc with council tax. School I pay for every term so no bother there. And I have private health insurance but still use docs for everyday appointments and pay for the scripts. Some people don't even have to pay for scripts it's crazy