'Should we starve the jobless back to work?' poll discussion

alan8253

spiro wrote: »

The poll cleared said to use £50 as the cost of rent. Therefore if someone vote for £100 per week this was £50 for rent and £50 for everything else per week.

Are people nuts? You can't live on £50 a week! Have a look at your bills, add them up, then come up with a realistic figure. Food costs £20-30, do people really believe you can pay all the other bills with the rest? It doesn't even come close.

ariarnia

alan8253 wrote: »

Rent is paid by housing benefit so £100 for everything else is about right. If you want to save serious money on the benefits system (more than a relatively small amount by tinkering with JSA) try ending everyone's right to child benefit no matter what their income or how many kids they choose to have.

Not Housing benifit - LHA. Housing benifit is if you have a council house, and not many people have one of those. LHA is paid to people who rent privately and can find a landlord who'll rent to them on DSS.

LHA pays for the cheapest possible rent listed in your area (not your town, your broad market area).

If I was unemployed (currently a month into a 6 month contract so likely in 5 months if economy doesn't pick up)::(

IN
My LHA is listed as £46 per week (so £184 per 4 weeks)
I'm 24 so JSA is £50.95 (so £203.80)
Council tax equals out
Total = £96.95 (£387.80 per 4 weeks)

Sounds like a lot doesn't it!

Less than 1/2 the wage of someone working 35.5 hours a week (based on my current hours and salery - NMW)

OUT

I live in a £300 per 4 week 1 bed bedsit(cheapest flats in the village as the building's next to the level crossing - and I mean right next to) No shared flats in the village and only other rentals are 3 bed houses for £450 a month looking for a family.

Pre-pay electric (carp insulation in the 1930's badly converted building and it's all on electric, no gas so showers, hot water, heating, all billed to pre-pay) storage heaters. - last month this cost £65 with the heating never on and cooking weezels month meal plan.

no water meter (£35 per month flat rate), no phone, no internet (lunch hour), no TV, no DVD or games console, I don't even charge my mobile at home (shush, don't tell the boss):p

For work curently I have to travel into cardiff twice a week at a cost of £5.90 for a return, but if on JSA I would have to travel at least once every 2 weeks (and when I was unemployed, two or three times a week occationally) You don't get travel costs to sign in paid back, and you get only the cost over £4 of JS meetings.

That doesn't include travel to interviews or speculative visits looking for work, or (heaven forbid) a recreational visit to the museum so I don't go mad looking at the walls are not paid by JS, niether are visits to employers who have suggested you might want to come in and talk about work but don't have a firm interview.

It also doesn't include postage, CV printing, Stamps. And allows NOTHING for food. Government guidelines state £12.50 per adult a week for food for a healthy diet - I.e. £50 per month

Total out = £115.45 a week (£455.90 every 4 weeks) (IN THE SUMMER AT THAT)

DIFFERENCE = £18.50 per week (£68.10 every 4 weeks)

I'm not sure where I'm supposed to find this, but the only element under my control really there is food.

If I buy no food -£50 a month immidiately, and I also assume I save some money there in not having to cook it. :T

I could have less showers (4 a week atm lasting less than 10 mins each), already no budget for shampoo or deoderent... could be a wiffy summer. :eek:

Or maybe I shouldn't use the lights in the morning, not get up until afternoon and then make use of our long summer evenings?:money:

alan8253

Thanks ariarnia for straightening me about housing benefit. I don't claim it and the government blurb doesn't make that clear.

