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

Shakethedisease

....
2) Workless couples with kids getting benefits equivalent to £30k gross pay is an incentive to not work and to breed. Free childcare, guaranteed full-time minimum wage job opportunities, benefits contingent on working.
3) There is not enough council housing, and people with kids get priority. Another incentive to breed....

Just out of interest what level of income do you need to have before the word 'breed' changes to 'having children ' ? ( Horrible phrase to hang on any 'element' of human society ).

Been on benefits myself a few times in the past as a single parent. We bred 2 kids happily until hubby decided that he'd rather !!!!!! off and leave the cub rearing to me.

It was always a struggle. There never seemed to be enough for anything. Living from day to day, getting parents to slip me the odd tenner for food which they knew they'd never see again, hoping there were no big purchases to make that week. Birthdays and Xmas were a nightmare.

I don't think anyone live's 'happily' on benefits. It's a crap existence. You get by using catalogues, places like Brighthouse, Provy loans and Ebay for things others take for granted. Most of the above on punitiave interest rates but with no other option really if the washing machine goes tits.

Workshy, smirkshy. A small minority. Seems everyone 'knows' a friend of a friend who's driving a nice car, off on 2 holidays a year, smokes 60 fags a day and wears the latest 'designer' gear.. all at the expense of the tax payer.

Not possible. People like that are either doing some work on the side, or involved in something seriously dodgy. There is no way anyone living PURELY on benefits, as Max is finding out, would be able to afford any of the above.

I'd guess the Nike trainers were cheap knock-offs bought for £15 from a shady Ebay trader and nothing to get too many knickers in a twist about. If not, then perhaps they were a gift from grandparents etc etc. It seems terrribly judgemental to speculate that the tax-payer is funding designer trainers without knowing the full story.

This recession will see many formerly hard working men and women struggle on for quite a while to gain employment.. and after a time they will be agahst to see themselves branded as 'workshy' after they've been out of work for a period. You can only 'get on your bike' if there are jobs there. There aren't a lot around at the moment. Oh and for those with kids, get used to being told that you should've made sure you could support them before 'breeding'.

Max, wishing you well mate.

cuddlymarm

As far as I can see Max is talking about the lack of short term help available to him until he gets another job. Therefore it is totally illogical for him to sell up because he'll only have the extra expense of moving. Also if he wants to borrow money can he do this with no job? I was under the impression that banks were not allowed to lend to people who are going to struggle to pay the money back and surely if he can't support himself on what he's got coming in then all he will be doing is giving the bank their money back. Its pathetic that he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. If he was saying that he had no intention of working again then he should use his assets but in the short term why shouldn't he get state help? After all this is a safety net thats backfired because the money should be paid by taxpayers for taxpayers and over the years has been eroded by putting everyone in the same box (to save on paperwork and staff) Perhaps the government needs to go back to seperating all the categories. The people that can work should be seperate from those that can't ( and quite frankly won't shouldn't come into the equation at all) As usual this government (and the last one) don't want to be the bad guy. Theres always an election looming so noone wants to be unpopular. Surely thats the governments job.
Its only because there are so many people needing help at the moment thats this problem is coming to the fore becuase normally people are too busy working to care who is claiming what and whether they should.
Lifes unfair but its always been unfair. Its just we are noticing it more at the moment
Cuddles

lostinrates

cuddlymarm wrote: »

I was under the impression that banks were not allowed to lend to people who are going to struggle to pay the money back

which raises the question of CC to benefits claimants at all.

Some contributers have explained to me the cash back from cards is of substantial benefit to them.

Max_Headroom_3

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.

I understand that completely, but I fear you're missing my point.

Yes of course the two circumstances are different, but the situation is the same. Both people are living entirely on benefits.

Now if you want to say that benefits shouldn't fund a living, just go toward it, then that's fine.

If you want to say that benefits should afford a person a very basic standard of living then that is also fine.

However, what we actually seem to have is a system that allows one person to afford a living from it, and another person not to because (as you say) their circumstances are different.

