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.

Scampi, previous generations did also recognise that conditions needed improving.

scampiandchips1 Sat 09-Dec-17 20:33:03
Iamyourequal and User149

How can you even compare the life we have to the life people during the first and second world war would have had?

When did I compare that?

I live in an ex-mining town. My gran has fond memories of neighbours turning up with steaming hot casseroles when my great grandad was out of work (miner)

The whole town rallied around the miners, giving them food buying them the occasional pint down the pub, even people who had little to share chipped in to make sure the ex-miners were as comfortable as possible until they found new employment. Similar attitudes in mining communities across the north are well documented.

Not once did anyone sneer at them or declare that they should have thought about things before having children on a low-income with an unstable job or whinge about the little the gov did provide.

Attitudes towards worklessness have changed, you're right about that bit but it's not for the better.

There is no one-size-fits-all benefit claimant but there are a lot of ill-advised opinions on here about how everyone should be treated the same.

Try finding yourself a single mum through no fault of your own with an exH who cleans out your bank accounts and leaves you with not even £1 to feed yourself and your child. The only choice you have is to go on benefits until you can find a job to support yourself and regain the mental strength to take him on. It's not easy to be mentally strong with all the pressures that come with this kind of situation.

All the people I've encountered who are on UC and trying to start their own small business to get themselves out of the shit are the same as me - older, desperate to work, are continually rejected for jobs and have low self-esteem because of the circumstances they are in. None of them are scroungers, they just had a change of life circumstances which meant they needed some support for a while.

Please don't tar everyone with the same brush. It's impossible to sustain a life on UC but that's exactly what some people will have to do because they are rejected at every turn. No wonder mental health issues among the unemployed are growing exponentially. Someone said we should pump more money into the NHS instead of giving benefits - well, the NHS will certainly need it if the government do nothing to help people get back into work.

Wonderingstar

You are right, there isn't a one size fits all. In Spain they give benefits for 3 months only to people in situations like that or, or when people lose their jobs. I totally agree with that, that's enough time for someone to sort themselves out and find work and sort out childcare etc.

Thats bollocks, Spain's equivalent of NSA can be paid for up to 2 years. It's also based on a percentage of salary probably about 1/2 to 2/3.

Posted too soon sorry. It's increased if you have dependants and that's just the part that's contribution based, it can be followed by means tested afterwards.

It may have changed so apologies. But what Spain have got right is that there is a time cap on it, so people do not become dependent on it, just see it as a temporary way to help them out of certain situations. That's how benefits should be viewed by healthy people who are fit to work, a temporary fix.

No, there's a time cap on the enhanced amount then you go to means tested.

From Wikipedia
This is such a better system than we have in the UK in my opinion

Benefit Amount and duration
The unemployment benefit is paid for a minimum of 4 months and maximum of 24 months, based on the period that the unemployed person has contributed.

The benefit amount is based on the most recent 180 days salary with both a minimum and a maximum amount. The average daily salary of the last 180 days is multiplied by 30 to arrive at a monthly benefit base. The monthly benefit amount is 70% of the monthly base for the first six months of unemployment and 50% of the monthly base for additional months, unless limited by the minimum or maximum amounts allowed. The base amount is supplemented if the unemployed person has dependent children. A dependent child lives with the recipient and is either under age 26 or 26 or older with a disability of 33% or more. A child may not be a dependent of multiple unemployment recipients.

If you are using Wikipedia, read down to"non contributory benefits". You've only pasted the top part of the entry.

It's similar in idea to contribution based and means based jsa. Except you get a higher amount of contribution based and up to 2 years of it instead of up to 6 months in U.K.

Anyway - if it's such a great system why is unemployment sitting at 17% in Spain?

Because their economy isn't as strong as ours and there are less jobs available. They are not in a strong financial position at the moment.
The UK has a much better economy with so many more jobs available, that's the reason our stats are better, it's most definitely not because of the general work ethic of the UK population!

Interesting article complete with challenges about employment in the strong U.K. Economy

uk.businessinsider.com/unemployment-in-the-uk-is-now-so-low-its-in-danger-of-exposing-the-lie-used-to-create-the-numbers-2017-7

I have no choice on living off benefits as im a carer to my disabled dd. Its hard and lonely. Ive developed mental health issues and now on meds and cbt therapy. I would love to work although i do go college once a fortnight which i love but i did not choose this life i have now. I loved my job before my dd had developed her hip condition and sadly gave up as had to care for her. The government do nothing to help carers. Carers allowance is pitance and income support. Its no fun. But i manage best i can as i got no choice.

scampiandchips1

Here we go again. The vast majority of claimants don't "choose" to live off benefits. They choose to work but for one reason or another, they can't find a job. I was lucky enough to get a temporary job for 9 months but because of government cuts they couldn't keep me on as they didn't have the funding. They wanted to but their hands were tied. I thought I had nothing better to do than apply for something else and it would be mine as I had done in my 20's and 30's. 160+ applications, 0 interest and 12 months later, I'm still living off benefits otherwise how would I survive??? Would you have me living on the streets with my child? BTW, I only have the one. I would relocate my entire family but without a job offering a relocation allowance I just can't afford to. I would re-skill but the DWP don't provide any funding.

I've worked all my life and paid astronomical amounts in tax until I took a break to have my DD and run my ex-H's business. I don't want "benefits", I want some tangible help to get me back into work. That's not on offer.

How can it be right that there are skills shortages in the NHS, in teaching, in IT and we bring in staff from overseas to fill the gaps yet we can't see the sense in training British people to do those jobs?

And the thing about Spain. They have a different culture. Generations of families live together in one house and they all contribute towards living expenses. When leaving school, the kids are told by the government which degree they are allowed to follow depending on the skills shortages at the time. They don't need to provide the same benefits as we do because families support each other and much of the work is seasonal so in all likelihood, people find work in the summer then go back into the benefits system in the winter. I know people who do it and have followed this pattern for years.

