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

JayScottGreenspan

dopester wrote: »

If you had a house, with no debt secured on it, value of £250,000... £500,000, or £1 million You have an asset of value. You have the choice to sell it, go rent somewhere else with the money release, or downsize to a house of lower value, in perhaps a less affluent area. By selling and renting or downsizing... you could get off benefits immediately and perhaps even start your own business with some of the money released.

What about giving him six months JSA at a rate linked to NI contributions (£50 pw + £5 pw for each year of the last twenty he has worked, for example) to tide him over?

Forcing someone to sell their house in order to survive between jobs is a bit harsh.

Max_Headroom_3

pipkin71 wrote: »

And do you know exactly how she funded those trainers?

Did she get a loan from the provident? Did she get a loan off the DSS? Did she save some of her money each week?

I agree, it does depend on circumstances. The more children you have or the level of disability can mean you have a comfortable lifestyle with regards money coming in. I would also say though that I think the majority would rather have their health than the extra benefits being disabled allows.

Don't get too het up about the trainers. They're just a visual representation of levels of affordability between two people on benefits but from different circumstances.

I can't afford to eat, she can afford to, plus trainers plus a car, etc.

Again, I'm simply trying to highlight my original point.

Many (like myself) see people happily living this way (entirely on benefits) and believed that this was the unfortunate side effect of a system that wouldn't allow anyone in the country to have less than a very basic existence. Indeed (as the trainer incident is supposed to demonstrate) some manage a slightly better than basic existence.

So we believed it was a catch-all, but some were able to work it to be a bit more than a catch-all and live off it. But hey ho, price you pay for such a system etc.

So it's a shock to this new boy to the realities of the benefit system to discover that in fact this isn't the case. Despite having financially supported this system for many years, I find that actually it won't support me when I need it. And that's a real surprise.

And I suspect a lot of people will be similarly shocked.

I'm very fortunate. I've got a house, I've got a small amount of money of my own, I'll be ok for a bit. But very many won't, and they'll look at the "career claimants" (for want of a better expression) as they lose their homes and end up on the streets in extreme cases (as has happened already) and they'll feel very aggieved indeed...

Dithering_Dad

If max is out of work for good, then what you advise is correct Dopester - he should 'cut his cloth to suit his circumstances', but we're talking about a temporary event here. Christ, by the time he's sold his house he could be back in employment.

To turn it around for a moment - why should Max have to sell his house at a loss and go through the stress and expense of selling when other people, who fritter their money away and have nothing to show for it apart from a rented apartment full of tat with an expensive car sat outside, get more benefits?

In my book, you should get out proportionate to what you put in. If you have never worked then you get enough to prevent you from starving - if you have worked for years, then you get a proportion of your income, which should be enough to keep you ticking over for upto 6 months until you find alternate employment. It should then slowly taper down for a further 6 months, giving time for lifestyle adjustments necessary for long-term unemployment.

Max_Headroom_3

dopester wrote: »

I think it is very relevant.

If you had a house, with no debt secured on it, value of £250,000... £500,000, or £1 million You have an asset of value. You have the choice to sell it, go rent somewhere else with the money release, or downsize to a house of lower value, in perhaps a less affluent area. By selling and renting or downsizing... you could get off benefits immediately and perhaps even start your own business with some of the money released.

Instead you expect the benefits system to support you with higher benefits, when you have such an asset of significant value.... because it is just a house? Whilst also complaining the benefits are not enough to comfortably get by on...

By my way of thinking the system leaves people in your situation with the choice to make... and it is part of the process. I know it sounds harsh, and it isn't personal but just addressing the issue, but others can come in who can afford the home and to run it, without just scraping by on JSA. It is all part of market readjustment. You have a few options, and the JSA is not much higher else it would hinder with market readjustments.

I know the other stuff is injustice... but I can't help but see it as would-be injustice if people who own homes valued at say £500,000... but little by way of savings and income.... got big increases in benefit, allowing them to comfortably keep those homes, without being forced to make adjustments or even liquidate. Even for home owners with homes valued at £70,000 or £100,000. If they can't make good from it, they can get housing benefit in the future.

I think it would be very interesting to be able to know whether you would still be of that opinion if you were a homeowner.

For the record, I live in a very modest terraced house. I resisted the temptation to "move up" to, say, a nice semi with a garage and a bigger garden in a nicer area despite having been easily able to afford it because I preferred the security of a small mortgage and frankly, nice though it'd be, I don't actually need anything more. Want, maybe. Need, no.

Bear in mind incidentally that if I had gone that route and had therefore got a mortgage now, I could claim for that...

To my mind everyone needs a place to live. It's a very basic tenet of life. So it makes (to my mind) no sense at all to say to that person "Ok, you've got a house, you own it outright, we're not having to fund that as part of your benefits. So we'll make you you sell it, make yourself homeless in the process, and then we'll eventually add having to house you to your benefits as well".

My actions in living modestly and frugally have allowed me to own my own house and therefore reduce significantly what I need to claim to live on. To punish me for that, stop me being a home owner, and put me in a position of needing to claim more seems perverse to me.

I suspect that if you owned a house it'd seem perverse to you too...

pipkin71

Max_Headroom wrote: »

Don't get too het up about the trainers. They're just a visual representation of levels of affordability between two people on benefits but from different circumstances.

I can't afford to eat, she can afford to, plus trainers plus a car, etc.

