For all the benefit frothers out there

tessie_bear

cocksucker wrote: »

Benefit payments should be part cash, part food vouchers.

thats an unusual choice for a screen name

man_of_faith

Why not send them some left overs. Get real they are humans that deserve compassion and support not some sort of vile social villification.

lynzpower

The problem that governments - particularly this one from what Ive seen of it seems to think about things completely the "wrong way around".

If people are disabled/ ill and can only work part time, irregularly, with "sick time off" or able to work when they are well, but need plenty of time off, or working from home type flexibility, and the employers dont offer that, then how are these people going to work?

Example: Someone has an accident at work, they have months off to "recover" yet they will never truly recover, and they are deemed unfit to work by that employer, - how many employers will take them on in the future, especially when their reference shows they have had months of sick leave?

If the government wants disabled and long term sick to work, the only thing that they can truly do is to make employers take on disabled/ LTS people by compulsion - ie 5% of your workforce must be LTS or disabled. Or that a certain amount of jobs be available in the work force for a government - or workinglinks type advisor to place LTS people into.

The government should also make it illegal to sack someone for having poor health, something that is legal to do at the moment. The employer needs to prove that there is some role for that LTS member of staff, including ensuring fully flexibility and time off for periods of ill-health, appointments, inpatient treatment and so forth.

Without compulsion for employers, I'm afraid reduction in benefits will increase real poverty especially in days like these with rampant inflation.

I also take massive issue with the numbers dreamed up, here in london a LHA amount will seem astronomical to our friends in the north, Im afraid repeated HPI has done this, the selling off of council housing of course a huge issue too. This coalition needs to do something serious in reducing the costs of housing if it wants its LHA bill to come down. Of course you have to subsidise housing costs. The fact that they are so high is down to HPI and nothing else.

A job paying 11k PA here in London will bring you out with £792.85 , most people realise a houseshare room ( unregistered hmo style!) is around 500per calendar month plus bills. A studio flat would be unobtainable on this salary.

treliac

lemonjelly wrote: »

In reality, most benefits are enough for survival only. People who live & claim honestly will get by, week to week, however once a crisis occurs (eg washing machine breaks down) then they have a major problem.

That's the case for a huge number of people.

In general, though, our ability to live within our means and manage our money varies greatly. What one person counts as a priority need, someone else wouldn't dream of splashing out on. Some will live frugally and happily, others will feel deprived if they can't have the latest in technology, clothing etc. etc.

Defining poverty and the resulting impact on the children in a family cannot be done by measuring income alone and has to take into consideration so many other factors which contribute to the quality of family life and upbringing.

moggylover

lynzpower wrote: »

The problem that governments - particularly this one from what Ive seen of it seems to think about things completely the "wrong way around".

If people are disabled/ ill and can only work part time, irregularly, with "sick time off" or able to work when they are well, but need plenty of time off, or working from home type flexibility, and the employers dont offer that, then how are these people going to work?

Example: Someone has an accident at work, they have months off to "recover" yet they will never truly recover, and they are deemed unfit to work by that employer, - how many employers will take them on in the future, especially when their reference shows they have had months of sick leave?

If the government wants disabled and long term sick to work, the only thing that they can truly do is to make employers take on disabled/ LTS people by compulsion - ie 5% of your workforce must be LTS or disabled. Or that a certain amount of jobs be available in the work force for a government - or workinglinks type advisor to place LTS people into.

The government should also make it illegal to sack someone for having poor health, something that is legal to do at the moment. The employer needs to prove that there is some role for that LTS member of staff, including ensuring fully flexibility and time off for periods of ill-health, appointments, inpatient treatment and so forth.

Without compulsion for employers, I'm afraid reduction in benefits will increase real poverty especially in days like these with rampant inflation.

I also take massive issue with the numbers dreamed up, here in london a LHA amount will seem astronomical to our friends in the north, Im afraid repeated HPI has done this, the selling off of council housing of course a huge issue too. This coalition needs to do something serious in reducing the costs of housing if it wants its LHA bill to come down. Of course you have to subsidise housing costs. The fact that they are so high is down to HPI and nothing else.

