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.

for Yellow wanting IS scrapped, what nonsense. Men can claim income support so its not just mums. Also those with caring responsibilities and yes mums of younger children.. If IS was scrapped what help would those fleeing domestic violence get?

You would expect them to flee their homes, support their children and themselves emotionally and financially in the aftermath of physical sexual financial and emotional abuse (delete or not delete as applicable) and have to straight away look for a job or the 35 hours of job search necc to get Jsa also. Yes ofcouse they would have the mindspace, the clothes and the money to get to interviews and be able to do that.(sarcasm)
So they have a new area, new housing or hostel/refuge but hey no help for you???

Yep scrap IS then lets see how many women stay in abusive relationships and how many generations suffer because of the choices some will be forced to make. The government has already drastically cut support for dv organisations and a third of refuges have closed.

So many on here have had both an empathy and critical thinking bypass.

Hmmm but no empathy for those who tax bill is so large it could fund school fees

Cabininthewoods69 Thu 07-Dec-17 19:29:45
Hmmm but no empathy for those who tax bill is so large it could fund school fees

Exactly, Cabin.

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.

I might get flamed here, but I feel something is terribly wrong with this statement. I am against t the funding of minimum wage workers through benefits like HB.
It should be the employers responsibility to ensure that staff have a fair wage. One that allows them to have the means to do the work (housing, transport,...) It even had a name: living wage.

(And yes, I have recently lots my job and the job sites are littered with "employment opportunities" at minimum wage... but still want X years experience and X amount of qualifications. Employers don't pay and government is helping them... that's the route of all evil.)

A lot of the minimum wage jobs are in the public sector. How could these people survive without HB given transport costs for commuters? Who for example would clean the inner London hospitals, schools etc?

Even public service workers can be low paid Sinhue. I know, I'm one of them that relies on top ups to cover childcare and towards rent.

A lot of the minimum wage jobs are in the public sector. How could these people survive without HB given transport costs for commuters? Who for example would clean the inner London hospitals, schools etc

You turn a blind eye to the regular turn over of transient immigrant labour, as Corbyn is an advocate of, until you have a handle on and regulate who is needed in the country can you start tackling The base rate of wages.

Problem is that in a globalised economy it's intertwined in so many scenarios of companies moving ship for cheaper labour and or inflation kicks on massively, that's obviously simplistic.

Unfortunetly it's not a magic wand situation.

My last two jobs have been pretty low-paid - one at minimum wage and one at living wage. In both of those jobs, everyone had an undergraduate degree, and many had postgrads. When the minimum wage jobs are going to people who speak several languages, have a master's degree and have been doing relevant voluntary work, the options for people with basic or no qualifications are pretty slim.

Tax credits was paid to millions of people on good incomes until recent years. I think the cap was over 60k. I'm not sure what it is now. I think as the threshold for tax credits came down the dislike of them went up. I suppose people became less supportive because they weren't entitled to anything themselves.

A few years ago my manager in the public service was earning a below average wage and claiming tax credits for two children. It's not just shop workers and cleaners claiming benefits. Millions of people earn a low wage, more than half the country earn less than 20k. Many of those people are graduates, many doing very difficult and important jobs. People aren't usually in control of what they get paid, that gets decided for you.

Tax credits was paid to millions of people on good incomes until recent years. I think the cap was over 60k. I'm not sure what it is now. I think as the threshold for tax credits came down the dislike of them went up. I suppose people became less supportive because they weren't entitled to anything themselves

Whilst I don't doubt that is true, and we will gloss over the fact that many of today's problems are a direct result of introducing WTC when the ~~not true~~ Labour government introduced them.

My point was, that there were many many posts saying that they would happily pay more tax to help the less fortunate, right up until it actually hit them in the pocket, the same mental gymnastics was on display during the last GE with people showcasing incredible mental gymnastics that although they have more empathy than the evil Tory voters suddenly they should be exempt for earning above £75k because of anecdotal reasons.

It's nothing more than, at least on MN, a virtue signalling meme.

I was on 14k in my full time job but I wasn't entitled to any tax credits etc because it was 42 hours a week. I struggled to pay everything as I lived alone. Especially travel for work.

There were some weeks I had to choose travel over food.

Agree that we should not be needing tax credits to top up wages, what we need is a government to push for companies to pay proper wages and bring down the cost of housing. That doesn't seem a popular strategy though....

Well at least we do have a minimum wage, it wasn't that long ago that it was introduced (under 20 years). Housing is a case of supply and demand, and there are only so many homes you can put on the same convenient space of land. Though I'm still wondering how house builders can get away with calling £300k houses "affordable".

So here we go. The money that goes to those who don't work could stay in those who do work pockets.
So those who do work need to work more hours in which to make up that money to cover those who don't.
Therefore, those who work get less time with family and the children. Even though they made there lives comfortable and went without to ensure a security net. Still no one understands? Time is the only thing that you can't get more of.

Currently the Minimum wage is not enough to live on especially with family and high housing costs. It needs to be much higher.

At the moment I just get my rent paid. I am working occasionally Bank reception work). I would love to work full time but am getting nowhere!

I am lucky that I do occasionally get to the theatre as a friend can get £4 tickets. I have also occasionally been to the cinema. Which is lucky as I live in one small room so would be really depressing if I never went out anywhere!

I don't use foodbanks. I feel these are from families, really.

I do find that for me, UC has been better than the old JSA system, when I had to deal with housing seperately. Although UC took a while to come through, it was nothing like the old JSA system.

I am not saying it is perfect. It certainly seems to have mucked up other people.

