The recession, benefits, the safety net, and the learning curve

Broken_hearted

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

Yep, they class is as deprivation of assets and add it into the calculations. They can only do this if you put in a lump sum directly before you apply for state assistance. Though my approach of overpaying my mortgage each month cannot be classed in this way.

Odd if you're allowed to blow it all on a foreign holiday or consumer item, but can't sensibly pay down debt with it.

Not entirely true if you have debts you can pay them off with money you just can't pay it off the mortgage.

dopester

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

It's ridiculous that people who are sensible to put away money for difficult times are then penalised for doing so.

Not really. That is my point. I won't have to claim, even if I lose my main income, as over the years I've probably had fewer foreign holidays than others have thought they deserve, been very selective in consumerism choices, - whilst still enjoying a fair standard of living. Not a dig, but there are no £500 suits in my wardrobe.

If you're complaining about the benefits system, the low amounts it gives to survive on - then you should really look ahead in advance. Especially if you've been in employment for decades. If you've got items you can liquidate - to sell, then you should sell. Or if a homeowner take other measures like a lodger in order to pay utility bills. It is a basic safety net (at £60ish a week for over 25s), not intended to maintain the lifestyle you have grown accustomed to in paid employment.

JayScottGreenspan

dopester wrote: »

It is a basic safety net (at £60ish a week for over 25s), not intended to maintain the lifestyle you have grown accustomed to in paid employment.

I don't think anyone's disputing that.

What rancours is the fact that:
1) people who have never worked, who have never saved, can get benefits equivalent to a £30k gross salary,
2) those who have worked, who have saved get £100 a week and are expected to run down their savings.

Like the state pension, it is encouraging irresponsibility.

Oldernotwiser

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

I don't think anyone's disputing that.

What rancours is the fact that:
1) people who have never worked, who have never saved, can get benefits equivalent to a £30k gross salary,
2) those who have worked, who have saved get £100 a week and are expected to run down their savings.

Like the state pension, it is encouraging irresponsibility.

So, do you think that people with many hundreds of thousands in the bank should be able to claim the same as people who have nothing?

Many people on minimum wage cannot save, however much they might like to; not having savings doesn't make one f*ckless, lazy or a bad manager.

Dithering_Dad

PasturesNew wrote: »

Single, over 25, living alone, self-contained. WTC pays out at about £11k and under for me at £1.96 to be precise. But I could never say how much I earn. It changes daily, wouldn't know how to calculate it. It can only be calculated a year after the event, after the tax year is complete ... too late then. Last year's sum was OK - and I do a bit of temping here/there. Just a month of temping makes a massive difference when you're hovering on that line.


I've been self-employed since March 2007. I was working from home for a company and sold my house, so no home = no job. So I had to hand in my notice. But even with them I was self-employed, not employed. Not been employed since I was made redundant in June 2006, except 4 months of temping in 2007-08 and one week in 08-09.

I already qualify for a state pension. Done more than 30 years already. Paperwork says so.


When I get to that age I'll have a permanent address and will know income/outgoings so it will be easy to fill in their forms and take what's on offer.

Right now life is so transient, I couldn't begin to fit the figures onto the form and swear they were right/true. So I'd rather not. And, who knows, the phone might ring tomorrow with a job.


I have to STR until I have a job, it could be anywhere - up to 200 miles from where I am now, but most likely to be 100 miles. Who knows ... you don't know until the phone rings.


As I said, I am borderline entitled. Might be looking bad this month, but next month a 10% increase in income could swing it the other way. A week's temping takes me right out of the zone.

Glad to hear that your state pension is all paid up - did you get that from the Pension forecast I advised you go apply for?

I hope you don't mind me discussing the above, but as I've said in the past, I do worry about you PN, dear.

JayScottGreenspan

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Many people on minimum wage cannot save, however much they might like to; not having savings doesn't make one f*ckless, lazy or a bad manager.

Who said it did?

Max should get enough to pay the bills and live frugally. People who have never worked should not get more than him.

Personally I'd link it the the number of years NI contributions, so people who have worked for many years on minimum wage would get the maximum help.

Oldernotwiser

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

Max should get enough to pay the bills and live frugally. People who have never worked should not get more than him.

But Max owns his own home, has no children or disabilities. If any of these applied, he's get more money. Someone in his situation who'd never worked would get exactly the same as Max does now because benefits are paid according to need; I can't really see any other way this could be done.

Max_Headroom_3

dopester wrote: »

Not really. That is my point. I won't have to claim, even if I lose my main income, as over the years I've probably had fewer foreign holidays than others have thought they deserve, been very selective in consumerism choices, - whilst still enjoying a fair standard of living. Not a dig, but there are no £500 suits in my wardrobe.

Ooohh meeoow! Not much it wasn't! :rotfl:

There is one £500 suit in my wardrobe. Before I bought that (for job interviews) I didn't own a suit. I'm a strong believer in first impressions count. If you want a decently paid job you've got to look like someone who's a decent earner. That may not be fair or right, but it's how it is.

I've had one foreign holiday in the last, well, ever actually, and that was courtesy of someone else.

If you're complaining about the benefits system, the low amounts it gives to survive on - then you should really look ahead in advance. Especially if you've been in employment for decades. If you've got items you can liquidate - to sell, then you should sell.

Matey, I've spent the last 15 years buying, paying for, renovating and furnishing a modest house to a good standard. That's taken pretty much every penny over those years and it's left me in a position whereby despite only getting a pittance from the state in my hour of need, I'm actually fairly ok for a short while. If that's not planning ahead, I'd love to know what is!

Or if a homeowner take other measures like a lodger in order to pay utility bills.

You know the odd thing is, of all the people I know who happily exist year after year on benefits, I can't think of a single one that has a lodger. Funny that, isn't it?

But you think I should.

Well done!

It is a basic safety net (at £60ish a week for over 25s), not intended to maintain the lifestyle you have grown accustomed to in paid employment.

Where have I suggested that I think the state should maintain my lifestyle?

The state should allow me to survive. Scrape by. That's less than many who are "career benefit claimants" are getting but I'm not getting it.

JayScottGreenspan

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

But Max owns his own home, has no children or disabilities. If any of these applied, he's get more money. Someone in his situation who'd never worked would get exactly the same as Max does now because benefits are paid according to need; I can't really see any other way this could be done.

There are many other ways it could be done. The current UK system is not the only possible system.

Do you think the current system has got the balance pretty much right?
Do you think it provides adequately for Max?
Do you think it encourages a culture of dependency amongst certain sections of the community?

Personally I think it fails to help most honest people, whilst simultaneously propagating a demographic creep that is generating a few too many rather unpleasant young people.

JayScottGreenspan

Sadly, the educated masses, the broadsheets and most MPs are afraid to debate the issue.

It's not popular to be associated with attacking benefits claimants, so they just complacently assume that the current system must be optimal. You see, it must be - otherwise they'd have to discuss it, which they don't want to.

The result is that sections of the community are left to decay. Anyone decent and hard-working and unfortunate enough to be allocated a council house on the wrong street will know what I'm talking about.

Abandoning them because our egos find the point at hand distasteful is indefensible.