Benefits advice for friend on really low income

seven-day-weekend

I too would rather work for the money than rely on benefits, even if I was slightly worse off.

andyandflo

There is no way that I would work the extra 5 hours for an extra £3. No way!!

If I had the full £30, then yes I would.

I'm sorry but I am selfish, I don't give a hoot about the country - just the same as the bankers and MP's don't. Until such time as THEY start to grow a conscience I'll carry on - watching Jeremy Kyle for the extra hour sat down at home, with a cup of tea!

downshifter

I've been thinking about this since I read it last night. If this lady is in her 50s now, it's likely she has been working and contributing financially to her own family as well as the government for possibly over 30 years, she has possibly also brought up a family as well as had a difficult marriage and separation and has done her best to live independently from her former husband and from the state. She has also in recent years, discovered that the pension she thought she would receive at 60, will now not be hers till 65. She deserves a break for goodness sake. As someone in a very similar situation, having lived off the proceeds of our joint house sale (all now gone), working (in 4 jobs) and still only bringing in around £600 a month (400 of which is rent) I am now going to claim housing benefit for the very first time and I urge her to do the same. I'm tired and although I would do more hours if available, and sometimes do covering for holidays and sickness, I think now is the time to ask for a little back.

The other thing is, having paid taxes myself for 30 yrs plus, I would a million times rather it be spent on this lady than wars I don't want, MPs' expenses which horrify me, supporting bankers' lifestyles and the latest insult, paying for the pope's visit. All power to her, and good luck to you as a lovely friend. I suggest she rings her local authority and ask for an appointment, they will then go through everything she needs to bring in with her. I'm sure she already knows how to live frugally, however there are lots of hints and tips on here for cutting down her outgoings too, and in combination with any benefits she should be able to get by just that little bit more comfortably which she deserves - it's her turn now!

DS

generalcuster

downshifter wrote: »

I've been thinking about this since I read it last night. If this lady is in her 50s now, it's likely she has been working and contributing financially to her own family as well as the government for possibly over 30 years, she has possibly also brought up a family as well as had a difficult marriage and separation and has done her best to live independently from her former husband and from the state. She has also in recent years, discovered that the pension she thought she would receive at 60, will now not be hers till 65. She deserves a break for goodness sake. As someone in a very similar situation, having lived off the proceeds of our joint house sale (all now gone), working (in 4 jobs) and still only bringing in around £600 a month (400 of which is rent) I am now going to claim housing benefit for the very first time and I urge her to do the same. I'm tired and although I would do more hours if available, and sometimes do covering for holidays and sickness, I think now is the time to ask for a little back.

The other thing is, having paid taxes myself for 30 yrs plus, I would a million times rather it be spent on this lady than wars I don't want, MPs' expenses which horrify me, supporting bankers' lifestyles and the latest insult, paying for the pope's visit. All power to her, and good luck to you as a lovely friend. I suggest she rings her local authority and ask for an appointment, they will then go through everything she needs to bring in with her. I'm sure she already knows how to live frugally, however there are lots of hints and tips on here for cutting down her outgoings too, and in combination with any benefits she should be able to get by just that little bit more comfortably which she deserves - it's her turn now!

DS

So well put!!

Yes I agree entirely, when we get to the point of approaching retirement, we are not as 'bright eyed & bushy tailed' as we were 30 years ago. I feel that some on this site seem to have the opinion that it is better to work till you drop dead than look for a easier, more peaceful existence.

I have always in my life tried to look after those that are genuinely 'tired and worn out' - yes I would if I could prefer what tax I do pay to be paid to those like this lady.

I too gave up my job last year at age 61 basically because I could no longer cope with the pressure of it and that my health is failing. I have paid all of my dues to the government for 45 years of constant work. I gave up the well paid job to claim sickness benefits and pensions which in total bring in approx £14,000pa. A reduction of 60% of what I was earning.

Yes give us a break, let us take a rest, let us have a little peace, we have brought up our families, is it that wrong to ask for some contribution now to help us cope?

As for conscience, let those in senior positions in government, banks, and large corporations show me theirs first!

Oldernotwiser

generalcuster wrote: »

Yes you right, it is the 'peoples' money.

But to be honest about it, I don't think people see it that way. They are more pre-occupied with their own lot in life than to ever consider where the money comes from.
They see the money in their pocket as more important to them for which to buy their food etc, than they do to consider the whole economic climate and the causes of it.
They leave that problem to the politicians whom they voted in power to run the country.

To the ordinary man in the street, he will see that his bank account shows only £3.00 extra for working 5 extra hours. Will he think that reasonable - no, so why bother.

I'm afraid that I have a higher opinion of the majority of people than you do. There are certainly scroungers around but I think that most normal, honest people would be happy to be less reliant on benefits and prefer to earn their own money.

generalcuster

Morgan_Ree wrote: »

Some people amaze me!
It will show an extra £30. After paying bills (you know like most of us have to) whatever he usually has left over will be up by £3.
Really what is so bad about being 3 quid better off?!?!
Which part of being better off do you people not understand??!

Yes you can put it that way as well.

You have now at last accepted that he will be £3 better off!
And to get to that figure he will conclude that he has worked an extra 5 hours to get it.

What is bad about £3 better off? I doubt he could buy very much with it! 10 cigs maybe.

Better off by definition of course - even if it was 1p, he would still be 'better off'!

He would be away from his family and friends, working for the extra 5 hours pw, to gain £3.