Again, I'm simply trying to highlight my original point.

Many (like myself) see people happily living this way (entirely on benefits) and believed that this was the unfortunate side effect of a system that wouldn't allow anyone in the country to have less than a very basic existence. Indeed (as the trainer incident is supposed to demonstrate) some manage a slightly better than basic existence.

So we believed it was a catch-all, but some were able to work it to be a bit more than a catch-all and live off it. But hey ho, price you pay for such a system etc.

So it's a shock to this new boy to the realities of the benefit system to discover that in fact this isn't the case. Despite having financially supported this system for many years, I find that actually it won't support me when I need it. And that's a real surprise.

And I suspect a lot of people will be similarly shocked.

I'm very fortunate. I've got a house, I've got a small amount of money of my own, I'll be ok for a bit. But very many won't, and they'll look at the "career claimants" (for want of a better expression) as they lose their homes and end up on the streets in extreme cases (as has happened already) and they'll feel very aggieved indeed...

I wouldn't say I was the one getting hetup over the trainers Max.

The very reason why it isn't a representation is because the circumstances are different.

I understand your original point, but you are trying to base that point on an unfair system from different perspectives.

Now had you said the single woman on jsa with no children, no disabilities, went and bought a £130 pair of trainers for her birthday whilst I cannot afford to eat, I would question why. I would also ask the same questions about whether you knew how she had funded them.

It's all well and good looking at what others get on benefits, but when their situation doesn't mirror yours, naturally the amounts will be different.

I agree, it doesn't seem fair that you are out of work struggling. I agree the benefit system needs a shake up, but comparing apples and oranges and stating the oranges are in a worse position to the apples isn't going to get anywhere.

Graham_Devon

pipkin71 wrote: »

I wouldn't say I was the one getting hetup over the trainers Max.

The very reason why it isn't a representation is because the circumstances are different.

I understand your original point, but you are trying to base that point on an unfair system from different perspectives.

Now had you said the single woman on jsa with no children, no disabilities, went and bought a £130 pair of trainers for her birthday whilst I cannot afford to eat, I would question why. I would also ask the same questions about whether you knew how she had funded them.

It's all well and good looking at what others get on benefits, but when their situation doesn't mirror yours, naturally the amounts will be different.

I agree, it doesn't seem fair that you are out of work struggling. I agree the benefit system needs a shake up, but comparing apples and oranges and stating the oranges are in a worse position to the apples isn't going to get anywhere.

Erm, thats the whole point of this thread. Looking at the two different situations.

SingleSue

Just £2.50 a week put aside for a year would be enough to buy those trainers, easily doable even on benefits....it just means going without one meal for an adult, or if a drinking person, one pint (I am guessing, I have no idea how much pints are nowadays, I'm still stuck in the age where you could get a pint for less than a quid!)

Not that I would ever buy my children anything like that, ebay and sales all the way here.

lostinrates

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

In my book, you should get out proportionate to what you put in. .

Hrd to evaluate.

Mother, worked a couple of years, married, became sahm, husband runs of to some where overseas.....she's stuffed f they can't chase him for payments, eh?

Fulltime carers, mothers who got pregnant beofre putting in but are bringing up valuble future contributers to sciety by dedicated sahparenting. Or perhaps a child is disbaled and would require expensive professional care f the SAHparent were not able to learn to do it. It might be better for the indvidual to work under syuch circumstance, but for the economy? For society? I'm not convinced.

Dithering_Dad

lostinrates wrote: »

Hrd to evaluate.

Mother, worked a couple of years, married, became sahm, husband runs of to some where overseas.....she's stuffed f they can't chase him for payments, eh?

Fulltime carers, mothers who got pregnant beofre putting in but are bringing up valuble future contributers to sciety by dedicated sahparenting. Or perhaps a child is disbaled and would require expensive professional care f the SAHparent were not able to learn to do it. It might be better for the indvidual to work under syuch circumstance, but for the economy? For society? I'm not convinced.

Sorry, was talking about JSA and other allowances one receives due to being out of work, rather than Disabled Living Allowance, Carer's Allowance, Incapacity Benefit and other benefits that are in place to assist people who are unable to work for one reason or another.

roswell

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

If max is out of work for good, then what you advise is correct Dopester - he should 'cut his cloth to suit his circumstances', but we're talking about a temporary event here. Christ, by the time he's sold his house he could be back in employment.

To turn it around for a moment - why should Max have to sell his house at a loss and go through the stress and expense of selling when other people, who fritter their money away and have nothing to show for it apart from a rented apartment full of tat with an expensive car sat outside, get more benefits?

In my book, you should get out proportionate to what you put in. If you have never worked then you get enough to prevent you from starving - if you have worked for years, then you get a proportion of your income, which should be enough to keep you ticking over for upto 6 months until you find alternate employment. It should then slowly taper down for a further 6 months, giving time for lifestyle adjustments necessary for long-term unemployment.

I would vote for that we shoudl each have a personal account where you accrue a future allowance relative to teh input made, those that dont contribute shoudl get basic life requirements only really it woudl work the same as an insurance policy more than benifits.

As for Max selling hsi house .. great idea he can sell his house buy a 1998 1.2 Corsa accidently loose his house fund on black 15 and then the council will give him a house and housing benifits .. wake up he still need a hosue to live in regardless of if he owns it or is council housed its stil 1 house.