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.

Some people on here are mind blowingly sanctimonious! Suely we all appreciate that within any society there will always be those incapable of working through ill health or age. There will those who can't find work or are unexpectedly made redundant. Businesses close and work places disappear. Any one of us can become the victims of circumstance.

I am very concerned on the roll out of UC and how it will impact on those on benefits. The delays I have read about are totally unacceptable, tipping more, already struggling people, into further disaster.

I am also sick of the snide remarks about people having families that they can't afford. I would remind every one here that we are all probably the progeny of parents, grand and great grand parents who could ill afford families. The fact is no child in our country should be cold or hungry or poorly clothed.

Anyone who thinks that is none of their business would do well, in this Christmas season, to read A Christmas Carol. I fear many have more the attitude of Scrooge than Charles Dickens. Incidentally, I have always worked, raised three working children, and never claimed a penny in benefits. Thing is, I know that has been my good fortune and not because I am better than those who have had to depend on benefits.

I can't be the only person who thinks cabin is just trolling now.

I ever between thinking some people are shit stirring and/or intellectually challenged TBH

Or possibly they're michael gove

I've thought cabin was trolling for a while.

That said...I do agree that ideally we should on,y have the children we can afford. ...but it's not an ideal world. People make mistakes, people don't think and some families are frankly chaotic. Seen them in my work over the years. The thing is that they are few and far between....I can count on two hands the families I've met like that...over 30 years.

Most people will be working, raising children living life and trying to keep body and soul together mentally and financially. We have very high housing costs and wages which haven't kept pace with that.

There will always be those minimum wage jobs and while housing costs remain so high people in NMW jobs are likely to need a benefit top up.

If we said only those in high paid jobs/with independent wealth could have children then the schools would be empty...most people would not be able to afford it.

I've got one child, was in a well paid job when he was born and thought we were financially sound. Trust me...life can change very suddenly and unexpectedly sometimes. Not easy when that occurs and you suddenly find life hitting you between the eyes.

Some people don't even have to pay for scripts it's crazy
Yeah, let those poor people die, I mean what contribution do they make?

shh if you want to ease your conscience by believing that only certain groups should have children and you choose to tell yourself that's not eugenics, that's your choice, but trust me, it's eugenics.

In my opinion, if a child has enough to eat, is loved, as warm and comfortable as possible, is supported then said child has a right to exist no matter the income of the parent, nor whence said income comes from. There are people with disabilities who are unable to work, should they not be allowed children, because essentially you're saying they shouldn't as their income comes from the state. However, look a little closer and what you're saying is that they shouldn't because they're disabled, because of course were they not disabled; their income would not be from the state...

I ever between thinking some people are shit stirring and/or intellectually challenged TBH

^ This.

That said, I know people who think like this in real life. Ironically, one of the most ardent anti-welfare people I know is an employer who pays NMW, and hires five people on zero hour contracts to do a job that could be done by one full time worker and one part time worker.

The fuss he made when the NMW went up was unbelievable. If benefits did not exist, he would not be able to staff his business in the way he does. His profit margin would plummet and he wouldn't have four people on stand-by when one calls in sick.

That's what confuses me most about people with these views. High earners almost always rely on low earners to keep their/their employers business going.

And the thing with having children we can't afford - again, those higher earners would suffer without all the VAT, income tax and low cost work of the lower earners and their children.

Several posters think my view is tantamount to eugenics. I disagree. If it makes you feel better to think I'm an evil nazi because I don't agree with you, that's up to you.
My compassion got a little bit dented after all the people in my area who have benefited from EU inward investment voted Leave. Doesn't make me a fascist.

I have MS and don't need any sermons about living with a disability.

shh nobody is preaching, just asking you to question yourself.

Doesn't that cut both ways.

I would love another child but both me and DP are working 2 jobs and still barely affording it so we won't be having another one.

I was in the same position but apparently this makes me a eugenics supporter

I think you are wilfully dismissing me shh.

You are right, people are entitled to have as many children as they want, but they shouldn't then complain that they have six mouths to feed, six school coats to buy.......

We stopped at two as we knew that was the number of children we could support no matter what our circumstances are.

The next generation need to be taught budgeting skills, about pensions and mortgages. Also about prioritising their money. Maybe it would be better to offer vouchers for heating and food instead of money.

Gilead, you are determined to view my posts as saying I believe disabled people shouldn't reproduce and people in poverty shouldn't reproduce. Wilful misrepresentation of itself.
In fact, I'm saying- and have said several times - people should not have babies they can't afford and expect the taxpayers to pick up the bill in benefits. Yes I know there are special circs when people find themselves in this position and need state help but not everyone is a special circumstance.

See i didn't know I wasn't really going to afford her. She was unplanned. I was working full time and foolishly thought I'd be able to go back full time etc.

So I know it's my own fault. But I'd rather be skint than not have her.

Maybe it would be better to offer vouchers for heating and food instead of money.
Why? Why would you want to remove my choices?

No, shh I am not determined to do that.

Shh please explain the difference in "people should not have babies they can't afford " and "people in poverty shouldn't reproduce". In my obvious ignorance, I thought you were equating poverty with people not being able to afford things, but clearly you understand there's a difference between these?

I'm not living in poverty now. I can't afford to have more children.

A woman who I work with was telling me about her daughter who had never worked had two children in primary school, she split up with their dad and met someone new and was pregnant within 2 months when I asked why she had another child her reply was "she wanted one" her bf lives about 200 miles away!! Fast forward she has a baby who is going to be 1 in Dec and new baby is due in Feb her mother was saying how sorry she felt that her daughter was a single mum! Baby daddy is still on the scene! And how now it was up to the council to move her from her 2 bed property!! Ffs I wonder why I go to work and do shitty jobs and My husband works 7 days a week to pay the bills! So forgive me for not having too much sympathy! Genuine people yes cheats no!

What Booie09 has written is the reason why people have hardened their hearts on benefits and haven't voted for a socialist government in the last elections. Or we'll have more and more of the same.

Surely "poverty" is a sub-set of "can't afford to have more"? It doesn't mean you aren't saying people in poverty shouldn't have children.

Get the difference now, Allergic?

What tosh, Vivienne!