Re- Benefits..please read..!!

[bichonbuzz]

Have just watched Benefits Busters prog where women on benefits are supported to try to return to work.One of the women gets £240 pw- has 4 chldren - which coincidentally is my wage - and she stated that she wanted to return to work but felt that benefits are too high and actually discorage some people to work.She was offered a job during her course but calculated that to take this job it would mean that she would be £50 pw WORSE OFF- i just feel that the gov should have let her work and contribute something for the benefits she would continue to get - it would be a win win situation as she felt it wd help her self esteem to work (appriciate some people could nt do this due to circumstances )- She seemed upset and motivated to work and it would have been one less person on benefits - AIBU to wish that she could have been supported to do this whilst keeping her benefits ....

I know you're not suggesting up sticks and move but there is also another down side to moving away from the area you grew up.
How many of us are restricted by childcare and not able to return to work. Something that could be helped if more of us lived close to our families and friends and possibly had a netowrk of support that so many people don't now.
I mean if I lived close to my parents I could potentially have more job options open to me as my mum works in a school and thus doesn't work the school holidays.
The probelm there is my parents moved a couple of years ago back to rurla living as they are getting into their 60's now so are where they want to retire to and there are just no jobs there for me.

It is so complicated at times to work when you have children and rent to pay and for a government that want us mums to return to the work place they are not doing very much to make it easy.

Violethill
Agree completely re renting. However it's not 'culture' that needs to change, it's law. Up until 1979 tenants had far greater rights than they do now. Thatcher removed those rights in the process of encouraging people to buy as owner occupiers and landlords and made it very insecure for peole to rent. My family moved house 2 months ago. We were asked to pay £480 in fees, and £1150 as a deposit as well as the rent in advance. We talked them down to £750 deposit but that still meant handing over £1920 for 6 months' security - at the end the landlord could terminate the contract and we would be at the same place again. It's awful really, no security.

Yes - I agree that legislation needs to change too.

I rent btw! I am perfectly aware of the potential downsides. But there are advantages too - more flexibility etc. And you only need to look at some of the threads on here from people stuck in houses they own with negative equity/ rising costs/horrendous neighbours/awful schools, to see that home ownership ain't always a bed of roses!!

I am not suggesting that everything should remain as it is. Far from it. Better regulation of private landlords, changes in legislation etc..... there is a lot that could be done.

Because ultimately, society is never going to revert to pre-industrial times when people worked on their local farm and probably never went further than ten miles from their front door for their entire lifetime. Society and the workplace has changed radically, and we need to shift attitudes and practices to deal with that - not ignore it and hope it will go away.

I agree, kat.

We also rent privately.

It's not ideal when you have more than one kid.

No, homeownership isn't a bed of roses, and it will be out of reach for increasing numbers of people, but I doubt the laws will change.

It's like how the government keeps telling us we need to work longer and increasing the retirement age, but no stiffer penalties or legislation regarding age discrimination or allowing the hire of people who are past the standard retirement age.

I think the moving away from where you were born has done more harm than good, IMO.

It's lead to a severe breakdown in community and a much more selfish, me-first-and-I'm-all-right-Jack mentality that's proving very expensive.

I lived all over the world. I live thousands of miles from my native country and family.

It's got some major drawbacks.

We now live in a place where people mostly stay where they are.

And tbh, we both prefer it.

I totally accept that your personal experience has led you to believe that you personally don't want to move around expat. But you cannot extrapolate from that, that it's better in general. Also, I doubt most people would ever need to live in many different continents or countries - moving around within the country of birth would be quite adequate for most people.

I disagree that it's the movement of people which has led to 'community breakdown'. There are many more complex factors. In all the areas I've lived in, I've got to be honest, it's the incomers who are the most dynamic, the people who get involved and put most into the community. When I lived in a village, the majority of local councillors were people who had moved into the area within the last ten years - not born and bred there. I was instrumental in setting up an out of school childcare provision - which benefited everyone, as there was virtually no childcare. And I'd only lived there a couple of years. And guess who the moaners were? The people who didn't want to put any work in, and begrudged spending about £2 per hour on after school care? The people who'd lived there all their life and didn't want anything new, didn't want anything to change.

Nope, I think a degree of movement, of expanding horizons is absolutely a good thing.

'But you cannot extrapolate from that, that it's better in general. '

Nor can you do the same from your own personal experiences or beliefs, by the same token, and nowhere did I say that lack of movement was the sole factor in the fractured society we live in.