I'm in a very similar situation, about £70 monthly shortfall no matter how frugally I live. Came close to getting rid of broadband and landline recently to save a bit of money, still wouldn't be enough but it would help a lot. Also thought of cutting off my electric for a few months, luckily that didn't need to happen but looking likely that broadband/phone might have to go soon. I'll get clobbered with a whopping termination of contract charge but have been told I can discuss terms for paying that in installments. The main thing that screws up being able to live on JSA is a £70 monthly maintenance charge for my flat. Really takes a very large chunk of my money, but there's absolutely no help from benefits to pay it (I've asked loads of times).

jamespir

im shocked at the 2000 odd people who said they should live on nothing lets hope none of you find yourselves unemployed

scchin

I've known jobless people to live off the government, it's totally unfair for us who work for a living. I think a minimal amount should be fine, as long as it's limited to a certain timeframe, so we don't get families who keep being jobless and producing more children than they can look after just to get money off the government. Any why are they jobless? Are they ill? that's a different matter, but quite a few I've seen are totally capable to working, they just choose not to!

alan8253

I've been unemployed for just over a year. 60% of that time I've been ill with a recurring heart problem (I'm 57). At the start of that time I had some savings, which enabled me to survive on JSA, just. I've swapped between JSA and ESA (sickness benefit) half a dozen times, each time I do they withhold 3 days money ("waiting days") which makes a bad situation even worse. I started with savings, I'm now up to my overdraft limit with the bank (over £1000 pounds in the red) and if I can't pay the bills soon I'm in danger of having my electric and phone/broadband cut off. All that I can afford to do is eat and sit at home. Correction, I can't even afford to do that! Yippee! it's great on the dole!

rickbonar

jogu wrote: »

They get a £65,000 "resettlement grant".

Now how is it then that they expect everyone else to manage on between 10 and 20k per year?

Flipping heck; flipping your houses like the new speaker?

jamespir

scchin wrote: »

I've known jobless people to live off the government, it's totally unfair for us who work for a living. I think a minimal amount should be fine, as long as it's limited to a certain timeframe, so we don't get families who keep being jobless and producing more children than they can look after just to get money off the government. Any why are they jobless? Are they ill? that's a different matter, but quite a few I've seen are totally capable to working, they just choose not to!

you cant judge abook by its cover they may not seem ill but they maybe

eve13_2

I've just got of the phone from our local college. My son isn't eligable for train to gain funding for NVQ2 in child-care and we can't afford to pay for it. My son has volunteered 5 years with children and is brilliant with them. He is also an Aspie (autistic) which makes trying to understand the world a nightmare. He desperately wants to get into paid work at same place he volunteers, was told he would if he had the NVQ2. And when he gets back from there in 3 hours time I've got to tell him this isn't going to happen! Please tell me how being on benefits is such a good thing?

BigMummaF

everybear wrote: »

benefit should be generous to start with and then slowly reduce with time. Also i feel that if too many offers of work/training/voluntary work are refused then the benefit is lowered even more. Also taking lots of training/courses would require the person to attend work hard and pass not just attend courses to avoid losing benefit.

A pal of The Offspring was made redundant recently & put on a course in the next village, miles from public transport & doesn't drive--a minibus commuted the 'students'. Said pal was told they still had to go to the Job Centre to 'sign on' as per regulations on one of the days the course was being held, or risk losing benefit. BUT a failure to attend the course would also mean a breach of terms & benefit would be stopped. An absolute shambles to think that such a system is in place, where you are damned if you do AND damned if you don't, whichever you choose as the right answer--sort THAT one out

donquine wrote: »

On the assumption that an individual is able to work, that person should work. Assuming there is work available!....
When it comes to parents - they should only be paid to stay at home until their children are one. How many parents do you know who would have loved to stay at home and raise their kids but who had to arrange childcare and go out to work for purely financial reasons? Staying at home to raise your kids is a luxury - most people have to work and those who don't, should be those with enough money behind them to support that choice. It's not a right - it's an ideal and a bit of a pipe dream for many....

OK--cat & pigeon time.
My opinion is that a parent should stay at home to raise the family until they are old enough to be held responsible for their actions, around 14 maybe but that would be a different discussion. If less emphasis was put on material wealth & 'keeping up with the Jones', the need to have two full-time income households would be greatly reduced & also free up a position for a singleton. There's a similar situation in my own family where the husband has a comfortable income but a wife is working 40hrs+ a week, because they're the sort who change cars because the ash-tray is full
She is taking a job that another family member desperately needs to keep the roof over their heads....how can that be fair--justified--reasonable--all those other things some people want to describe the unemployed as NOT being..