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.

Raise benefits but make people work for them (if able)

Problem with this is what then happens to the people who would otherwise have been doing that work? People doing street sweeping to claim benefits = equal number of street sweepers now unemployed as they don't have a job to do.

ISTR there was a scandal recently about companies using Workfare placements instead of employing people properly?

For example they only get their payment if their timesheet is signed for 37.5 hours voluntary work.

FFS - hwo is going to do the signing and the checking of timesheets?
What if they only do 36 hours
Are they allowed holidays? How many? who is going to calculate the holidays and ensure they don't take too many?

You really, really, really haven't given this any serious thought at all have you?

For example they only get their payment if their timesheet is signed for 37.5 hours voluntary work.

What about the expenses of working? Various pp have said they aren't any better off on £300 a week rather than £300 a month because of all the additional costs of being in work - childcare, travel, more expensive for food etc.

Dullandold - if employers are really offering less than £2 per hour you should report them - that's way below NMW

oh no, lol, I was responding to the poster who said that people on benefits should have 37.5 of voluntary work signed off before they receive their £60 a week....

I do think it is harder over the age of 50 to get a job. But there are jobs. Cleaning and working in cafes. Working in a laundrette. Plenty of folk do these jobs and they are useful services for the public as a whole.

oh right so never mind my masters degree and teaching certificate, if I am over 50 I should work as a cleaner...nice bit of agism right there..

To say some people can't work because they live in rural areas is one of the daftest comments I have read on here! With attitudes like that no wonder the welfare budget is so huge.

Not sure it is ageism. I'm over 50.

nobody said you 'cant work' in rural areas, they said it is a lot harder because there are fewer jobs and there are transport issues.
When your car breaks down, you are in a spot.
Nice attempt at reframing what people have said though..

To say some people can't work because they live in rural areas is one of the daftest comments I have read on here! With attitudes like that no wonder the welfare budget is so huge.
No, nobody said that. It is far more difficult though and rural economies suffer to a greater extent than others.

Rubbish. I know somebody considerably older than you who works as a cleaner and gets up at an unearthly hour. You are 50 not 90. What about private tuition.

" I know somebody considerably older than you who works as a cleaner and gets up at an unearthly hour "

good for you love, good for you

There's bound to be an amount of pain when the system changes and people are worse off. However out of work benefits isn't supposed to fund a normal lifestyle. It is supposed to keep a roof over your head and provide enough food to prevent starvation, temporarily whilst you find work.

I'm sure it's not pleasant being on benefits but I know for a fact that many people on benefits still go on holiday, have a car, have a tv (possibly with sky package), buy new furniture, wear designer clothes, give their children extravagant presents etc. Therefore there are savings to be made for many, painful though it may be.

The trouble with providing generous benefits to those out of work or on poorly paid jobs is that they have lots of children who see no point in school, who then also have lots of children young, and the whole thing perpetuates itself. Having a harsh system is supposed to encourage people educate themselves to get a better job. In the long run this is better for everyone. Obviously it's difficult to move house if you are very poor but this is what people used to have to do. They couldn't just stay where all their family were and get everything paid for.

In work benefits just depress wages and are a terrible idea.

I appreciate that a sudden change is going to cause extreme hardship and if I was introducing the new system I would allow those already on the old system to stay on it, and impose the new system with lower payments for new claimants only. I worry that the sudden change is going to cause a lot of suffering, and will also end up costing more due to health problems it will cause. Bringing it in only for new claimants would prevent this and would mean people could cut their cloth accordingly instead of being suddenly deprived of large amounts of money. I'd also be in support of a system that gave more generous benefits but only for those who've paid in already. Thereby putting people off not ever bothering to work, but helping people who are made unemployed after working for a few years.

But you with your splendid qualifications are far above any kind of work you think you shouldn't be expected to do and would rather live of other hard working people's taxes. Some of whom are quite possibly these lowly cleaners and other workers. Your attitude is disgraceful.

If heaven forbid I ever come out of work. I won't be grateful for the pittence I get. Why should I be. Its my money.
I've paid into the system for over 20 years. I'd have no shame or make apologies for taking it back, but Hopefully it'll never come to that.
I won't be on my hands and knees to anyone.

And you can't work because you need to be there for your adult children and live rurally. give me strength.

" Your attitude is disgraceful."

no love, your attitude is disgraceful, you know nothing about where i live, what jobs are available or how old my children are or what jobs I have applied for.
If I were you I would STFU.

I've recently split up with my husband and am now on benefits (I'm a carer to my disabled son)

It's nice to know that the holiday I've booked for next year will be judged by everyone as something we don't deserve. I think my kids deserve a bloody break after losing 2 grandparents this year and a family break up.

Omg, we also have a TV. It looks like every other tv out there, so people might think it's new (it's about 8 years old) obviously I should get rid of it. And the iPad I'm using right now (present from my late mum)

and I will make sure I only dress my children in rags so no one thinks I'm wasting my money on clothes that actually fit them.

You have no idea why people are on benefits. If you see me out with my children you would think they all look "normal" so why shouldn't I be working?

Working for benefits would be good but likely would cost more in admin and convincing companies etc to take them. It would be better to make life on benefits undesireable like the US and pay in vouchers so only the basics of food, heat and shelter are paid for.

There are millions who claim that do so by choice because they don't want to work, expect the perfect school hours job as they don't want to pay for childcare or who do the token amount of hours to net the most.

Benefits were meant for the vulnerable, nowadays it's a lifestyle choice many make as with a few children you can net more than someone working full time.

oh right so never mind my masters degree and teaching certificate, if I am over 50 I should work as a cleaner

So too good to take any job but happy enough to live off the hard earner money of other people. Sums it up.

I agree the process needs to be simpler.

You should never be worse off if you work, so if you are getting below min wage then your employer is breaking the law.

My understanding is benefits aren’t designed to be allow people to live comfortably. It’s to ensure you can put a roof over your head and feed yourself, but also to incentivise people to go back to work. Unfortunately some people use it as a lifestyle choice, which imo is wrong.

DullAndOld Actually your comments regarding your Masters Degree and working as a cleaner tells us everything we need to know about people like you. Someone mentioned about their father riding his bike to work which was mocked. Others suggested that it was essential to have access to the internet to apply for jobs (clearly never heard of libraries). The sense of entitlement on here is unbelievable. I'm sorry, but I do resent my taxes going to people who are just too bone idle to work. Like others, I would rather the benefits were increased for those Genuinely unable to work. Only on MN is there no such thing as anyone playing the system. I actually believe the current government aren't doing enough to get more scroungers working. I would like to repeat that I believe genuine claimants had their benefits increased and am fully aware that my own circumstances could mean me having to claim after 38 years working.

I hope you aren't meaning me yellow. I get 3.10 a week working tax and 57.84 a week child tax credits. Hardly enough for a fabulous lifestyle.

I seen on a fb page a woman was bringing in over 300 a week just in tax credits. When I was working full time I was getting 270 a week.

No wonder people don't work.

" happy enough to live off the hard earner money of other people. Sums it up."

you know nothing about me and why I am now in this situation though do you? So why dont you STFU