A job paying 11k PA here in London will bring you out with £792.85 , most people realise a houseshare room ( unregistered hmo style!) is around 500per calendar month plus bills. A studio flat would be unobtainable on this salary.

Excellent post Lynz. :T:T:T:T

tabskitten

''Benefits frothers''

There is a valid reason that those of us that work hard and pay tax feel the need to....''froth''

treliac

lemonjelly wrote: »

Taxpayers do not have the automatic right to say where every penny of all taxes goes. It is the PUBLIC purse, & therefore the money gets paid out in societies interests. Not in the way desired by a select number of taxpayers.

Of course that's the case lj, and what is being said just reflects people's thoughts and opinions.

However, we use our vote to entrust the government with, hopefully, wise and careful management of the money we have worked hard to raise. Governments who fail to do so will eventually get dumped.

It worries me too when wires get crossed on this subject. I've never heard anyone make blanket statements that benefits should be stopped or reduced for everyone. Those who are unable to work should absolutely always be supported to have a decent and dignified life.

But isn't it those who play the system who make that a real problem for others? Because it's this latter group who take us for a ride and the govt should be looking at addressing.

It is, too, incredibly unfair and disheartening to those who do work but are in such low paid jobs that their families can be worse off than families where the parents are unemployed through choice or because the 'system' encourages them not to work as it's not worth it.

Because there are people working who would be better off sat at home, whose growing families would get them the bigger houses they can't afford on their wages and who, sooner or later if things don't improve for them and their families, are likely to vote with their feet and decide it's not worth bothering either.

And spare a thought as well for those single people who've worked hard all their lives and have to face the indignity and pain of losing their jobs... to then discover that all they are worth, because they don't have children, is £65 per week jsa, irrespective of what they've paid into the tax pot over the years.

dopester

treliac wrote: »

And spare a thought as well for those single people who've worked hard all their lives and have to face the indignity and pain of losing their jobs... to then discover that all they are worth, because they don't have children, is £65 per week jsa, irrespective of what they've paid into the tax pot over the years.

If they've worked hard all their lives, then why should they immediately be relying upon JSA? Have these people never heard of building up savings to fall back on? That is one serious problem - people's sense of entitlement that others should be responsible for them, and maintain the standards of living they are used to.

I can't even justify paying the £70 odd passport fee or a holiday abroad, where others in work with very little savings think nothing of it. Another foreign holiday they deserve, skirting with immediately being on JSA if they lose their job because they've got no savings.

If you've got no money you've got few friends. That was what I was told growing up. Not, spend all you get and not save anything for the future.

Benefit boy himself; well done to him getting another job, but I see he's not happy with having a company car to meet his driving needs, and has raided his savings to buy himself a little flashy convertible he'll have little opportunity to drive, and which he has to insure and tax and maintain. If his circumstances do change he can come back again to whine on about JSA being only £60 or £65 a week, or whatever it is. I had my fill of that last time.

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

PhylPho wrote: »

Couldn't agree more, Kohoutek. Sadly though, few others are likely to say so -- and certainly, no politician, because to do so is to acknowledge that there are some things in Society that Society cannot address unless and until it becomes dangerously prescriptive. And who will sign up to that?

It's about generations. About mind-sets. About custom and practice.

The State can no more address that than hiking the price of alcohol can cure binge-drinking.

Totally agree,some things just can't be fixed.
You'd have to take some very severe and drastic measures to even try and then where does it all end.
Politicians just babble on as they have to be seen to doing something,don't they.

carolt

dopester wrote: »

Benefit boy himself; well done to him getting another job, but I see he's not happy with having a company car to meet his driving needs, and has raided his savings to buy himself a little flashy convertible he'll have little opportunity to drive, and which he has to insure and tax and maintain. If his circumstances do change he can come back again to whine on about JSA being only £60 or £65 a week, or whatever it is. I had my fill of that last time.

Who does that refer to, dopester?