George Osborne considering freeze on benefits to save £4.4bn

dopester

Pobby wrote: »

One thing I notice, is all the money that benefits folk get. Mad as a great deal of it is housing costs. My benefit relative gets that but I wouldn`t like to bring up 3 kids on about £230 a week.That`s after hb and ct.

I'd bet there are many parents to 3 kids who work who have to manage on less than £230 a week after their housing costs, and work-associated costs like travelling.

Well when you've got people with kids who get the HB and other benefits, and claim poverty and how hard it is.... but then admit if a voucher-for-goods scheme was introduced they'd sell them for less than face-value to avoid the stigma of using them... then that certainly suggests they could take a cut on what they are already receiving.

The hardship.

Blacklight

dopester wrote: »

I'd bet there are many parents to 3 kids who work who have to manage on less than £230

Too right. What the hell are people doing with a grand a month?

Pay your electric/gas/water, sky TV, mobile and you'll have nigh on £900 disposable income a month.

Hardly poverty.

carolt

Blacklight wrote: »

Too right. What the hell are people doing with a grand a month?

Pay your electric/gas/water, sky TV, mobile and you'll have nigh on £900 disposable income a month.

Hardly poverty.

I agree with the sentiment, but not the figures.

I have 3 kids, and here's how our essential monthly bills pan out (feel free to tell me if I'm overpaying, BTW!):

Gas/electric: £92
Water: £20
Phone/broadband and mobiles: £70
TV licence: £12
Car/petrol: £90
Food: £300

That makes a total of £584, out of a total monthly budget (at £230 a week) of £996. So it doesn't exactly leave you with £900! But then nor, more to the point, does it leave you with nothing, either.

It actually leaves £412/month for clothes, going out, holidays, birthdays, Xmas etc. Not lavish but a long way from starvation.

Actually they could cut back a bit - I have expensive broadband because I need it for my work; if I didn't there are cheaper packages. And the car costs quoted could be reduced or got rid of for those not in work, as mine incl my OH's costs in driving to the station to work every day; if not in work arguably you could live without a car at all.

We've certainly managed on far less than £230/week with kids.

lostinrates

Pennywise wrote: »

The women are just as responsible for letting the bloke have his way without a condom.

Any red-blooded male will always try it on.

It's the woman who bears the consequences so they need to start respecting themselves and saying "no" - that's no to casual sex, no to one night stands, no to the bloke not wearing a condom etc., and start saying yes only when there is an ongoing relationship and the woman has some confidence in the bloke respecting her and staying the course.

Perhaps some women should stop going for the "risky" bloke that some seem to prefer.

Unless she's been raped, the woman is equally as responsible for the bloke, but should be more wary as she's the one who bears the consequences when it goes wrong.

Firstly, I've known many a red blooded but responsible man who is himself unwilling to take risks and so, on balance, prefers at least his casual sex to be with a condom. Secondly, while I, with a little age behind me, agree with your point about self respect I reserve the right to have casual sex and one night stands and indeed any form of sex out side an ''ongoing relationship''* WITH contraception without being thus categorised as some Eve tempting Adam, or an irresponsible !!!!! preying on ''red blooded'' (or should that be feeble minded) men. It IS a two way road of responsibility in by far the majority of cases, but the two way responsibility means men still need to have some self control, self preservation and common sense.


*only with husband's approval of course.

vaporate

amcluesent wrote: »

About time. Living well off CB/HB/IB etc. is a 'lifestyle choice' that needs to be removed.

Moron.

Not everyone 'chooses' to claim benefits.

vaporate

drc wrote: »

One of the things that needs to be done is to make absent fathers more accountable for their children. I read so many posts on forums from single mothers who have either been left with several children because the father couldn't be bothered or men who get women pregnant "because they don't want to wear a condom" and are then surprised when the woman becomes pregnant and she doesn't want to go through the trauma of abortion. She then has to go onto benefits as she is left holding the baby and the father disappears. This seems to happen regularly. The men in these instances seem to have no worries since they know the state will pick up the bill for their kids and a lot of the time the single mothers get the abuse and stigma. It really makes me angry. It just seems indicative of the lack of responsibility generally taken by society these days - it's always somebody else's fault. And another trick seems to be be that when absent fathers are chased by the CSA they jack in any job they have so they don't have to pay out. The system needs more emphasis on responsibility and getting absent fathers to pay for their offspring (or getting them to wear a condom in the first place if they don't want to have kids) :mad:.

