What happens to state benefit in a recession

Yoshua

Damzel_In_Distress wrote: »

my son is only two and he can recite the alpherbet, when infact i have an IQ of 137!

Did you teach him yourself? Hope he can spell alphabet and in fact! Sorry to appear cruel but your post just sums up the attitude that is wrong with this country.

You say you only get 100 odd quid a week to live on, but you probably get rent and council tax paid as well.

My wife and I also have a baby and I work damn hard to cover the rent and council tax and all the bills, after all the tax I pay I think you have more money to live on than us.


I have travelled the world and in other countries if someone cant support themselves then family has to or they just have to work. Maybe you should just have rice and water just to stay alive until you can get some work enough to just buy some bread as a luxury as you share a room with 16 other people who are not working. You think I am extreme but this country is not far from this.

Why should those working and paying tax pay for those not working?

ianian99

Yoshua wrote: »

Why should those working and paying tax pay for those not working?

why should someone fit and healthy pay for someone who is sicks' NHS costs.

Broken_hearted

Yoshua wrote: »

Why should those working and paying tax pay for those not working?

Cos we worked and payed our taxes so if anything bad did happen the state would help.

MrsE_2

ianian99 wrote: »

I would say the opposite.In the 80's benefits were thrown at people. grant for this grant for that. tightened up in the 90's with food vouchers,(although now done away with since people complained about asylum seekers getting them) budgeting loans etc etc

The social services use food vouchers

Prudent

Damzel_In_Distress wrote: »

end of the days !!!!!! happens and sometimes things just cant be avoided
Yes, s!!t happens. I became a single parent through no choice of my own too. My first priority was to get a full time job to have make enough money to support myself and my daughter.

I can assure all of you that living on benefits with a child to take care of is not bloody easy at all,
No it isn't easy being a single parent .. and its much tougher when you work. During the time I have been a single parent, I have had one eight month stint off work -after being assaulted at work resulting in serious injury. I can assure it was much easier being a parent at home -even when I was in severe pain.

This entire discussion is founded by people who have no compassion for anyone but themselves,and seem to think people on benfits are living like the queen...on £110 a week??..quote]

After paying housing costs, tax, NI and council tax etc, I have been able to take £100 a week out of the bank. I work full time in a very demanding job. £20 of this has to pay my petrol to work.
You can see my food spends in my sig. We eat very healthy food by cooking from scatch.

I am sorry to be hard, but I would have had a lot cushier life on benefits. Other people would have had a harder life to pay for my benefits.

I recognise there are exceptions- especially mums looking after children with disabilities, but I think more people could work.

shirlgirl2004

To be fair to DID she was 9 months pregnant when her partner left so she could hardly go out and get a job. As much as I don't like scroungers I think with a child so young she is doing the right thing. Stay at home with your child whilst it is young, that is where a mother should be. She's making use of her time at home to train or something worthwhile so that one day she'll be able to contribute to the system that helped her.

I do think if she's paying £100 extra for her rent it shouldn't be damp. I'd look at getting something cheaper and use the £100 toward heating it properly. Better to share a room with your child and be warm than have your own space and be cold and potentially ill.

Badger_Lady

I think the point is that the benefits system is there, and DID for one did no more than she was entitled to do - she hasn't cheated anyone, hasn't planned to get into her position, and of course was happy to accept the help offered in order to what was best for her and her new young family. We certainly can't blame people for taking this option over the harder one suggested by Prudent... but if the benefits system weren't there, she wouldn't have had that choice to make.

No-one's blaming benefit claimants for taking the benefits they're entitled to, just questioning whether the system is fair to all (which it probably never can be).

I for one (single and childless, worked since I was 13) do not want to end up like the US where people live in fear of getting sick or losing their jobs, because it can so quickly descend into poverty, hunger, crime and death. I like knowing that the safety net is there if I ever get into trouble, or indeed if anyone I know and care about gets into trouble. It's very comforting when your employer says "we're cutting jobs" to know that I could still live.

MrsE_2

Badger_Lady wrote: »

I for one (single and childless, worked since I was 13) do not want to end up like the US where people live in fear of getting sick or losing their jobs, because it can so quickly descend into poverty, hunger and death. I like knowing that the safety net is there if I ever get into trouble, or indeed if anyone I know and care about gets into trouble. It's very comforting when your employer says "we're cutting jobs" to know that I could still live.

DH watched a programme on the US & medical costs.

I think it was people still not well from 911 (or people not able to work from problems sustained in 911.

So they took them (the UK programme makers) to Guantanamo Bay, as the prisioners at Guantanamo Bay get healthcare:rolleyes:

whathavewedone

DID is getting a really hard time here. I can't understand why anyone is bregudging her income support. She has a toddler !!!!!!! For it to be worthwhile for her to work in a minimum wage job the govt would either have to pay for all her childcare (in which case she would still be costing the taxpayer money) or she would probably be out of pocket when by the sounds of it she is barely making ends meet as it is.

People play the system but DID is not one of them. Do you really envy her lifestyle?

I have two toddlers myself. My husband works and I am a lawyer turned stay at home mum for the time being. I can earn a good salary but even so would barely break even at the moment if I worked because of childcare costs. If I were to go and work in Tesco we would be paying money for me to work.

It isn't good for society for very young children to be put into full time childcare, particularly if that childcare has to be as cheap as possible. Fine if you earn enough to be able to afford a nanny with great references or a lovely nursery but not if you have to send your child to a childminder who turns c beebies on and drags the children round to their friends/mums house/shopping etc. Not that all childminders are like this but the less money you have the less choice you have, as with everything.



I do think taxpayers are having the p*** taken out of them but to say that there should be no NHS, no welfare state, no safety net of any kind? Dear god.

neverdespairgirl

whathavewedone wrote: »

DID is getting a really hard time here. I can't understand why anyone is bregudging her income support. She has a toddler !!!!!!!.

I for one don't begrudge it. I do think, though, that when she says she "only" has £110 a week after housing costs, she doesn't appreciate that a lot of people who do work have less than that.