To think the cost of living payment should have been paid differently?

[muddlinthroughit]

Would like to think 99% of people have used it as it's meant, to help with food, fuel etc

However, on my socials today I have seen 1 person spend it on nails and 2 tattoos, and another on a PS5....

Not sure that's what it's meant for?

We have put ours aside for food and power and to help with Xmas

No. Why would I?

I don’t earn a ‘decent wage’. I’m in my overdraft with 3 weeks until pay day.

Sounds like you want others to struggle because you are.

This. This is what I was trying to say.

If you really want to buy a ps5, and you earn more than the benefits claimants you think are doing so well, sell your nice house. Move into a cramped, damp one in a questionable area. It’ll cost much less and you can use the savings on your Costa and your console. Sell your car, rely on the bus. I can’t afford a car, but I can afford a £2 bus ticket into town and £10 on Costa for me and DD now and then because they’re less expensive than a car. You can get meals out too. Sell your car and get dinner with the money.

But you won’t because you’re not actually worse off than the claimants, your funds just stretch to better daily living and you’d rather pay for that than a shit life with a few bright sparks in it.

Why?

If you believe in ‘taxing the rich more’ then isn’t that what you believe?

I don't get the problem. The money is to help towards bills etc. If people choose to spend it otherwise they still have to pay those bills so have to use other sources of income. It all goes into one pot so up to individuals how they allocate their own money

t's almost like people budget differently an prioritise different things 🙄

If I had a spare £100 to spend on fun, I'd buy theatre tickets. My sister would spend it on something boring like embroidery stuff.

Similarly, if my sister and I had £100 benefits I'd buy more of some stuff than her and less of other stuff. I might blow the budget because I shop at Asda and she might have left over because she goes to Lidl. So I'd be claiming I need the top ups more than her because i spend more. How do you work this out to decide who gets the extra money?

I wish it was a simple as having an extra £xx or budgeting differently.

I don’t think The 2.1 Million Pensioners are all bad at budgeting or are just being silly and prioritising fun things over food and heat. Nor are those who are paying. 2.5x more on food and energy bills but are not eligible for anything.

this is why I said in an earlier post a lot of families on decent wages are paying for the rising costs out of their fun money. So for some There is little fun money left even after budgeting.

its all very murky.

does everyone qualifying for the cost of living plan need the money to pay for the rising cost of living expenses ? Or are they just about managing like most non claimers and are using the money for things like Nintendo switch and PS? If it’s the latter then shouldn’t the money be allocated to those really who need it?

Are the people getting offended by those who got this payment spending it on meals out, going to get their knickers in a a twist too when PIP claimants get the extra £150.
There will be some PIP claimants who will not need that £150 at all. Will they be allowed to spend it on treats?

But I don’t have nice things. Too right I don’t want to pay for other people’s! And making out its ‘bitterness’ and ‘jealousy’ is hilarious

It's the best definition of bitterness and jealousy I've seen, but at least you're up front about your dog in the manger attitude - 'I can't have it so no-one else should.'

Don't get the COL allowance but my heating allowance is being split between charity donations and the food bank, savings and some nice Christmas treats for me.

How do you quantify “need” though?

hypothetical situation - 2 people claim £100/week benefits.

one has a super cheap phone deal, buys bogof food and thinks hard about their energy use.

the other has an iPhone 13, loves Big Macs and as the immersion on 24/7 because they’ve no idea what it does.

which one is “worthy” of a COL payment?

Ours was credited to the bank account we pay our fuel bill from. I thought it was to cover increased fuel bills not other random stuff but I don't suppose they can police that.

So you're managing your money sensibly but a months wage only lasts a week, and your wage is to high for top up? Honestly it sounds like it's worth reposting for some financial advice and being open about your incoming and outgoings. I mean that kindly.

So how do you actually implement a scheme that proves people genuinely NEED the money? Only pay on energy accounts that are behind payments? Give it poor vouchers to buy bread and milk? I know the system isn't perfect. But I accept that it isn't easy to do it any less straight lined either. My point was two people on the same money will cope differently. You can't identify who needs extra money from their income and there isn't resources to monitor the financial needs of millions of individuals. So it goes down a straight line. People who claim X or Y etc.

My spending hasn’t changed, normally I would have a small amount of money left but a couple of unexpected expenses (flooded kitchen and the like) put me back a couple of months ago and I’m still catching up. Previously I hadn’t been in my overdraft for many years, so I don’t think it’s the case that in a frivolous spender.