I totally accept that you have a different viewpoint, but in accepting that I don't automatically declare that you are wrong in that.

'Nope, I think a degree of movement, of expanding horizons is absolutely a good thing. '

I don't feel that anything is an absolute.

But I again, I agree to disagree, rather than declaring that you are erroneous in your beliefs, which are just as much a function of your personal experiences as mine or anyone else's are.

I count myself bloody lucky after watching this programme that I already had a part time job when I became a single parent. The 2 DCs were already in childcare 1 day a week, so just had to up that to 2, and I earn an ok wage at £9000 a year for 16hrs a week. I get WTC & CTC, about £250 a week I think (though £100 of that is childcare element) but I have lost all my housing and council tax benefit so literally break even every week. Thank god for ex-DH giving me the £67.50 every week at the moment as it covers a few extras/car going wrong etc. I get free prescriptions, but no healthy start vouchers/free school meals as the WTC cancels them out.

I often wonder whether I would be better off on benefits, but would go insane in all day every day.

Everyone will have their own experiences - I'm not saying anything is black and white, my point is quite simply that people should be prepared to move around for work, and that no one has a god given right to live or work in any particular locality.

I'm not suggesting people have to move. I also think, as I explained at length, that legislation should make it far simpler and cheaper to move.

It's the fact that some people are not prepared to move at all for the sake of work, which is limiting.

But violet even if people are prepared to move for work there is nobody out there making it easy for them.
And waht is wrong with wanting to stay in the same are you grew up in where you have you childhood friends and family and a network of support around them.
How many posts on here almost every day are about people feeling iscolated, have no emergency childcare, whose dh's have to stay at home with other dc's when they are in labour as there is nobody to help?

Losing that family support can sometimes put more pressure on families and make it less easy for quite often mums to get out to work.

For example my dh is a postie. Leaves house before 6 every morning for me to go back to work I would have to find a job that started after school started because there is no wraparound care and I don't live in the area my family do. There aren't many jobs like that out there.

I'm actually arguing for more support to make it easier though!!

I think the culture of home ownership is a disincentive for people to move. To be perfectly honest, as a private renter, I am far more likely to move for work than if I owned a house, and had all the uncertainty of getting a new job, then worrying about selling, solicitors costs, stamp duty on a new house etc etc

I'm not saying there is anything wrong per se with someone wanting to remain in the exact locality they were born in, but it is limiting. As far as the childhood friends issue goes - you can make friends wherever you go! You don't have to stick with the same friends you were with at Primary school!

Re: the childcare issue - again, I think we need to accept the way society is now, rather than harking back to yesteryear. These days people live longer, and will certainly need to work longer. It's no longer viable, or even desirable, for people to stop work at 60 or 65. Even just a generation ago, retirement meant stopping at 65 and then a few years of pottering. These days people have 25 years ahead of them when they retire. So, realistically, how many grandparents are going to be available to provide free or emergency childcare, even if they want to? Let's say I become a grandparent at the age of 57. I'm certainly not going to be sitting at home twiddling my thumbs waiting to be look after my grandchildren all day. I'm likely to be still full-on involved in my work life for a good few years! And hopefully having an active social life, travelling etc. This sort of scenario is going to be even more the case in coming years - we aren't going to have hordes of grandparents living along the road pottering about pruning the roses and waiting for grandchildren to come along and give them a purpose in life!

I am absolutely in favour of interventions to help support people, and make it easier and cheaper for them to move, find affordable quality childcare etc but I think we have to move with the 21st century, not fight against it.

VH, I agree with you that it is not a black and white issue. It depends on the context. We live in a society where huge numbers of people live in urban areas and some, often rural, areas are depopulated. It is clearly positive that people moving into depopulated areas can revitalise them.

As with the example I gave earlier, while huge numbers of people moving out was bad for my (childhood) local community, it was the decision of Polish people to move in that revitalised it.

I have no real sympathy with people who live in small communities who complain about incomers (apart from second home owners). A person born in Brixton has as much right to live in Cumbria (for example) as a Cumbrian does.

But it will never be very easy for communities to address these issues without some Government intervention in tackling rural poverty, overcrowding and inadequate housing in cities, regeneration of depopulated areas and replacement of closed, heavy industry with other forms of employment in the former industrial reasons. All this should have been done 20 years ago.

