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.

DoesHeWantToOrNot

Your work sounds seasonal - Are you qualified in a profession?

As your child is only young (and not tied to a school) could you not move around the country looking for work?

Also, if you had to quit work due to childcare, and have to buy gifts from charity shops, could you afford to have a child even?

It’s low to discourage people living on benefits and not bothering to work for a living.

Some quite self-righteous and not very nice people on this thread. Aiming your criticism at the wrong people. Where is the anger about corporate and hnw individuals' tax evasion for example?

From The Independent:

[[https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/voices/nhs-austerity-cuts-120000-deaths-universal-credit-only-get-worse-a8058231.html%3famp Meanwhile the dying goes on. And on, and on. And it isn’t just in care homes where the suffering is brutal. Today sees a vote on the Government’s universal credit, another calculated act of political savagery that will probably squeeze through thanks to the £1bn magic money tree Theresa May found for the Democratic Unionist Party so she could stay in No 10.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that by 2022 low-income families will be worse off through cuts to it, despite the Tories palliatives: tax changes and a higher minimum wage. That’s before we even get to the train wreck of its implementation.

Flat-screen TVs? As inflation continues to bite as a result of the Brexit driven fall in the pound, Britain’s poor are increasingly struggling simply to afford food. It’s why the food banks that the execrable Jacob Rees-Mogg described as “rather uplifting” won’t be short of business anytime soon.]]

My state pension is about £600 monthly ( paid for from 30 years of National Insurance contributions)

Only 30 years worth?

stop sponging off tax payers

What about people who have paid national insurance for longer than you? Is that the permitted level for someone to become a sponger?

Agree @divorcemightmare.

It’s not a race to the bottom.

Life and societies are complex and many apparent “choices” are also governed by circumstances and social structures.

I would like to see a baseline decent standard for all - perhaps like the Finland universal basic income pilot (not sure if I have got the name right!)

Some quite self-righteous and not very nice people on this thread. Aiming your criticism at the wrong people. Where is the anger about corporate and hnw individuals' tax evasion for example?

Tax evasion is illegal and should obviously be tackled but that's not what the thread subject was.

Just because some are breaking the law it doesn't mean we should allow a huge proportion of society to do nothing or little whilst those working and paying taxes pick up the tab. It's lazy and selfish and takes money away that could be so much better spent.

The welfare system was meant to be a last resort for the sick and redundancy situations, not a lifestyle choice so people can live where they want, have children they can't afford and do little.

Where would money come from to increase benefits though?

I know for us working 50 hours each per week we couldn't afford to pay any more tax that's for sure.

The only help I get is my rent paid.

When anyone says this, they loose a lot of people's sympathy.

I work as a Carer and I see a variety of people both in and out of work.

Living on benefits is hard and I cannot for the life of me fathom why anyone would "choose"it. I did it for three years and signing off of them all a few weeks ago was bloody wonderful. I've actually got spare money again...I can save, I can plan and I don't have to panic if an unexpected bill comes in.

Contrast that with the disabled lady I care for who lives on benefits....her car insurance is huge and YES she needs a car as it's her only way of getting out. Severe agoraphobia plus disc degeneration in her spine means she can't just use public transport. Sever abuse as a child means she won't use taxis...she would be isolated without her car. So her benefits go in weekly and her car insurance went out yesterday taking most of it and that's before she has done any shopping to feed her children. Little wonder she was in terrible pain and was tearful yesterday. No they won't starve...not because there are food banks but because I will pop a bag of food round to tide her over.

However her benefits are naturally higher than normal benefits.

Another friend who is now in work spent two years on benefits. As a single man he was allocated very little...and he missed meals to get by financially. Thankfully he got a new job, ironically working for the DWP on the Universal Credit Claim's locally. He hates it with a passion and hates some of his ignorant colleagues who think those on benefits "have it easy". Ironically one of these colleagues had five kids all brought up on benefits....a fact which she has now conveniently forgotten judging by some of her comments.

Living on benefits is crap....I hope I never have to do it again,

JSA used to come through much sooner than UC, & was at a higher rate.

If you calculate JSA and UC down to a daily rate, they are the same to within a penny. £73.10 pw JSA is £10.443 pd, UC is £10.448 pd : (317.82 x 12)/365.

If your son's first payment was less, it is probably because he had no entitlement for the first few days of his claim because of "waiting days".

Whatever way you cut it though, it's not enough. We live pretty modestly, and we generally spend the best part of £1,000 a month on food and bills, and that's rising as the price of food seems to be rising daily. The sort of life you can have on less than half that must be really bloody miserable, even if I take into account that in most areas you wouldn't be paying £180 a month in council tax.

There have been times when I've been really hard up, and it's so stressful. The constant worry about something breaking, or any sort of unexpected bill, not being able to go out, or buy a book to read really grinds you down.

I burst into tears once when I caught my last pair of decent jeans on a nail and ripped a hole in the leg. I'd cut my leg, too, but that barely registered because I was so upset about not having a pair of jeans that didn't have a hole in.

The benefit cap is an absolute killer for families, especially in high rent areas. I know families who are left with about £70 a week to live on after they've paid their bills and the balance of the rent. Some of these are in social housing too - a (so-called) affordable HA house is £229 a week and the benefit cap is £350.

I think they should make it a liveable income but make able people work full time for them. Can't understand how it's never come into play that able people should work for their benefits.

