For all the benefit frothers out there

carolt

lemonjelly wrote: »

I'm not sure my definition of poverty is relevant to this, & if we got into a debate on definitions of poverty we'd be moving away from what I intended anyway. Part of that debate would revolve around how you measure wealth, & then we'd get into comparisons with families in shantytowns etc & it'd all disintegrate.

The benefits frothers comment is not aimed at anyone in particular. However I do see a lot of generalisations and knee jerk responses to stories about benefits on this board, & I do feel that people don't understand the full implications of how the benefits system works & operates. There is no doubt it needs reforming. I hope to debate how it can be reformed effectively.

I would not feel inclined to agree that the situation you describe constitutes poverty. After all, you state that you could afford to pay for all the essentials you needed - housing, council tax, utilities, food etc. From what you state, the essentials were covered. You were able to afford transport etc. You didn't have to go without. You may not have been able to afford the luxuries you'd like, but that is something different.

That said, this is supposed to be a general debate, not one about personal circumstances.

Interestingly Labour had intended on bringing in forms of conditionality to the welfare system. Iain Duncan Smith is saying very sinmilar things, but wanting to do it faster.

Working within the system I am well aware of people who are claiming things when in reality they have no real need, or (in my opinion) don't properly qualify. I suspect that benefit fraud occurs more than most estimates suspect.

Conversely I see people in genuine need who are too scared to claim benefits, or who are worried about how it'll impact on their family, or who are put off by the length of the forms, or who (again in my opinion) should qualify but face a 2 year battle through a series of delays & appeals to get the benefit to which they are entitled.

Further, £3 billion a year in errors? Is that acceptable for a system? I don't think it is...

I don't disagree with many of your points - to start at the end, clearly errors need to be removed from the system. I think the current system of tax credits invites fraud, to be honest, and is notorious for its errors too. Which is only 1 reason why I think it needs to be reformed.

I also agree that proper benefits should be there for those in real need (who often don't claim them...) and that there is plenty of fraud in terms of people claiming for stuff they don't need.

Re my personal circumstances, I also agree that we were not in 'poverty' in anything like a third world sense, and indeed, there is more to life than money. But given that I actually exaggerated; technically we often had less than £0; we got by due to (a) credit cards, (b) spending our way through our savings and (c) the generosity of family - our earnings, at points, left us not even enough for basic food and bills... I maintain my point, which is that if those on benefits count as being in 'poverty', then we were actually more so - except statistics measure them, but always ignored us.

lemonjelly

StevieJ wrote: »

I know plenty who claim no benefits (maybe they should enquire) , pension credit? (only 30 years needed now).

And I know plenty who claim a collection of the above. I think personal experience doesn't always highlight the full picture.:)
I'd definately be advising your friends make enquiries.

abaxas wrote: »

This begs the question, why are we giving people 'dispoable income'?

Surely benifits are designed so people can live only?

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.

Having a disposable income can mean things like another source of (potentially undeclared) income, excessive frugality, or someone in the household going without for luxuries. It can also mean that goods/services are bought on the black market for much less than retail price (which according to last weeks MSE poll 90% of MSE-ers would do...)

However, there is another issue raised here. What do we mean by disposable income? Are we saying that a person on benefits should be denied sufficient income to take part in some forms of leisure activities? I'm not sure that is something I'd be happy with...

moggylover

kabayiri wrote: »

I think moggylover's eloquent posts hint at another issue.

We don't have in any form a collective vision about what our society should look like today, or where it should be heading mid and long term.

To me, the ability to hop on a bus or train at minimum cost and get to a place of work or interview, is a life enhancing benefit (just as one small example).

I would contribute significantly to such a transport service through taxes. I can see how it would enhance life for many, especially if the service were reliable, clean, and safe.

Giving more people more money is not going to ever provide a solution, if we don't know/agree what the solution looks like.

I so agree. I would also be perfectly happy to spend more of my own dosh on better schools (especially in under-priviledged areas) and think that if people are willing to pay into private health care scheme then maybe we should think in terms of that money being better spent in ensuring that the standards of care in the NHS are so excellent that no-one would want to pay privately.

Eutopia? Possibly, but you have to aim high to make worthwhile changes, and you have to want to take EVERYONE up with you.

StevieJ

lemonjelly wrote: »

And I know plenty who claim a collection of the above. I think personal experience doesn't always highlight the full picture.:)
I'd definately be advising your friends make enquiries.
.

I suppose if you work with benefits you will not see the ones that don't claim, yes I agree that 'personal experience doesn't always highlight the full picture'.

moggylover

lemonjelly wrote: »

And I know plenty who claim a collection of the above. I think personal experience doesn't always highlight the full picture.:)
I'd definately be advising your friends make enquiries.



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.

Having a disposable income can mean things like another source of (potentially undeclared) income, excessive frugality, or someone in the household going without for luxuries. It can also mean that goods/services are bought on the black market for much less than retail price (which according to last weeks MSE poll 90% of MSE-ers would do...)

However, there is another issue raised here. What do we mean by disposable income? Are we saying that a person on benefits should be denied sufficient income to take part in some forms of leisure activities? I'm not sure that is something I'd be happy with...

Trouble is LJ, once you get into "leisure activities" it is always going to be fraught. I wouldn't approve of that being a vodka fuelled weekend, but would of a weekend out at the zoo with the kids. Unfortunately, once you have handed over the money you also have to hand over jurisdiction as to how it is spent and since everyone has different standards and priorities it is difficult to not have this causing frothing rants:(

I could afford to live quite comfortably on the benefits I was on. Not luxury living, but with some care enough to afford for my kids to have extras and "things" as well as the bare minimum. I spent my money wisely, didn't drink (although I do smoke:o) and would not have been ripped apart by most, but everyone will see the "acceptable" as different.