Lock the thread. It's clear that @muddlinthroughit isn't coming back 😆

So how do you actually implement a scheme that proves people genuinely NEED the money?

You can't, because need is subjective and dependent on the whim of the institution running the scheme and the prejudices of the people administering it. To have a system based on need you'd have to have a very intrusive set of questions demanding that people prove their 'need' and it would have to be repeated regularly to find out whether that need had changed. Not only would it cost a great deal, but would generate a great deal of resentment. It's a return to the Victorian notion of the deserving and the undeserving poor.

SleepingStandingUp, it’s not that easy , but In a system where the most vulnerable are the ones that are suffering the most it really says that this very system is not working.

i don’t believe there is a group doing it better/worse than the other.

Of course people should prove they need help before being given taxpayer’s money only on here is that seen as ‘controversial’.

They won't struggle with a little bit more tax. If they do I wouldn't call them rich.

Whereas this payment is a lifeline for many who will use it for bills etc. It isn't the same.

We have put ours aside for food and power and to help with Xmas

I have written to Rishi Sunak nominating you for a medal OP.
He referred me to a government Think Tank which is looking into how vital monies should be "paid differently" & wants your input.

Sadly, when I updated them that your thread's at 12 pages already but you haven't even attempted to offer an alternative to how the COL payments should be managed, they said thanks but they have enough busybody micromanagers of other peoples spending habits & virtue signalling judgement-handers to choose from, so you didn't make the grade this time. Sorry OP.

I don't think you're getting that medal either.

Unfortunately there is no option for 'everyone gets exactly what they need and no more, and they will spend it on what they need, vs what they want/fancy'.

Either we have a system that ensures people who do need, get it, at the risk of a few who don't need, getting it as well.

Or, we have a system where people who do need might well NOT get it, but yay those who don't need, won't get it.

This btw is how PIP and DLA are working - because everyone was SO outraged that a tiny tiny percentage might be getting that which they did not actually need, we NOW have a situation where a large percentage are not getting what they DO need.

And to achieve that goal, it has actually cost the government more than the alternative (see also, cost of implementing Universal Credit!)

How do you prove you need help?

In the example in a PP, there was someone who was very frugal and living within their means, and someone who frittered their money away. Both are on benefits.

The one that would need help would be the one that is reckless, as they would have no money left where as the frugal one would.

Or are you suggested that people on benefits have to justify every single thing/service they purchase before they are deemed worthy or help?

How do you quantify “need” though?

hypothetical situation - 2 people claim £100/week benefits.

one has a super cheap phone deal, buys bogof food and thinks hard about their energy use.

the other has an iPhone 13, loves Big Macs and as the immersion on 24/7 because they’ve no idea what it does.

which one is “worthy” of a COL payment?

Well both will qualify, but there will also be people queuing up to slate both

• if the first one 'manages' by doing without things and having a lower standard of living, and therefore buys themselves a little treat with the money then they'll be told they don't need it, and likely there will be some saying they get too much at £100 pw because they are managing and can have a treat, they don't (or don't want to) see the lower standard of living that enables that to happen. And accused of wasting tax payers money.

• the second one will be accused of wasting tax payers money from the start and told to 'cut their cloth accordingly' to make their money go as far as person 1, and then they'll be told what person 1 is.

I really think it's quite narrow minded that it's being assumed that the people spending the COL payment on nails and PlayStations are doing it because they're financially fine to start with and therefore they don't need the payment, if they qualify then they have a low income and are entitled to it, the 'issue' isn't that they're getting money they don't 'need', the 'issue' is what they've spent it on - but, they are going to be the ones in the cold, in the dark and hungry if they needed that payment to keep the lights on. Slated though because they don't need it.

The other alternative is that they already have a lower standard of living than they should have because they go without a lot to make it stretch, and have rejigged to make it go even further/go without more to meet the increases in costs and therefore this money is 'extra' to what they've budgeted for and used to have a little bit of happiness. Slated though because they don't need it.

Neither of those scenarios though, if they didn't get the COL payment because they didn't 'need' it, would result in any tax payers getting a rebate on what they've paid, paying less in the future, or anything else.

I've said it on other threads, but it's funny how now the rising cost of living is starting to affect people who feel they have more 'worth' because they 'work hard', it's suddenly less about 'cutting your cloth', getting a better job or being responsible and all because it's not fair and someone else is spending your money 🤔