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.

You shouldn't budget for Wi-Fi, mobile phones

Except people are expected to do their job searches online, and to be available to work - therefore contactable - at all times. Not sure how they'd manage that without a phone and the internet.

Some people can have a very good life on benefits though, if they just work two days a week nmw so get full working tax credits and housing benefit and mantaince.
Try looking at the new rules dictating how many hours you need to work to be in receipt of benefits. Oh, and as a disabled person, I do not live a good life on benefits. We had snow yesterday, I had the heating on. I'm worried now.

I said some people, other people can be entitled to nothing and be in poverty.

Some people can have a very good life on benefits though, if they just work two days a week nmw so get full working tax credits and housing benefit and mantaince. (sic)

They have to work a set number of hours (30, I think) or prove to the job centre that they are seeking extra work. If they don't they are sanctioned.

I don't believe people do live a good life on benefits. I don't see how they could. I would struggle to afford to even cover my bills on JSA, let alone finance a decent standard of living. What is it? £72 a week I fail to see how anyone could say that is consistent with a good life.

I agree with itsgonnabeacoldone. And I think the entitlement to benefits and maintenance should be looked at again. When I first came here somebody was talking about someone getting £4k a month net maintenance and still claiming tax credits. That is a real insult IMHO. The benefits system in this country needed to be reformed in a big way. But agree that UC isn't really the answer.

But options to work a few hours a week topped up with benefits annoyed a lot of people when employees couldn't do any more otherwise they'd lose their benefits. In which case they'd actually be worse off by working more hours. Nobody could agree that was in any way right.

I know of someone who is expecting her fourth child but her partner lives 300 miles away (babies dad) but says she is a single parent! Sorry but the money needs to go to people when genuinely need it.

But I wasn't talking about JSA. Its 16 hours for working tax credits. Theres been people here on other threads about getting over 2k a month with wtc, Hb, 16 hours work and maintenance.

No one really seems to know what will happen with UC, I'm on it now and they aren't sure if I should be getting it or not.

WTC don't apply for single people, only those with dependents.

Say two people earn around £30K between them and have one child and will have two lots of travel expenses and perhaps a mortgage. I think the people on benefits are better off especially if they get Housing Benefit

Really? 2 x £15k incomes is over £500 a week take home. Even taking out rent/mortgage I'd imagine they'd be better off than if they were fully on benefits.

With housing benefit and council tax benefit included and before deductions I get £11,400 per annum from benefits. How does this make me better off than a working couple on £30k pa?

Thing is I work full time. My wage is topped up by UC/TC’s. Even though i’ve Been trying like mad to get off them I’m sill stuck there. Employers used them prop up their wages and the government reduce them to encourage people back to work. This has resulted in the likes of me ie the working poor.
It’s crap.

I don't think there would be a lot in it. Especially once NI, Tax, Pension contributions are all taken out. And transport costs on top of that. Which can be high. But it's the working a few hours and tax credits, maintenance and so on that annoys me. Why should people get top ups when they get a good amount of maintenance. Whereas somebody who doesn't get any maintenance is significantly worse off. At least the four child person won't be getting any extra for her new baby. That's a start. Just because your partner lives 300 miles away doesn't make you a single parent.

poster Itsgonnabeacoldone but people working 16 hours have to prove they are seeking extra work, just the same as people working 0 hours. They don't just receive tax credits with no questions asked. They are treated as job seekers.

I agree with Viviennemary, it's the working few hours that I don't like. At my last work at this time of year we struggled to get many to take on more hours as they wouldn't end up with any more money due to topups and was hard to find people to be promoted as they wouldn't get any more money. Often had to get expensive agency staff in.

It's understandable not working full time when you have young children. But taking the piss to still only be working 16 hours a week when you've got a teenager.

Is that on UC they will be treated like jobseakers? Because they aren't at the moment and in my area wtc havent been transferred to UC.

You are better off than the working couple because they are two people working and you are one person working. Earning not much more each than you are getting on benefits. And add in free dental treatment, free prescriptions and so on. So benefits are better than a minimum wage job. This is why the system is wrong. IMHO.

Hi, would just like to say.....you do realise even if every single person claiming any benefit was to miraculously find a job, or they just decided to close dwp down and pay nobody ever again. Government would still collect the same taxes?? Just saying.

My partner and I are self employed struggling to build a small business and help to grow the economy. As it stands we get a small amount of working tax credit each week. When we get switched to UC we will get nothing at all. Because UC assumes that we have a minimum income of 35 x 7.50 each week even though we don't.

What will happen is we will be forced to give up our business and be unemployed. The rocket scientists who came up with UC have not figured that we will be costing the state more this way. UC stifles free enterprise in this country.

Also when pushed to the extreme limits of poverty which UC brings, people turn to things like crime. Desperate people have nothing to lose. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw riots the same as when the poll tax was introduced. The crime rates will rocket. This short sighted government cannot see that when pushed to extremes people will rebel

I can't help wondering just how many people there are in this country on benefits.

Surely it should only be the disabled and a small number recovering from a serious illness or accident, yet I imagine we are talking about many many hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

The welfare state was originally set up to help a relatively small number of people who genuinely were unable to work. How has it now ballooned into this massive several billions of pounds per year state?

Unemployment is at it's lowest level for decades so there is absolutely no excuse for anyone to whine that they can't get a job.
The trouble nowadays is that for many, living on benefits is a lifestyle choice, paid for of course by the taxes of the poor devils in work.
A shameful situation.

Funny is that supposed to be funny? It makes no sense.

Moo with uc you are given a year with a new buisness and then if you aren't making minimum wage they decide it isn't a viable buisness. I think that's pretty fair.

Some "buisnesses" are suspect, like the question time woman running a nail bar in her lounge for friends while scooping up working tax credit and housing benefit. There has to be some kind of test to make sure it's a viable buisness.

I imagine there's loads of reasons people who live rurally or without decent public transport can't get a job Susannah

Surely you can imagine that too ?

Itsgonnabeacoldone, you had to get expensive agency staff in. Would it be cheaper in the long run to pay more to a staff member?

The money is for survival only and not to give anyone a lifestyle.

Good to know that someone like me who cannot work due to a multitude of mental health issues caused by an abusive and fucked up childhood should only be surviving. I guess its just another way in which those of us who are disabled are just second class citizens,

I don't get the waiting weeks for it come through. I'm in a weird area so between 2 cities/councils.

One friend went to her job centre and got universal credit, claim processed within 4 weeks and a 500 advance

Other friend had to use the job centre still on the old system and has had no money for weeks, been given food bank vouchers and basically just been messed about

Job centre 2 said it's unfortunate but it has not been rolled out there or they could get the advance

Susannah " absolutely no excuse for anyone to whine that they can't get a job. "

Are you broken? Do you have any idea what it is like to live in a rural area with no transport at the age of over 50?

I am not 'whining' thank you in fact if anyone is, it is you, with the most ridiculous whiny statements that show you have literally no idea of the reality of life for so many people.