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.

In other parts of Europe the jobseekers benefit is tied to their previous employment. So if you were a bank manager made redundant you would receive a much higher job seeker allowance that someone who had never worked. Nor would you be expected to take ANY job....but one which meets your experience.

However I have no idea how long that lasts for but it seems a better system. The job seeker staff would find you as near as possible a similar role and if offered that you would be expected to take it.

*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.*

and the genuine, disabled etc are guilty by association because of the above. makes me sick. (IVe said upthread me and DC are severely disabled)

Not seen a single post on here disagreeing with benefits or a single post saying that benefit claimants are, by definition, shirkers. Nor have I seen a single post suggesting people with disabilities or those whose children have disabilities are not fully entitled to extra benefits not linked to employment.
The concern is the system being exploited. Or the system disincentivising work. Plenty have said they have seen it. Plenty have said it's so minimal as to be irrelevant and used as an excuse to cut benefits from people who need it. Plenty have assumed that comments are nazi inspired.
Really not getting any where positive.

Did you miss the "stuff the poor" post from cabin further back shhh?

That for me was where the bottom of the barrel was scraped quite honestly,

I think those who can work should work.

I think those that can't for whatever reason should be supported.

And I think we need to stop telling disabled people they are fit for work when most employers don't want anyone they have to make adjustments for.

Instead we need to enforce the legislation put in place so that disabled people who can work are able to do so without the current shit thrown at them.

Stuff the poor that can work but don't. Is that better for you. I have previously said about those that need support should get more and that I voulenteer to help those that need it. Was also slated for that which I funny. Just feel there are people who make excuses not to work and ones who make excuses to only work a few hours. If these people didn't take advantage then I would be more then happy to pay and more to better there lives.

Yes Cabin that is MUCH better but be honest...that was not the tone of the post where you said this. It was just "Stuff the poor".

Yes everyone who can work should do so.

Children cannot work and so must be supported....even in the kinds of families where life is chaotic. Indeed it might only be that support which ensures they eat regularly and have a roof over their heads.

The parents....yeah I get frustrated sometimes too when I see them prioritise the new phone, addiction etc over the needs of their children. But we need much better family services to address this....and instead of doing that we have slashed funding and support.

Ssh I copied Cabin's post in an email to a friend, the one that MN took down, so I could quote it word for word or send it to you in a PM. I won't copy it directly here but the wording did include dividing the country into "fuckwit benefit scum" vs "taxpayers", and no other type of person considered.

DeloresJaneUmbridge- but your post does outline exactly the kind of problem that has been identified.
Some people have children in order to fund their addiction, new phone or roof over their heads. They have no interest in the welfare of their children, they have no interest in changing their behaviour ... often this lifestyle is all they have ever known. How do you propose to change a whole section of society that in my opinion is scared of change, scared of leaving everything that gives them security? Scared of the unknown? Scared of not fitting in? Scared of a different kind of structure?
Taking money away/ reducing benefits is one answer...

Taking money away/ reducing benefits is one answer...

Unfortunately that won't work if the people are already prioritising inessentials, there will just be even fewer essentials that are got for the children.

How do we justify giving someone the minimum needed to live on, and then giving them even less? By definition, they now don't have enough to live on.

How does that work? What does the sanctioned person do? What if they can't beg, borrow or steal? What happens to them?

I know!! Let's build work houses for them.

I don't think so.

Taking money away/ reducing benefits is one answer..

Reducing benefits will make some work, for others they will just prioritise their children even less.

Vouchers could work similar to the healthy start vouchers where they can only be spent on certain things. When they can't buy any luxuries etc I'd imagine a lot would start to develop a work ethic.

I would look at whether a voucher system has worked in other countries before going down that route. All places accept money. Would they all also accept vouchers? What would be the implications to the traders? Cash helps people have some flexibility in terms of budgeting. How would that flexibility be guaranteed with voucher system. Etc.

Pretty sure our local supermarket - Morrison's- accepts vouchers (or accepted them when I spent time in the baby aisle a few years ago and saw signs up). It's no skin off their nose to participate.

Vouchers remove choices from those of us capable of making them. Vouchers are unlikely to be accepted on (for example) my local fruit and veg market where the cost of a shop is ten pounds less than at my local supermarket. Vouchers do not allow me to choose between types of goods, something that can be important. Again, my local butcher frequently has deals not available in supermarkets; eg. 5lb of steak mince for £5.00. Education is the answer, not vouchers.

Well vouchers don't suit you so no vouchers, then.

Perhaps vouchers should be for those identified by relevant agencies as making poor choices/decisions with respect to their children.

If that went hand in hand with education shh, I would have no objections.

Agree about education Gilead.

Gilead

The reality is that the type of child that education of this sort would be most beneficial to is that the type of child that in all likelihood has no commitment or interest in school, high levels of absenteeism and ultimately does very poorly in exams.

Additionally, what do you see this education comprising?

I presume you mean education for the parents on how to make better choices for their children.

shhhfastasleep

Same applies

The reality is that in most cases where a parent and their child would get benefit from such education - is the type of parent who likely won’t turn up / won’t be committed / won’t grasp / won’t pass on.

But education does not work... I mean we have this discussion about people on benefits and marking poor choices in regards to their children's needs.
All these people have been to school, they had the opportunity to learn but didn't or failed on many levels. (I don't think they have been failed by the school, more by not knowing / not engaging with what is being offered.) Education is only an answer if the person to be educated actually wants to learn.
And then you have a secondary problem of who or what kind of person is doing the education.
If like to see a voucher or a type of referral system like with food banks for people who can't make choices in regards to their children's needs. I think if you have to rely on the state, the sate can and should dictate how to help the individual.

Yesterday I was called a nazi for daring to suggest that people make shit choices (including having children they can't afford) and expect the taxpayer to pick up the pieces.
Weird thread, now.

Ylva, the state already can and does dictate how individuals are helped. Just because some people on benefits are hopeless doesn't mean that everyone is. Many will be able to budget and use the money productively. i agree though that for the worst cases where the money is clearly being used for addictions etc and children are neglected, the state could interfere more, maybe bring in vouchers as a trial.

But then I guess neglect cases would fall under social services rather than benefits.