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

pipkin71

lostinrates wrote: »

I have, BTW, no doubt, that this young man had a difficult emotional life. I have no doubt he is a victim of society, but I hold while we were paying for him in such a way he would have found it very hard to have been anything else. As he said, why should he lose his time, his benefits (anmd his illegal income, which in work he would have had less availablility for)? This is a totally different scenario to a parent, or someone like Max.

There will be those who make money illegally - both in work and out. My opinion was that given the same set of circumstances - single male, no disability, no dependents, then Max would receive the same as a young man who hadn't lost his job, but had instead not worked since leaving school.

Where it differs is when disability or children are present.

mewbie_2

lostinrates wrote: »

Hello you.

Er what? Have I posted in the Moneysavers?

Oh OK then...

<<<<<<<<<<<hugs>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Is that how it's done?

lostinrates

mewbie wrote: »

Er what? Have I posted in the Moneysavers?

The whole thing is moneysavers?

I thought you could have made the effort to hug in Latin.:rolleyes:

mewbie_2

lostinrates wrote: »

The whole thing is moneysavers?

I thought you could have made the effort to hug in Latin.:rolleyes:

Ah the internet. Appear a genius to your fellow man, or woman.

<cough>

"Potesne me amplexere"

lostinrates

mewbie wrote: »

Ah the internet. Appear a genius to your fellow man, or woman.

<cough>

"Potesne me amplexere"

I stick with what I know:
salve

dopester

Max, you've replied to 2 post I've made on your thread, and I've accepted your reasoning. Having worked 25 years since school, you were paying down the mortgage debt on your home.

Max_Headroom wrote: »

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!

No. I just don't think you should overly focus on the "injustice" of it. Not at the present time. Long-term career benefit claimers, compared to your position of having worked for many years, and now maybe needing to fall back on the system.

Although I also recognise the savings you have put by doesn't yet allow you to make a full claim on benefits.

You own your own home. You're in a better position than many people I suspect.

Why look at it that way? That you should be forced to take adaptive measures when others don't have to?

Those who don't own their own property can get housing benefit. You have the advantage of owning your property. Some who own, may have savings and so not qualify for benefits.

Until you gain employment again, I'm was just thinking of ways you might have an easier time of things, financially. To make it less of a burden. That depends of course if the benefits system allows a lodger and the income to you. Direct income to you through a lodger's rent, I should imagine not allowed without forfeiting some JSA - but maybe could pass through if allowing a lodger on terms where their payment is directly towards utility bills. That is just a guess though.

PasturesNew

dopester wrote: »

That depends of course if the benefits

No. He'd lose some of this council tax benefit and he'd be allowed to keep £5/week from the lodger as "income" and the rest would (£ for £) be taken from his £64.30.

dopester wrote: »

Direct income to you through a lodger's rent, I should imagine not allowed without forfeiting some JSA - but maybe could pass through if allowing a lodger on terms where their payment is directly towards utility bills. That is just a guess though.

It is most likely that "they" would deem it all income and he'd end up having a lodger and £5 in his hand extra for the hassle/risk. And he'd have to change his household insurance and pay extra for a lodger.

Oldernotwiser

lostinrates wrote: »

IMO, thats part of the issue, why is it that people working fulltime in ''average'' or above professions should NEED to?

Do you mean NEED to or BE ABLE to?

lostinrates

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Do you mean NEED to or BE ABLE to?

Both I suppose.

Oldernotwiser

Max_Headroom wrote: »

Which adjustment do you recommend, the "not eating at all" adjustment, or the "not using any gas, water or electricity at all" adjustment?

If you're not working, for whatever reason, you need to change your lifestyle and not try to live as you do when working.

Any single, non disabled person who's not working has the same amount to live on and most manage. Some of them don't even have the savings you have. I do sympathise with your situation but you are not the only one in this situation; I really hope that you get a job soon.