To some extent, the Government is starting to tackle this by making it easier for immigrants to move to the UK if they choose Scotland.

I do believe that social problems are caused by geographical segregation of the rich and poor. Why don't we build all our new social housing in middle class areas?

People do need to move around more, but job creation should be in depopulated areas. It doesn't benefit anyone to bulldoze the North and concrete over more and more green space in the South East for additional housing.

Agree with you Milly

I saw that Benefit Busters programme and thought it was a comedy. That women reminded me of Majory from Fat Busters.

Take benifits off people who don't need them, cut benifits for people who clearly can't be bothered to work. Use this money to provide free childcare for all children not old enough to enter reception class and means test subsidised childcare for older children. This would take away peoples reasons for not working (I get more if I don't work) and give people who can't be bothered an insentive.
I also think vouchers should be given as a top up not money, I know people who buy beer and drugs rather than shoes and good food for their kids. I have even known (awful) people who have kept their kids off school rather than pay for their bus fair so they can get their cans of beer. I know this is not the norm but it is for some children. The system needs to be started over. I'll do it.

I'm with Misdee on this opne, absolutely

We are on benefits- not IS or HB, but CTC etc as dh is part time following a redundancy. I've been looking for work (DH starts Uni soon so will have the two incomes) with no real chance of success as Caring means I have to be about after school and before with no option of child care for ds1.

I amaware I desperately need that boost, but have realised I can get it elsewhere and am signing (or rather hoping to) up for a module of an MA next week.

Being outside the house will be a massive life improvement for me, my world is rapidly shrinking and with it goes my self esteem. It does mean signing half my CA over to the Uni each month though, which will hurt.

Shanine- erm love, we have this thing called a recession: there are almost no jobs available right now! Maybe you'd have an argument if we had lots of vacancies, we simply do not.

In fairness, she was arguing about cutting benefits for people who can't be bothered to work.

If jobs aren't available then it's a different issue!

Yes, we're in a recession, but my local job centre still has dozens of jobs advertised, and personally I know of a few people who could work but choose not to, because they wouldn't receive significantly more than they do on benefits, which is daft.

Well yes she was, but if you remove them from the can't-be-bothereds atm then you give them no room for manoevre: where I live the market is empty, the steel works collapsed, the councils are cutting huge percentages and the jobs pages echo with emptiness

Being in the position we are, i'm no great eotahiser for the can't-be-botherds but at the same time do realise that there does have to be somewhere for them to go, and also that cutting benefits then has the effect of harming the most vulnerable.

I'm not a fan of vouchers either: I am of the fruit and veg one, but the trick to getting off benefits is often how clever you can be with your money. By never ever going out or owning more than three outfits, I can just about cover my MA fees over a year (we're talking £450, not the massive costs of some sciencey courses)- likewise such things as haircuts etc (vital if you ahve an interview)

I would like to see the truly lazy in jiobs, but cannot be sure I could accept the likely outcomes of that: Ms X gets her benefits stopped, blahgs chips off the neighbours and the kids go unfed or malnourished..... it's a difficult balancing act.

'eotahiser'

FFS even I dont know what that was meant to be!

eulogiser, I think

or maybe not

Well we do where I live, there just not the jobs people 'want'. I am a childminder and have looked after loads of children over the years. I have seen parents take up jobs and quit after 3days beacause it's 'boring' and the same with collage courses. I know about the ressession too I work 7am till 6pm and have only had 2 days off sick in 6 years (and not many holidays), my hubby works full time and we still struggle to make ends meet. It's the joys of working, you actually have to pay for things. Still at least I save money on childcare.
I would recomend it as a job if you really want to work, although it involves alot of paperwork and hardwork as well as a love of kids.

'The system needs to be started over. I'll do it.'

You can't even spell benefits, much less see that there's no one-size-fits-all solution for every claimant, your starting the system over is frightening, tbh.

In addition, there are tens of thousands of people currently employed to administer the system, what shall we do with them?

'I would recomend it as a job if you really want to work, although it involves alot of paperwork and hardwork as well as a love of kids.'

As TwoIfBySea pointed out, however, it's not a possibility for most private renters or even those in some social housing.

You have to be a homeowner for the most part to do such a job.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to this issue, and there must be flexibility designed into any changes in policy.

you know I would LOVE to be a childminder- sadly my tenancy agreement disallows it and not many people want to house their children with a child with severe agression related to autism

But thanks for the suggestion anyway