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

May as well have. We had no say in it, what’s the difference?

Of course not. But some are, and yes that’s galling.

The thing is that for every 1000* people that get this payment and it goes towards what it's 'supposed' to, there'll be maybe 10 who still struggle and for whom it's not enough to keep their head above water and another 10 who spend it on a playstation or something.
You'll only find the outrage at the last 10 though, and the focus will be on them, blowing it out of proportion and making it seem like 'the tax payer' is footing the bill for everyone else's reckless spending when they're struggling themselves.

The 10 who are the bottom of the pile and the other 9980 who can dry their clothes and buy a pair of shoes for work because of it pale into insignificance against the outrage of the 10 who don't do poor properly.

• Just numbers I made up to illustrate a point.

You have no say in how any of your taxes are spent and if you lose your job tomorrow and your house and need support, if you need to claim disability or carers, my husband will have no say in supporting you either

Your numbers are way off Maverick if this thread is anything to go by…

He still doesn’t have to be fine with it, and in any event if I was so skint I was relying on emergency payments I wouldn’t be spunking it in nail bars and Wetherspoons.

I honestly find it deeply annoying that people complain ‘well I don’t qualify and I still haven’t had a meal out in years!’

Well you’re probably not budgeting very efficiently, then. Take your own advice and cut back to afford nice things if you want them, like the rest of us do.

Yo u need to get some perspective.

How much do you pay in tax a year? £5.5k on a salary of 40k.

How much of that goes on social care? Google says 25% so £1375.

How many people getting it? Over 8,000,000.

How much exactly do you think you're contributing to Steve down the road and his PS5? Or OPs Wetherspoons lunch ro my cream cake?

And I do agree there's a bit in the middle that things are tight for but who get no help. Because there's people earning less coping better and people earning more coping worse. If you make it universal then you'll be moaning your taxes are helping out families earning 6 figures.

But its not a race to the bottom "I don't get help, Bob wasted him so I'd prefer kids go hungry and cold and pensioners freeze than anyone gets help!"

Haha! Why should I have to cut back on my own money that I earn (which I do anyway) but somebody should be able to spunk their benefits on a PS5 and ‘well, he should be able to have a treat’?

Because if you look at your income versus his, on benefits, his is smaller than yours. If he has wiggle room for a ps5 so do you. Maybe you’ll have to move into a less nice house or rely on public transport rather than a car, but people who have more whingeing about how people who have less cut their cloth is just ridiculous.

Oh and if your income is less than someone on benefits, apply for them because you’ll qualify for them and then everyone can condemn your choices too.

I know PS5 has become the demon expenditure on here, but out of curiosity, looked up it’s price. £400-500 (depending on which version, extras etc). So yes, I would be annoyed if someone spent that money on a ps5, equivalent to a months food budget, and then need the foodbank the next day.

No-one saying it’s wrong to have the occasional treat - we all need them in life- but the payment is for Cost of Living, not luxuries.

However, I do think people there needs to be better education on money management in general, and that’s the root cause of a lot of problems.

The pp didn't say that though, they said if you want nice things then you should look at areas to cut back on your spending (or you could maybe move house, get a better job?) To enable you to afford them.
You know, like people on lower incomes are being told to?

I honestly find it deeply annoying that people complain ‘well I don’t qualify and I still haven’t had a meal out in years!’

Well you’re probably not budgeting very efficiently, then. Take your own advice and cut back to afford nice things if you want them, like the rest of us do.
how ? Even people on decent wages are suffering with increasing bills too, what was their fun disposable income for days out or fancy meals is mostly , if not all , being spent on groceries and energy bills.
No one wants to eat tinned soup or sit in a freezing house just to save a few ££ for a meal out.

I have cut back. Hence no nails or PS5 for me. Can’t remember when I last ate out. Wheres my top up?

Well I'm assuming you don't qualify for it because you earn too much to be in receipt of TC or UC and are not disabled so don't qualify for disability benefits?
Maybe you can go and get a worse job, cut your hours or give up work completely and then qualify for benefits or top up benefits? Then you can have a top up and spend it on getting your nails done and a PS5?

No because that would be immoral?

Not to mention putting yet more strain on my fellow workers.

Yes ^this. Keep the public bickering amongst themselves whilst the people with power get away with rinsing us.

Exactly, the money goes back into the economy and helps keep someone's business going and people in employment. That's got to be a positive thing.

What you are actually saying is that you want the threshold to be lower. Just say that. The response you'll be get is: it's better to set a higher threshold than see rising children living in destitute households.

Ah so you only earn a salary that is too high to qualify for benefits for morality then?

It also sounds quite like you think people on low incomes that need top ups are immoral? I didn't feel particularly immoral working in social care through a pandemic for minimum wage that meant I needed a top up from tax credits (which is what qualified me for the 1st COL payment) and scraping by on it while other people went out and earned their better wage because I was looking after their family members for not enough to survive on (and listening to them complain about how they weren't getting as much inheritance).
Maybe I was too knackered to notice that I was immoral.

We don’t go to the pub/cinema/have any hobbies/get takeaways so are we not allowed to go to a Wetherspoons and spend a bit of time together enjoying a meal one of us hasn’t had to cook? Clearly we should just live off stale bread and be miserable and cold at home

I don't do any of those things either, neither do many people. I'm not getting a CoL payment to help me do them though.

But that’s the point, some people obviously don’t need top ups if they’re spending the money on a play station. I’m not saying most people don’t need it - but some (a few) don’t, according to this thread.

Mind your own business maybe