Scampi you do realise a lot of people on benefits are actually in work but their wage isn't enough to live on.
Don't assume everyone on benefits doesn't work

In the past few months, part of my job involves working on a project assisting unemployed people on JSA or UC with job searching e.g. CV writing, job application forms.

A significant proportion of the people I've met are aged 55 or older. They've done the same type of work for years, which is often fairly physical eg cleaning and in some cases quite specialised. They've then suffered ill health which has left them unable to do the job they've done for years. Often they've been put on ESA for a bit but have recently been reassessed as fit for some sort of work so have been moved on to JSA or UC. They're usually appealing this decision but this can take months. So they're applying for jobs - they have to job search for 35 hours per week in order to receive JSA or UC.

But an individual of their age who is unable to work in the only area they have skills and experience in and who has little or no qualifications is not an attractive employment option and they rarely even get a response to their application. And despite the suggestions on this thread, I can't see how telling them that they should have done better at school 40 years ago helps their situation now!

Other than offer some computer skills training and find a volunteer position so they can gain some different experience and skills, it's really hard to know how else to help.

The impact of this experience takes a huge toll on their self esteem and mental health. Recently I was helping a lady with a job application and one of the questions was: "Which of your personal qualities do you have the most pride in?" She looked tearful and just muttered: "Nothing." That's how low she feels after endless rejections.

We also have several who are caught in the temporary job trap. They find work fairly often through agencies but nothing permanent; it's a few days here, a week there then they're told they arent needed any more. So it's back on UC and start looking again. Finally, we also see several people who have been a carer for a family member for many years.

And to counter the idea that I'd feel differently if I was paying lots of tax to support "these people" - until fairly recently I was a higher rate tax payer and my husband still is. But that's the price of living in a civilised country. I feel very grateful that my husband and I have had good fortune and health in our lived so far to enable us to be in this position.

But it is not only about the money and the small percentage who take the piss. It's about perception. Many on here have shared painful personal stories about how and why they need extra help.
However the perception is that a small minority take the piss and the system is designed to make it harder for them to do so. Which catches out those (the vast majority) who do not.
As an analogy, most people think MPs are lying useless [insert word of choice] because a few were found out in the expenses scandal. They obviously aren't but the perception is that they are.
And anyone who says that there are people who take the piss are shot down in flames on this thread.

See shh you have a good point there about perception.

I'm not going to shoot you down in flames at all for saying a small minority take the piss. They do. But it's very very hard work to take the piss and it is a very small minority.

However the PERCEPTION of many on this thread is that there are hordes of people in this country making deliberate and informed choices not to work in circumstances where they easily could. No amount of explanation of the barriers matters. There's the deserving (disabled, ex vets) and the undeserving poor and the undeserving should be left to get on with it because it's their own fault for being poor.

Some very simplistic thinking going on.

I can see you actually trying to engage with the debate btw and your last post is very accurate.

I think just about everyone has admitted that there ARE people who take the piss, nobody has denied that. What is being shot down are the assertions that anyone on e.g. JSA long term by definition must be taking the piss because it's easy to find work. Or that people just have to work more hours or find a better paying job to come off the employment support type benefits.

I am a reasonably well educated, reasonably intelligent woman in her 50s. Went to Grammar school, but back in the day only a small percentage of people went to Uni & I didn't. I've worked in a good profession for most of my career including getting professional qualifications, and yes I've been a higher tax rate payer for a bit of that time. But my health prevents me from commuting long distances daily, and my old career is almost always based in city centres, so had to look at a career change.

After working in a number of short term jobs, finally found what I thought was my "until retirement" job, but they had a re-org. In the 6 months or so since, I have applied for every job I am physically capable of doing and meet any stated requirements. Some of these minimum requirements are IMO just a BIT over the top, e.g. minimum wage admin assistant needs at least a 2:2 degree . These applications are done using a tailored CV for each, based on one of 3 standard ones I have depending on job type and level.

I think on average I got a response of any kind to around 1 in every 30 applications, that includes the "thanks but no thanks" ones. I've had a few interviews as well, and when they bother to contact me at all afterwards it's usually that I'm overqualified, or just a no thanks. Every time there's been a test I've passed it with flying colours (I once misread a maths question so ONLY got 98% in that one, otherwise 100% every time).

I am lucky, I received 2 job offers in the space of 20 hours and hopefully start work again in the new year. My friend who lost her job at the same time doesn't drive and has a slightly different skill set - she's still looking despite working as hard as I do at job hunting.

According to the staff at my local Job Centre, almost everyone who comes through their doors is genuinely trying to find work though they freely admit to there being a few who try it on.

I think a time limit based would be far better compared to what we have now. More contributions based elements would be better too.

Far too many quit work the moment they give birth and then wonder when the relationship breaks down why no one will employ them or that they can't cherry pick the best jobs etc. So many take a huge gamble but then blame it in others when it goes pear shaped.

Scampi you do realise a lot of people on benefits are actually in work but their wage isn't enough to live on.
Don't assume everyone on benefits doesn't work

They may work but many households claiming benefits have a SAHP, work part time, have x number of children or live in expensive areas. It's based on choices, part time work or minimum wage is never going to cover the costs of children or expensive areas but people can go agreed anyway as other workers will pick up the shortfall. That's where the system fails hugely as that's not helping the less fortunate but is paying for people's choices.

Yellow I couldn't agree more
It goes back to my original point
"Everyone should take responsibility for their own actions rather than relying on our government to look after them."

Who is going to do the minimum wage jobs in the expensive areas?

Students, single people, migrants, second earners in the household that want the extra income etc. Plenty of people.