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 am not saying "people in poverty shouldn't have children ". But if it makes you feel good to think I am there's not much I can do about that.

I didn’t know we couldn’t afford dd. Along with pregnancy came ms. I have been too ill to work for most of her life; I was the higher earner too, with the best prospects too. We were set, oh yes.

We are a lot luckier than some though, as we have functioning brains, resources, big families, were well educated (by the State and by our own parents) and so on.

I work pt now, less than 12 hours a week as more exhausts me and my immune system crashes, but it helps my mh to get out and do some work (and my employer and colleagues are great, they’ve pretty much invented a job for me which takes into account what I can’t do and what I can, let me work at home if I’m not able to get in, or take a couple of months off when I was crashing and burning with every bug going earlier this year etc etc etc).

Very few are as lucky as I am. Very few employers are as generous as mine.

We can’t afford dd, but we wouldn’t be without her.

Jux, fellow MS sufferer here too. A good employer helps. It's shit to find out while dealing with a little one. Me too.

Yes, your difference seems to be that some people who aren't as badly off as those in poverty shouldn't have children. So If they shouldn't because they can't afford it, logically those in poverty even more shouldn't have children.

So, you are saying those in poverty shouldn't have children. So how is that different to saying people in poverty shouldn't reproduce?

Most people have the number of children they can afford. I think the new rule about no extra money for more than two children is sensible. At the moment only the very poor or very rich can afford big families. That's a bit mad IMHO.

What shh, I and others re saying is people 'should' have the number of children they can afford and care for, whether they be in poverty, on benefits, NMW jobs, Managers or CEO's. It's unfair on children to be living in poverty because their parents have eight kids and no jobs.

..but nice try to claim the comments are aimed at just benefit claimants.

..but nice try to claim the comments are aimed at just benefit claimants.
And those with disabilities?

Oh, and there are very few families with eight children and even fewer in receipt of benefits.

What a lovely crew you are ! Twisting what one poster says when others have said similar.

Fuck me im astounded that so many people are jealous of council housing or poor people.
And to actually admit it in public life must be really crap to have that sort of mindset

Have to agree Needs. What an unpleasant world.

Here, here Needs. It's disgusting.

When I hear about people who have been unemployed all/most of their life, I don't envy them, I feel sorry for them.

What kind of upbringing must you have had for a life on benefits to be all you aspire to?

I've had well paid jobs, low paid jobs, made my own job when I couldn't find employment and everything in between and I always aimed for more and my upbringing was abysmal.

Why are we denigrating these people instead of helping to raise them (and their children) up?

im astounded that so many people are jealous of council housing or poor people

It's not jealousy, I don't want a council house or to be on benefits as want the best start in life for my chidren.

I think people who disagree with benefits just want a society that is responsible, where we don't reward the feckless and children aren't born into poor circumstances because their parents selfish wants outweigh everything else.

The system should be there for those in need, not those that won't help themselves or believe others should pay for everything as their sense of entitlement is overwhelming.

For most people, children and money do not immediately associate themselves in the mind. They are two completely separate things. I don’t think that most people thought like that, or do think like that. I suspect that it’s only in the last 10 or 20 years that the two were put together in the same basket.

I think it’s been media driven, without much doubt, and was another of the things done to divide and conquer the population. Get us all hating benefit scroungers, instead of wanting to help the less fortunate; resenting the disabled for their swanky cars and handouts; despising and othering whole swathes of our population when racism was outlawed and anyway wasn’t working as well as it had.

It has certainly worked, hasn’t it?

My taxes - when I was young, anyone using that phrase or similar would have been laughed out of town.

People are far less humane and tolerant these days. They seem a little dumber and a lot more selfish. That’s what it looks like to me, anyway.

Not one bit jealous of people in council houses!! I grew up in one and My Dad claimed benefits and free school meals for us back in the 80s when he was unemployed! I remember my mum buying all the cheap meat and stuff! But it was a means to a end not a lifestyle choice like SOME people!!

Yes I am heartless about it. I see people who have children then can't feed them but can afford to smoke. It just drives me mad. Maybe I don't understand because if always worked and supported myself no matter what effort it's taken. If gone without and growing up my parents worked hard. My dad was hardly home due to being in the forces. Then I see people on benefits not working and get family time and still have luxury bits. I just feel it's unfair that some people work hard and sacrifice things to support themselves and then others don't but expect to be given money. That money comes from the government in which tax payers fund. Is it really that difficult to understand my point. Not agree but understand

I think people who disagree with benefits just want a society that is responsible, where we don't reward the feckless and children aren't born into poor circumstances because their parents selfish wants outweigh everything else.

The system should be there for those in need, not those that won't help themselves or believe others should pay for everything as their sense of entitlement is overwhelming.

My issue is that there have been a few posts on here that seem to suggest that all benefit claimants fall into the category of feckless and selfish undeserving, though some of these posters do eventually admit that possibly there may be a few exceptions to that. Whereas the government's own figures show that the vast majority of benefit claimants are genuinely in need.

I'd also like to ask whether it's all benefits that people disagree with, or just certain ones e.g. JSA, ESA, state pension, child benefit.

I can see why people living in insecure, low quality private rentals are jealous of those with council housing. It might not be luxury, and a lot depends on the area where the council accommodation is, but you know that your children wont have to change schools every year or two and that you will be able to get to work/childcare etc.

I'd also like to ask whether it's all benefits that people disagree with, or just certain ones e.g. JSA, ESA, state pension, child benefit.

No issue with state pension or ESA.

I think JSA should be time limited to stop people being picky re jobs but should be contributions based and at a higher rate for the first three months.

IS I would like to see scrapped, all mums deserve to be treated the same so it should be maternity allowance/SMP then you either return to work or self fund.

I'd like to see all child related benefits scrapped in favour of schools getting more money. If people can't afford to have children then they need to step up and work/earn more or simply not have them.

HB should be far lower, especially in London. People who pay their own rent have to live where they can afford so it seems very weird that the government fund people who don't work or do a bit to live where they like regardless of cost.

Having a basic roof over your head and the basics essential to living is not a reward.

HB should be far lower, especially in London. People who pay their own rent have to live where they can afford so it seems very weird that the government fund people who don't work or do a bit to live where they like regardless of cost.

Unless you live in an incredibly cheap housing area almost all housing benefit claimants due to the LHA and benefit cap will be paying partial rent rather than having their entire rent paid for them

You do realise that many (not 100% sure but think it's the majority) of people on HB in the London area are people working in low paid jobs? Minimum wage jobs like cleaners, baristas, shop workers etc can't afford to commute in from a large distance, so if they can't get support to live closer to work then they can't do these jobs.

I live in a (for the South East) reasonably priced area outside the M25 for housing, a private rent 2 bedroom flat in my town is minimum around £700 per month rent, but commuting costs into London start at around £4k a year (about an hour on the train each way). That isn't do-able on minimum wage. A coach costs less, but takes 2 hours & runs at much more restricted times so no early morning or late night shifts.

But it was a means to a end not a lifestyle choice like SOME people!!
You clearly do not understand how JSA works.

By the way, I picked on that particular benefit because the "people should only live where they can afford" comment has come up many times, so I have a rough idea of the logistics regarding it. Unfortunately many of the essential services are very low paid, so to get these services in high property cost areas means you somehow have to help these workers.

Not sure you got JSA in the 80s!!