Laughable to near insulting.

Does this include the single mothers who run off with the kids in the first place or give fathers a hard time over no justification?

Last sentence: How about thicko women getting a clue thT THEIR PARTNER are not sound minded...

women...

A feminist by any chance?

Also, men maturing? You do know that by nature all men want to do is reproduce... it is our purpose is it not from a natural perspective.

finance-boy

Vaporate, are you really a BNP/Liberal supporter? How on Earth does that work?

SingleSue

dopester wrote: »

I'd bet there are many parents to 3 kids who work who have to manage on less than £230 a week after their housing costs, and work-associated costs like travelling.

Well when you've got people with kids who get the HB and other benefits, and claim poverty and how hard it is.... but then admit if a voucher-for-goods scheme was introduced they'd sell them for less than face-value to avoid the stigma of using them... then that certainly suggests they could take a cut on what they are already receiving.

The hardship.

You really don't like me do you?

I have so far constructed and then rejected 3 posts I was going to make in reply to your other post but decided I was being just a tad to emotional or giving away just a little too much information.

For information - The administration cost has never been my claim, others on this site made the claim and gave good evidence and arguements behind it.

Special educational needs provision has been covered by others in response to your post but I will enlarge on that and say that I do take a hands on approach, working alongside the school to enable especially my youngest to stay there.

As for my embarrassment, I am sorry, I can't help the way I feel about being on benefits, surely being embarrassed about being on benefits is better than being proud? I know I said I would probably sell them for less but we all say a lot of things when upset/pride gets in the way.....I would probably settle for doing my shopping when no-one else was around.

Times have been hard for us, mainly because I didn't know I could claim back parking and transport costs for appointments of which a lot of my budget goes on. I'm sorry I wasn't completely benefits savvy to know all the little bits and pieces...no other begger told me until I was informed on this site.

There are differences in my budget to what a typical single parent with 'normal' children would pay out, this is where my shortfall occurs for what are unavoidable expenses connected to the boys disabilities and which are not covered by any disability payments.

Finally, sorry for this very emotional response - I am emotional as I feel I am being got at. It has now made me feel incredibly guilty and unworthy of the efforts of other posters and for what they have done for me and my boys this summer.

I didn't ask to be a single parent, I didn't want to be a single parent, I never ever wanted to be on benefits and can't wait to be off them and I am doing everything I can to get off them in the future (sooner rather than later hopefully) and I certainly didn't ask to have disabled children, afraid that is a genetic thing that we didn't know about at the time.

vaporate

finance-boy wrote: »

Vaporate, are you really a BNP/Liberal supporter? How on Earth does that work?

I like a combination of both.

How can you be purely labour, tory? I don't 'agree' with all each 'party' policies.

pick n mix.

Anyway, all parties are corrupt to the bone and do a u-turn after the election is over so...

dopester

B.E.N wrote: »

As Pobby said - the real problem is with the overpriced houses/rentals in this country.

Whenever you see one of these "equivilent of £42,000 on benefits" cases, the majority of the 'income' is in Housing Benefit, simply because the property prices in this country are sky-high (thanks Labour!).

If the HB claimers parents have spare rooms in their homes it should be a requirement it is the housing benefit claimers who should be required to remain with parents. Not automatically get HB for their own place.

Even if they have to squeeze kids to live in the same bedroom. Not taking up property paid for by HB, which many a FTB has to work for and finds a massive burden to rent, and especially to buy - or who are remaining with parents till ever older ages to try and save up money towards buying.

Or, HB claimants should be required to move to areas where housing/HMOs is much cheaper, selected at random computer - even if it's a long distance away from areas you know and have grown up in - from areas such as in cheaper parts of Middlesbrough or Margate or Rochdale or Sheffield.

Not get HB (or its equivalent) to pay for a house/flat in some really nice area the claimant has decided they'd like to live in - which is very expensive to live in at the private market rate.

I'm sure many HB claimers would find private enterprising ways to stay in the areas of their choice they were forced to chose between leaving for a house 200 miles away where they'd be eligible for HB, or losing housing benefit.