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

PasturesNew

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Any single, non disabled person who's not working has the same amount to live on and most manage.

Who says they do though? On average.
Single people aren't as vocal as other groups, there's no emotional hook they can use like families/the old... and they're not hooked into groups and with organisations that fight their corner.

Oldernotwiser

PasturesNew wrote: »

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.


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.

If he's on contributions based JSA then he'd keep any income from a lodger.

It's no big deal having someone in to share, whatever your current situation, I've done it several times when money was short, even when I was working.

Max_Headroom_3

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

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

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

PasturesNew

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

If he's on contributions based JSA then he'd keep any income from a lodger.

It's no big deal having someone in to share, whatever your current situation, I've done it several times when money was short, even when I was working.

It might be if his house is a studio or 1 bed

Oldernotwiser

PasturesNew wrote: »

Who says they do though? On average.
Single people aren't as vocal as other groups, there's no emotional hook they can use like families/the old... and they're not hooked into groups and with organisations that fight their corner.

I don't understand what you're saying; JSA is the same for everybody if their situation's the same. I do think that living on JSA's tight if that's all you have, but it is equal.

Oldernotwiser

PasturesNew wrote: »

It might be if his house is a studio or 1 bed

You're right; there are just TONS of studio houses around, aren't there?

PasturesNew

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

You're right; there are just TONS of studio houses around, aren't there?

I'm in one right now. And I was in one from 1990-1997. So yes, many single people are in them.

Oldernotwiser

Max_Headroom wrote: »

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

I'm sorry, I know that living on £64 is tight but to say that it doesn't cover food and utilities for one person isn't realistic.

Oldernotwiser

PasturesNew wrote: »

I'm in one right now. And I was in one from 1990-1997. So yes, many single people are in them.

Do you mean a studio flat?

Max_Headroom_3

dopester wrote: »

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.

Thank you.

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.

Why not? It's unjust, and the present time (having to claim but finding I can't even survive on what I'm due) seems to me to be the perfect time to do it.

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

Yet? Explain what benefits I'll be due when the savings run out.

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

I am and thank God eh? Otherwise rather than being somewhat irked by it all I'd be in full screaming panic. Which is where an awful lot of people in my position must be, prior in some cases to ending up on the streets (as demonstrated by that example in The Times linked to above).

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.

All of it true, non of it putting food on the table however.

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.

Judging by the above, I can't However even if I could, I'm not going to. I don't chose to share my home with someone I like, I'm hardly going to share it with a total stranger!

And I refer you to my earlier comment, you don't see career benefit claimants made to share houses, so why should I?