I am not sure if you are in the real world or not, but no one that I know of would do that to be better off by £3.
You might and your friends might, but in the general populous, I think you would count yourself as being in the minority.

Surely you have to make it 'really worth it' to work longer.

It's no different than somebody on IS being offered a net wage for working 40 hrs pw, and after calculating the loss of the benefits he/she would be 'better off' by say £20.
OK yes £20 is £20, but to get it he has worked 40hrs. He could probably make that £20 in one visit to the bookmakers per week, or a couple of hours work cash in hand.

I know what your answer will be, but please think of it as in the real world - he/she would say that they would not get out of bed for that amount of money!
Hence the reason why this government is being challenged into providing a benefit system that will give people like that a 'real' incentive to get out of bed by allowing them to keep more of their wage than is currently allowed, before they start losing their benefits. In that example I would hope that he would be at least £150 pw 'better off'!

generalcuster

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I'm afraid that I have a higher opinion of the majority of people than you do. There are certainly scroungers around but I think that most normal, honest people would be happy to be less reliant on benefits and prefer to earn their own money.

Yes you may know a different type of person and have different types of friends than I do.

The term 'scrounger' seems now to encompass everyone that claims benefits - courtesy of the media.

Claiming benefits is the right of everybody. That was set down in legislation way back in the late 40's and nothing has changed.

If somebody is entitled to benefits then they should not be made to feel any different than you, I or anybody else. It is becoming no better than the persecution of the Jews in the 2nd World War, or Moseleys Black Shirts in Britain in 1939.
Being on benefit is a legal right and one day I do hope that someone will hold some of the public to account under a Discrimination Law.

On the other hand it is not right, and the current government and I both agree on it, that to go out to work would mean that upwards of 90% of their benefits are removed.

Yes, go out to work instead of relying on benefits, but you must make it more of an incentive for that to happen.

Let them keep, say the first £150 of their wage before reducing the benefits on a longer sliding scale.

£3 better off for 5 extra hours is not an incentive!

generalcuster

Morgan_Ree wrote: »

Yeah you're right. Important things in life like fags cost more than £3...

This was a hypothetical view only - there is really not that much that £3 will buy you



You have GOT to be having a laugh?
I'm really lost for words on this one.

Put simply, that is why the government are actively engaged in sorting the benefit system out so that people like this will have a lot more in their pocket than they do now - if you don't like the idea - take it up with Cameron & Clegg.

I'm sure that a lot of people on benefit would like to work, but can't see the point because it's not cost effective. Make it that they keep say the first £150 of what they earn before losing say £1 for £1 thereafter of their benefits, and they will go out to work.

Well that would make he or she one lazy workshy so and so.

Why do people need someone to dangle a carrot in front of them?

They just do - fact of life - even Cameron/Clegg accept it!

I bring home pretty much what my bills amount to, leaving maybe £30ish left over. By your logic I'm working 40+ hours a week for £30ish because after all once my bills are paid that's all I'm left with.

As a simple exercise, work out what you would get if you were on benefit and compare it with what you actually earn - In your case there will probably be a huge difference. To others there will be very little difference.

Thank god very few people think like you. If they did no-one would work!

Oh and the fags and bookies comments are painting a really nice picture of you :T
I don't smoke - never have, stopped drinking alcohol in 2004, and never ever gamble! It was just a hypothetical statement of how easy it is to earn such a small sum each week. Many in fact do this, it's called the 'black economy'.
Have you never contributed to it - maybe paying less for a cash job to be done. Or maybe you have earned an undisclosed cash payment for a job.

Something has to be done to get people back into work, and if offering such an incentive works - we should all be grateful.

generalcuster

SingleSue wrote: »

I am on IS (as a single parent carer) and if I was able to, I would certainly take a job which gave a net gain of £20 a week....hell, I would take one that left me worse off, just so I could get out in the real world!

Maybe you would and I can understand why.

But I'm talking about the ones that already work and don't see the point in putting those extra hours in if all that will happens is that they will lose their benefit and be in this case £3 better off after working an extra 5 hours.
AND
Those that claim JSA, who will not take a job until they can be guaranteed a minimum amount in their hand to make it worthwhile getting up and going to work. In a way I don't blame them, what incentive is there to work for 40 hours pw week to end up £20 better off at the end of the week because of the loss of benefits.
What I was simply saying was that they could earn that extra £20 by other means that does not involve 40 hrs of work.

I gave up a well paid job £30,000pa last year to go on benefits as I could not cope any longer. My benefits are £14,000pa (Pension Credit + DLA(self) +AA(wife))+ CTB (£1600pa) + Mortgage Interest Payments (I receive £600pm actual interest payable £315pm). When these are added all together they amount to over £22,000pa net - about the same as I was bringing home when working!!
The mortgage interest help is going down next month but only to the amount I am actually paying. Up until then, I have been having £300 paid off my capital each month.

Yes I know it feels better to be working, but after 46 years of it, I have had enough!

One of the advantages of being over 60 unfortunately!

dktreesea

generalcuster wrote: »

But would not the extra hours worked and the WTC claimed affect the possible HB/CTB claim. I seem to recall that for every £1 earned you lose 85p in those benefits.

I would hate it if after working the extra 5 hours she would only come out net with 15p for every £1 earned?

Yes, but being eligible for working tax credit, i.e. working 30 hours a week, would make someone eligible for housing benefit and council tax benefit. And there are other useful things that follow on from having WTC, like an NHS health exemption card, so free prescriptions.