I just remember trying to buy food under the old JSA system and mainly living on carbs! White bread, pasta. I could not even afford an onion some times so just had pasta and a bit of spread to put through it when I did not even have any tomatoes to put through. I am convinced this is what brought on my diabetes.

My last two jobs have been pretty low-paid - one at minimum wage and one at living wage. In both of those jobs, everyone had an undergraduate degree, and many had postgrads. When the minimum wage jobs are going to people who speak several languages, have a master's degree and have been doing relevant voluntary work, the options for people with basic or no qualifications are pretty slim

It very much depends on what career you are looking at. Someone may have a degree/Post grad/masters/several languages but if it's in fine dining and silver service I imagine finding a well paid job is difficult even though they are highly educated.

Not helpful that a "friend" constantly lectures me that "people should make sure they have enough saved up for at least months worth of rent/mortgage etc". She forgets I used to hear her get money from her father and was always getting bank loans etc. She was also in a regular full time job!!

Cabin have you missed the fact somehow that not everyone who is not working, wants to be unemployed? The sick and disabled, those who are caught in the age trap or the over-qualified for half the jobs under-qualified for the other half trap, or just live in an area of high unemployment. Single parents who are single through no fault of their own (widowed, deserted etc.) or have disabled children. To suggest that anyone who is not in gainful employment should be turfed out onto the streets and left to starve isn't quite to modern standards of humanity.

For those who do work, they can't just pick up more hours or do more jobs at a whim to earn more, they are stuck with the hours they are offered often zero hours contracts.

There are a finite number of jobs, especially bearing in mind that not everyone is physically or mentally capable of doing every job. Employers will tend to pay as little as they can legally get away with, and cut as many worker perks and rights as they can, to keep their costs down. They will employ younger people, so they can pay a lower rate of minimum pay. They employ "apprentices", so they can pay half rates then after the apprenticeship swap them for a fresh bunch. Every few months we hear of another case in the courts of illegal employment practices (think First Direct).

I do agree Allergic. I hate the stimatising of people on benefits and it is my firm belief that the vast majority don't want to be on them but have no choice. There are areas of this country where children are growing up hungry, poorly housed and ill clad. Even the schools have given up trying to turn back the tide of apathy and indifference.

If we really want social change we need to start with schools. I have stood in playgrounds where the staff have barely been coherant! It is a national disgrace that our children are shortchanged in this way. What prospects do you have if your teacher uses slang terms and speaks ungrammatically? If this was happening in the home counties there would be uproar!

Unemployment is too often the result of the London centric government's disregard of huge areas of the country. The inequality of opportunity is spectacular.

I wonder what would happen if we introduced a 3 day working week. All jobs are shared, so evryone who currently has a job would then have more time to spend in leisure, and unemployment would drop like a stone as people who have wanted to work suddenly find that there are many jobs to be filled.

If wages drop dramatically, no one can afford anything so prices drop - especially housing.

Eventually things will balance out, with twice as many people employed and many fewer unemployed. Good heavens, you might even find that the old and disabled are welcomed by employers!

Obviously there would be downsides to it. If you compare wages for similar jobs abroad, they will be lower, but everyone over here would be spending more time having fun and be far less stressed.

I know, silly idea. Like citizen’s wage is also a silly idea. I’ve been told lots of times.

I like your creative idea but 3day week has a bad reputation in this country from the 70s along with power cuts and bread strikes.

To answer the op, a sort of tiered credit to reward job hunters again sounds like a positive idea.

I don't think we could make it work - not allowed on this thread to talk about people exploiting the system because that NEVER happens - but I think it is better to start coming up with creative solutions.

The thing with tapering payments as people remain unemployed is it's not really workable if you want to keep things fair and encouraging.

If it's tapered by time unemployed, as suggested, what about the people desperate for a job but can't find one because they're too old/too qualified/not qualified enough/stuck in an area of high unemployment/lack sufficient childcare etc?

To spend a year desperately applying to anything and everything only to have your benefits slashed because you keep being rejected is gonna be a helluva kick in the teeth. You risk disincentivizing people who were trying.

I like the idea of a citizen's wage and studies have shown it does work but it's too unpopular with the 'my taxes' brigade.

Also, no-one has said that benefit fraud does not exist or there aren't a tiny number of people who try to game the system in their favour. It does. There are. But the numbers are minute even by the Gov's own estimations. You cannot condemn whole swathes of people to poverty because less than 1% of claims are fraudulent and 1.1% of claims are long term.

I don't think that anyone has denied that there ARE a minority who exploit the system, just that the implication that all claimants are scroungers, feckless, living the life of Riley etc is very unfair.

I sort of also like the idea of tiered JSA but we sort of DO have a tiered credit system for JSA that works the other way round. If they think you haven't jumped through enough hoops every single day then they sanction you (i.e. stop the JSA for a time) - so punishment for not doing it right rather than reward for extra effort. This can be done for as little as missing the deadline for one job the advisor has asked them to apply for (despite applying for many other jobs), or in one case that was overturned on appeal making the assumption that because the claimant didn't complain about a shortfall in payments in under 3 days they must not need it, therefore they must be working! (He was a lad living with his mother, only checked his account monthly when he paid her keep from his JSA).

The thing that always confuses me however is that NMW is supposed to be the minimum it takes to live on. JSA (and ESA) is roughly one quarter of that, which is also stated as the minimum amount the government thinks one person needs to live on (regardless of circumstances). So sanctioning people by their own definition means that the sanctioned person doesn't have enough to survive on for possibly months at a time.