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

JayScottGreenspan

If you want adequate benefits and a hope of social housing you need to have at least one child.

Under the current system, it would be entirely rational for anyone who feels their job is under threat, or anyone approaching the end of full-time education to have children as soon as possible.

And having savings is not a good idea, either.

oneeye1

having kids means nowt.i have no work wife and 2 kids 1 under 5 1 under 1 and i get 101 a week to look after my house and family so glad ive been an honest worker all my life

Max_Headroom_3

oneeye1 wrote: »

having kids means nowt.i have no work wife and 2 kids 1 under 5 1 under 1 and i get 101 a week to look after my house and family so glad ive been an honest worker all my life

That's very interesting, thank you.

The more I hear, the more I realise that the benefits system in this country is completely out of whack.

It's encouraging those who know how to play the system o breed, and not actually doing the job that all those billions are ploughed into it to do, support those that need it.

Pobby

Isn`t this how the benefits system works? It should not be a life style choice just to reward the work shy or to encourage non working parents to have as many children as they choose and then expect bigger houses and more income provided by hard working peoples taxes.

In my line of work I have come across all sorts of people. I remember a young pregnant girl telling me about the flat she had been given. She was having a four poster bed provided for her. She told me she was entitled to it!

I have paid a lot of tax having in the past being a high earner. Some years ago my wife was attempting to re enter the work place after a couple of years of ill health. We went to the job centre to see if there was any help to get her back to work. There wasn`t. All they banged on about was benefits which of course we were not entitled to.

Perhaps the most depressing thing was the scruffs hanging about smoking roll ups in the car park and the gaggle of young girls pushing prams.

Max_Headroom_3

lostinrates wrote: »

I tentatively agree: I think there are exceptions though, there are some mothers who have had life happen after thay have had children, can't get work easily, can't fit work round children easily: I'd rather those good parents (I sy mother as force of habit, it could be a father left with children) were allowed to parent and produce worthwhile members of society than forced out to work and, especially where children are of particular need, they grow up with out the guidance they need: morally, educationally. As I say the hard thing here is who could possibly make the judgement as to who is a good parent whose use to society is bringing up children? I don't have much faith on the current system without bring more of judgement into it: the vontrol, the political influence etc etc that this would lead to is simply terrifying.

Do I think its right now? no, but I think it could be much, much worse too. That the system is least provident to those who have been most ''model'' members of our society seems unfair and bizarre: I can't think of a way to make the system, in my eyes faultless. Certainly not a vote winning way!

A good post and i agree with you. This isn't a "single mothers on benefits" rant, there are plenty of single mothers who deserve and need the support the welfare system provides, and should provide.

The trouble is, there are equally plenty more (like the homeless guy in the example above) who are equally in need of help and not getting it, and plenty yet still just playing the system and getting the money that maybe ought to be going to the homeless guy and the chap who posted above who's getting £100/week to support a family, and not least of all me, who quite literally and genuinely won't be able to afford to eat once the savings run out!

The thing is, in the current financial climate a very great deal of people are going to suddenly discover this first hand, as I have just done.

Max_Headroom_3

Pobby wrote: »

Isn`t this how the benefits system works? It should not be a life style choice just to reward the work shy or to encourage non working parents to have as many children as they choose and then expect bigger houses and more income provided by hard working peoples taxes.

In my line of work I have come across all sorts of people. I remember a young pregnant girl telling me about the flat she had been given. She was having a four poster bed provided for her. She told me she was entitled to it!

I have paid a lot of tax having in the past being a high earner. Some years ago my wife was attempting to re enter the work place after a couple of years of ill health. We went to the job centre to see if there was any help to get her back to work. There wasn`t. All they banged on about was benefits which of course we were not entitled to.

Perhaps the most depressing thing was the scruffs hanging about smoking roll ups in the car park and the gaggle of young girls pushing prams.

Based on my experience, no sadly it isn't...

lostinrates

Max_Headroom wrote: »

The trouble is, there are equally plenty more (like the homeless guy in the example above) who are equally in need of help and not getting it, and plenty yet still just playing the system and getting the money that maybe ought to be going to the homeless guy and the chap who posted above who's getting £100/week to support a family, and not least of all me, who quite literally and genuinely won't be able to afford to eat once the savings run out!

The thing is, in the current financial climate a very great deal of people are going to suddenly discover this first hand, as I have just done.

Well, I agree with you on this part too.

Have you looked outside you industry for work? However hard someone looks with fewer jobs around some people are not going to find employment right now

oldMcDonald

Max, the current system is sh*te. One thing in your favour is that you paid off your house, if you had saved instead you would not even get the ridiculous amount they expect you to live on.

I really hope something turns up for you soon.

JayScottGreenspan

oneeye1 wrote: »

having kids means nowt.i have no work wife and 2 kids 1 under 5 1 under 1 and i get 101 a week to look after my house and family so glad ive been an honest worker all my life

http://www.entitledto.co.uk

If you had no significant savings, you would be able to get £100 a week JSA, £100 a week tax credits and your council tax and rent paid.
If you're rent is ~£670 a month that adds up to about £20k a year tax free.

If, on the other hand, you've saved for a rainy day, you'll be entitled to... £100 a week.

Which is absolutely f*&^%$g outrageous.

PasturesNew

Your mistake, Max, is using the old words ... "safety net". It's just a "safety net" to you because you're single.

For those with kids/families, it became a whole mantra of "out of poverty" - well, you can't get them out of poverty without putting somebody else in it - because poverty is a moving target. The same as everybody can't earn average wages. Some have to be below, some above, for the bar to be drawn.

And getting families out of poverty has effectively put single people into poverty. It's what we call: a right b4st4rd.