The majority of claimants are tax payers

I suspect that all claimants are tax payers if you take VAT into account. Any non-food item has VAT on it, so unless they're wiping their arses on dock leaves and making their own soap out of wild plants, I reckon that's everyone.

a huge proportion of society

really?

so people can live where they want, have children they can't afford and do little

Daily Mail reader perhaps?

I think people don't understand the hard work that poverty brings.

I think that the low rates incentivise looking for a job but totally miss the point that the vast majority of people in benefits want a job but there is none available for their skill set level or they cannot get one due to be unemployed even for a very short period of time.

It is a disgrace.

Yes it makes the assumption people are poor by choice and lack of effort.

The impact of cuts in other areas has made it harder for people on benefits, too.

They've cut library opening hours massively here, and people who can't afford to pay for internet access rely on using the library computers to do their online jobsearch. Now you have to wait hours to get on to a computer, because everyone is trying to use them in the few hours they're open. We've also had to appeal sanctions imposed because people weren't logging on to their Jobmatch accounts on Wednesdays, because all the libraries are shut then. Two rural libraries have been closed altogether.

The abolition of school uniform grants causes a lot of hardship, especially when you have 2 kids in a school that then decides to introduce new uniform. Bus subsidies have been cut so the fares have gone up, it costs £7 to get to the job centre if you live in a village near me.

It's really grim.

Dh is now unemployed (short story: left with mutual agreement due to stress at work). He got more than his normal monthly pay for his last pay and I am on maternity leave. If he doesn't get a new job quickly we won't be able to live off UC. With dc I assume we would get a bit more but we would have to take them out of nursery and then get a place when he was working again along with all the deposits for that. We would probably have to leave our rented home, give up our car. If so many people on benefits rent privately now I don't see how those amounts are suposed to cover living expenses. We have had barely any money about a decade ago, living in a small, cold mouldy flat. It's the dullness of every day that gets you down. I never want to do that again like I am certain the majority of people don't want to be on benefits out of choice. But I also don't know what the answer is.

YellowMakesMeSmile

^
I’m in total agreement with what you say.

I've been on benefits for 10 years as a single parent and carer. It's very hard budgeting to make ends meet and I can only manage it because we get extra amounts due to DD's DLA and my carers premium. Before she was awarded DLA, I was on the minimum level of income support, tax credits and housing benefit and it was a real struggle. We've always had enough to eat and heat , but no luxuries at all. And we were given priority for a council flat due to DD's disability so I've never had to pay top ups for rent. We're lucky that DD can manage public transport so we don't need a car or taxis - we couldn't afford that. People can be really spiteful about carers especially as I'm a single parent so they assume I'm on benefits due to being a single mum rather than a carer (despite the fact that DD is 10 so I wouldn't be able to claim IS as a lone parent).

For a single person with no children, the amounts looks impossible and to be honest most people I know in that position have had extra help either due to getting disability top ups, were given money from family or have worked on the side.

"Though, on the plus side, there surely can't be many (non disabled/carer) couples where neither one is in work - especially couples without children. So those lowest calculations really shouldn't be applying to many people."

Unfortunately the way stable employment became localised to only certain parts of the Country and the lack of investment in Industry, particularly In the North, means that the number of people relying on benefits is higher than it should be.

When I was Widowed and lived on Income Support, I managed the basics, but the house was in a bad state.

"so people can live where they want, have children they can't afford and do little"

The overpopulation of the South has caused a lot of the housing issues. Moving for work doesn't work, in the long run for the country. What do people do, move from where they live, so they can get work. Then we populate the empty areas with Refuges, who have children and then can't work?

Our Welfare model is one of Boom and Bust and there will always be losers. It then says a lot about us, how far we the bottom of Society, lose.

There is as much unclaimed benefit, or disallowed benefit, particularly Disabled benefits, than are claimed.

The benefit system should make sense, at least and for the first time ever, in the North, we have a housing crisis and HA three bed houses needing to be sold because of the bedroom tax. Which isn't saving the country any money.

Idk if this is accurate.. but say someone earn minimum wage and have to pay rent and bills out of that. It's unlikely they would have much more money than the person on benefits.

analysis links 30,000 excess deaths in 2015 to cuts in health and social care

www.rsm.ac.uk/about-us/media-information/2017-media-releases/new-analysis-links-30000-excess-deaths-in-2015-to-cuts-in-health-and-social-care.aspx

I think the reason why some people don't agree with an increase of benefits is because it would mean that some people working FT would find themselves hardly better off than if they were on benefits.

I became a single mum of two kids under the age of 4, so both at nursery. I had a good job, working FT, earning a good income. However, by the time I'd paid for nursery fees, my mortgage, travel to work costs etc... I was hardly any better than my friend who also became a single mum but claimed IS and all related expenses.

Yes, my car was slightly better than hers, and I was able to take my kids to a cheap holiday, however, I was an exhausted and stressed mum whereas she was a relaxed and rested one to the point that I started resenting meeting up with her and see how cheerful and full of energy she was when I was just trying to survive exhaustion on a day to day basis. Sometimes I wonder why I bothered.

Given what we know about the new benefits system most working people should be terrified of losing their job. But they're not. Many are capable of saving money, but they don't. Many don't mind having digs at those out of work. I think it must be a rude awakening to some people.

I completely support a more generous and kinder benefit system. I think a citizen wage would be best. Most people can lose their job and find it really difficult to get a new one. Anyone can find themselves much less employable as they get older. Anyone can get ill at any time. I don't see the point of trying to force everyone into a job, some people are very unemployable.