I will now stand back and wait to be flamed for having smoked whilst on benefits:o:o:o

carolt

ninky wrote: »

i'm interested to know what disposable income you think those on benefits have? (by which i mean those genuinely on benefits, not those working cash in hand etc). i really doubt that those on benefits can afford luxuries that you couldn't.

I put my figures into entitled to - try putting your situation in (or mine, if you prefer) to find out the amounts available.

I literally had no spare cash - we had periods where any crisis would be unaffordable. As I said, we had periods of minus income - no spare cash left over for clothes, holidays, childcare costs, days out, etc We neither smoked nor drank, and had no pets. We got by on a combination of spending through savings, family generosity and credit - this enabled us to have clothes, (v cheap) holidays (visiting family), and some quality of life. But with no savings and a less generous family, our only resource would have been debt - shitloads of it. Or starvation.

Officially, we weren't in 'poverty'. And as we paid our rent and council tax, others wouldn't have known. That doesn't make definitions of poverty which ignored us whilst including others on benefits that actually totalled more than our combined incomes any less ludicrous.

So that being the case, as it's impossible to have less than nothing - yes those on benefits do have more disposable income than we had. I'm sure of it.

Kohoutek

This is the most important issue IMO:

Some low-income families keep as little as five pence in every additional pound earned (not including additional in-work costs), while 70,000 families face deduction rates over 90%

It's like having the punitive taxation Labour had on high incomes in the 60's for the people on lowest incomes...crazy. If you have 90% taxation on rich or poor, the result is the same...people don't work anymore!

mardatha

Some very compassionate wise people in this thread, thank you for starting it ! (but also some of the usual mindless sheep lol)!
First thing - benefit claimants are not a race apart. They are YOU if ever you should fall on hard times. Previous generations fought bloody hard to get this safety net in place, in days when the rich would look away from a starving child in the road & think nothing of it. So all of us in here might one day be glad of some kind of benefit !
Second thing - the company directors, MPs, high earners, mega rich executives.. all these types of people - commit far far more fraud than you would ever believe . A lot of it is "legal" because they have accountants to find tax breaks, tax dodges, etc. But you never hear a WORD against these people in the papers, or on here. Its sickening that people will all jump into a thread on here condemning people on benefits and yet say nothing about the far more serious goings-ons in higher places.
Third thing - living on benefits is NOT fun. read how many people in the DFW get in a mess even with huge salaries ...and yet nobody rips them to bits, do they? But mention the "b" word and all the teeth come out !
You try it - put your money where you gob is - find out what amount IS or pension credit is and you try living on it !! - and NOT for a week, try it for 6 months or longer. Once shoes, bedlinen, clothes, and fridges start to wear out and need replacing. Yes we have savings. But once you spend them, what then ? You have no earthly way of replacing that money.
I might never have been rich or never be rich, but I hope I have a compassion and understanding of human life that is not often found in this forum.

lemonjelly

moggylover wrote: »

Trouble is LJ, once you get into "leisure activities" it is always going to be fraught. I wouldn't approve of that being a vodka fuelled weekend, but would of a weekend out at the zoo with the kids. Unfortunately, once you have handed over the money you also have to hand over jurisdiction as to how it is spent and since everyone has different standards and priorities it is difficult to not have this causing frothing rants

I could afford to live quite comfortably on the benefits I was on. Not luxury living, but with some care enough to afford for my kids to have extras and "things" as well as the bare minimum. I spent my money wisely, didn't drink (although I do smoke:o) and would not have been ripped apart by most, but everyone will see the "acceptable" as different.

I will now stand back and wait to be flamed for having smoked whilst on benefits:o:o:o

And therein lies the dichotomy which we face...

edit, i typed a very long post about this, & internet connection dropped for a few seconds. I'm sorry, I can't remember it all or be @rsed to type it all again!

carolt

mardatha wrote: »

Some very compassionate wise people in this thread, thank you for starting it ! (but also some of the usual mindless sheep lol)!
First thing - benefit claimants are not a race apart. They are YOU if ever you should fall on hard times. Previous generations fought bloody hard to get this safety net in place, in days when the rich would look away from a starving child in the road & think nothing of it. So all of us in here might one day be glad of some kind of benefit !
Second thing - the company directors, MPs, high earners, mega rich executives.. all these types of people - commit far far more fraud than you would ever believe . A lot of it is "legal" because they have accountants to find tax breaks, tax dodges, etc. But you never hear a WORD against these people in the papers, or on here. Its sickening that people will all jump into a thread on here condemning people on benefits and yet say nothing about the far more serious goings-ons in higher places.
Third thing - living on benefits is NOT fun. read how many people in the DFW get in a mess even with huge salaries ...and yet nobody rips them to bits, do they? But mention the "b" word and all the teeth come out !
You try it - put your money where you gob is - find out what amount IS or pension credit is and you try living on it !! - and NOT for a week, try it for 6 months or longer. Once shoes, bedlinen, clothes, and fridges start to wear out and need replacing. Yes we have savings. But once you spend them, what then ? You have no earthly way of replacing that money.
I might never have been rich or never be rich, but I hope I have a compassion and understanding of human life that is not often found in this forum.

Rubbish - my point was that I have been there! but I was working!!!

I have compassion for the needy - but none for the lazy.

I have no patience with the rich who rip us off either; read my back posts and you'll see that my anger is directed at all those who rip us off, whether they be bankers or benefit fraudsters.