The jobless are no shirking scroungers – you try living on £65.45 a week

ceridwen

headcoat wrote: »

£65.45 plus all the other benefits, such as rent paid, council tax paid, water rates paid, prescription charges paid, and many many more....now add it all up and see how much a week it comes to......go to McDonalds or Burger King and get a job....simple!!!

I just came back from town and saw at least three shops advertising, there are jobs out there you just have to get out there and claim the travel allowance back, and stamps back and claim for a new suit.

Presumably you live in Scotland then? Water rates are not covered if one lives elsewhere in Britain and have to come out of that £65 odd per week. Private dentists arent covered (and a lot of people have been unable to get an NHS dentist - or were perfectly happily settled with a private dentist prior to unemployment hitting, so arent planning on playing "spot the NHS dentist with open lists if you can" game).

Errr...and just what exactly are the "many many more" benefits the jobless apparently get? Name any that single childless people can get - as all I am aware of is Local Housing Allowance towards rent (which may or, more likely, may not cover the rent actually payable) OR mortgage interest (which certainly wont cover the mortgage interest payable) - and personally that £65 per week (which has to cover every single bill apart from Council Tax) and leave enough to live on.:(

lostinrates

kabayiri wrote: »

Hopefully, not too OT, but not so long ago I had a tour of Pilkingtons factory.

Looking around the museum, what really struck home was just how hard the working people had to work in the early 20th century, and before. Photos of working class people working 6 days a week.

They really needed Sundays to wash clothes and recover.

Have we become a bit soft as a nation?

Watching the government propaganda (oops, ads) on tv, you'd think the next generation can all become games designers; media producers; or marine biologists. Being a team leader in a call centre doesn't quite sound so sexy.

I think it would be a shame if we took a backwards step for people who already work hard. Many people do work very long hours still....the opted out careers, the self employed. to return to a six day week as norm when there are more people doing less physical work seems to me...not the best solution.

liswan

abaxas wrote: »

PasturesNew :

No need to newspapers or stamps, job club will provide them for free.

That is, if you can be bothered to go to one. If you live in the country, yes, you are fracked.

You can only wait to be sent to a job club
I asked for help on numourous occasions but was told I had already fulfilled my need to go. Its used as a punishment for not finding a job.

Exocet

Just for LIR I checked - I was not so far off.

From Urban Dictionary.
Broke, penniless, without means, on the bones of yer !!!!.
Comes from the cockney rhyming slang 'boracic lint' (a type of medical dressing): Boracic lint = skint.
Boracic is pronounced 'brassic'.

ceridwen

kai666 wrote: »

And yet the job centres, papers etc are full of job adverts

Where???

YOu obviously live in a different area to me then - I was used to seeing several pages of job adverts (with several I could at least apply for) each week in the local paper in time past. Whenever I check the local paper these days there are more likely to be 2 columns of job adverts (with none at all I could apply for).

Ooh....these people who insist one can always get a job do not live in the Real World. I have had spells of unemployment some time back - in not such a bad economic climate as now - and when I was noticeably younger and remember the difficulties I had in getting another job back then:eek:. i really hadnt expected it AT ALL. It was going to be dead easy for me I thought - I just added up my assets and thought "I've got a reasonable qualification level, I'm healthy, I'm attractive and people like myself are never unemployed - what possible problem could I have in getting a job?". I was absolutely astonished and certainly shocked when I found that I did indeed have problems - and that was back then....

You never know when you might have to "step into those shoes" and then see how you like it. I'm no wishy-washy liberal - I am very well aware that there are career claimants out there - deliberately choosing to have the State pay for them to be a serial mother at our expense. BUT - there are also many people like I was - ie genuinely worthy, genuinely trying......and getting nowhere fast.

So - people in the same sort of category I was (ie genuine claimants) should certainly be given enough money to live on for however long they need it.

vaporate

I don't know why the gov gives £250 for a new born child?

Stupid. The answer is obvious...

vaporate

ceridwen wrote: »

Where???

YOu obviously live in a different area to me then - I was used to seeing several pages of job adverts (with several I could at least apply for) each week in the local paper in time past. Whenever I check the local paper these days there are more likely to be 2 columns of job adverts (with none at all I could apply for).

Ooh....these people who insist one can always get a job do not live in the Real World. I have had spells of unemployment some time back - in not such a bad economic climate as now - and when I was noticeably younger and remember the difficulties I had in getting another job back then:eek:. i really hadnt expected it AT ALL. It was going to be dead easy for me I thought - I just added up my assets and thought "I've got a reasonable qualification level, I'm healthy, I'm attractive and people like myself are never unemployed - what possible problem could I have in getting a job?". I was absolutely astonished and certainly shocked when I found that I did indeed have problems - and that was back then....

You never know when you might have to "step into those shoes" and then see how you like it. I'm no wishy-washy liberal - I am very well aware that there are career claimants out there - deliberately choosing to have the State pay for them to be a serial mother at our expense. BUT - there are also many people like I was - ie genuinely worthy, genuinely trying......and getting nowhere fast.

So - people in the same sort of category I was (ie genuine claimants) should certainly be given enough money to live on for however long they need it.

Exactly my point. They are obviously thick as a plank. I tried for jobs I was totally unsuitable for, like sales, which goes against my morals regarding hard sale of stuff ppl dont want.

8 months was more than enough for me I was bored schitless applying for everything under the sun.

employed now but will be applying again in 2 months time, 3 months before my contract ends. No way am I applying for JSA again.

kabayiri

lostinrates wrote: »

I think it would be a shame if we took a backwards step for people who already work hard. Many people do work very long hours still....the opted out careers, the self employed. to return to a six day week as norm when there are more people doing less physical work seems to me...not the best solution.

I understand this point LIR. It feels a step back in some ways.

I don't know the best solution, but I want a solution which offers livable income and work for the vast majority of our populace. If that means I pay a bit more in IT support, or support from specialists at the end of a phone, so be it.

Having a serious number of under 25s out of work for a few years will be a disaster for the next generation.

chris_m

ebt247 wrote: »

One thing i have never understood is why we give people money for children?

Seriously, married childless people or single others shouldn't be left out when the economy is worked out and if you want me to pay for your kids when i have none, then at least, try to get a job.

Hear, hear - why should those of us who have opted not to increase the overpopulation be expected to support those who have?

ceridwen

PasturesNew wrote: »

Where I live, LHA is £470, CT £75, JSA would be £280.
£825/month to sit on your !!!!.

Or, find a job at £6/hour for 40 hours per week, which is £12,500/year, or £879/month.

Chuck in that to work for 40 hours means you're out of the house for 11 hours/day Mon-Fri, have to have your hair done more often, have to buy work clothes and have shoes reheeled and have other incidental costs ... then there's the cost of getting to/from work ... and it's not really winning is it.

The problem is: high house prices. High house prices = high rents. If rents were only £200/month, not £470, then there's a clear benefit to working.

Which is a very good point - ie high rent levels. Dont forget the high mortgage levels as well.

I was only reading today about how house prices (and obviously - on from that - likely rent levels) are still rising in real terms. The problem boils back down to what I cant seem to get most people to acknowledge/understand - scarce supply (brought about by too many people creating demand) = higher prices. That economic law applies to people - more people (as the level of overpopulation in this country is still getting worse and worse) means more demand for available housing means higher prices for that housing. If we didnt have this massive overpopulation problem that we have in this country - then house price demand would decrease and housing costs would fall and people wouldnt need so much money to be "better off in work".