What you need to decide is whether or not that's ok?

Is it right that the system supports one, but will not another another?

And that's before you take into account those circumstances, ie I've worked my whole adult life and am desperately looking to get back into work. Whereas she's lived on benefits for a goodly proportion of hers and continues happily to do so seemingly without care or effort to do otherwise.

And that is the whole point. That different circumstances clearly currently allow a large and unfair advantage or disadvantage.

Max_Headroom_3

SingleSue wrote: »

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.

Oh god, I'm really beginning to wish I hadn't mentioned the trainers now!! :rotfl:

They're just an example!!

The point is, whether she saved for them, whether she got some special DHS Designer Grant, whatever, the fact remains that she is able to fund more than an existence, whereas I cannot even afford an existence.

Max_Headroom_3

cuddlymarm wrote: »

As far as I can see Max is talking about the lack of short term help available to him until he gets another job. Therefore it is totally illogical for him to sell up because he'll only have the extra expense of moving. Also if he wants to borrow money can he do this with no job? I was under the impression that banks were not allowed to lend to people who are going to struggle to pay the money back and surely if he can't support himself on what he's got coming in then all he will be doing is giving the bank their money back. Its pathetic that he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. If he was saying that he had no intention of working again then he should use his assets but in the short term why shouldn't he get state help?

Precisely! To say "oh well, borrow against your equity" when I've got no method of paying back the loan is ridiculous.

Equally "well sell up then", because all I'm doing is moving myself from a position in having no cost attached to putting a roof over my head (albeit still a cost to running that "roof") to putting me in a position with a big cost to putting a roof over my head, all whilst I've got no income, is daft.

After all this is a safety net thats backfired because the money should be paid by taxpayers for taxpayers and over the years has been eroded by putting everyone in the same box (to save on paperwork and staff) Perhaps the government needs to go back to seperating all the categories. The people that can work should be seperate from those that can't ( and quite frankly won't shouldn't come into the equation at all) As usual this government (and the last one) don't want to be the bad guy. Theres always an election looming so noone wants to be unpopular. Surely thats the governments job.
Its only because there are so many people needing help at the moment thats this problem is coming to the fore becuase normally people are too busy working to care who is claiming what and whether they should.
Lifes unfair but its always been unfair. Its just we are noticing it more at the moment
Cuddles

Thank you!!!!! :T

That's exactly it.

dopester

roswell wrote: »

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.

Too many people on this thread don't want to face reality.

At least my blunt replies are honest. If things weren't to turn around for a home-owner in the same position as Max... with a new job...take private pension early... if they aren't willing to make adjustments such as liquidate private possessions, downsizing, MEW (not that I advise it), get partner to look for work, invite family to come back and live and contribute towards bills ... well you would be taking a big risk of not digging yourself deeper in to trouble, if you can't get by on JSA.

No fairy-godmother from the state is going to boost JSA for home-owners, despite them being long-term taxpayers. I would imagine it is very hard to afford the expense of running a car on just JSA. Hope there are transport links nearby. Hope you don't become a forced seller in an increasingly challenging market for sellers to sell in. I've seen it before... ignored reality and the bank sold the house off for a steal.

lostinrates

dopester wrote: »

Too many people on this thread don't want to face reality.
.

I don't think its about facing reality, I think its about saying the system, as it stands, is not wholly good.

Dithering_Dad

dopester wrote: »

Too many people on this thread don't want to face reality.

Your reality is very different from most people's reality.

dopester

lostinrates wrote: »

I don't think its about facing reality, I think its about saying the system, as it stands, is not wholly good.

Maybe so, but do you see any changes to in within 12 months or more, from a super-debt UK government?

Max may well land on his feet and lets hope he does... but others in the same position have to mentally be prepared to make compromises or changes, and that may include selling their home... and downsizing or renting... if they can't afford to run it, and run car and whatever else on JSA - else get in to worse trouble down the line.