breadline

happe

Hi Chris, thanks for replying. I wasnt bemoaning the sums of benefits I receive, I fully accept that if you dont work then its going to be tough. i was questioning whether the reports of £100s a week being paid out to some families were really true and if so what was i missing. Unfortunately my soon to be ex has not been paying towards his children, the csa are on the case but because he is self employed he is manaing to give them the run around. So far they are chasing in excess of £3000 from him Will be a very nice bonus if and when i ever get it lol.
I hope you dont become redundant, its quite soul destroying really. I thought id easy get another job, ive lots of transferable skills but im applying for jobs paying less than 1/2 of what i was earning and im not even getting an interview. How the companies choose suitable candidates from an online form ill never know, I know that if ever i get the chance to be infront of an employer id get the job. Hope someone gives me the chance soon.
(oh and can i just clarify the "entertainment" point you made? Im certainly not talking about pubbing and clubbing here, i dont drink nor smoke. Im talking about my kids being able to go for a burger with their mates. They understand we dont have loads but i cant always tell them no. The 3 of us have had a terrible couple of years and we all deserve a treat sometimes).

Sixer

I see this 'designer clothes, iPhones and plasma TVs' view of benefits claimants as a myth - or largely as misguided, particularly when there is no disability in the house.

Some people on benefits may well have these things, but benefits simply aren't enough to pay for them. They're coming from people working in the black economy, acquiring goods off the back of a lorry, or running up debts.

It may well be an indication that there is a problem with some people defrauding the system, but it's certainly not an indication that benefit levels are too high.

seven-day-weekend

If the definition of 'poverty' or 'breadline' is £200-ish a week (is that for a couple?) then we lived below it for nearly six years! It's only with the advent of my State Pension in February 2010 that we have gone above this. We had to be careful, but we were certainly not 'living in poverty'!

I think the figures should be re-defined.

To the OP, see if you are eligible for Tax Credits and apply for free prescriptions.

Indie_Kid

Sixer wrote: »

I see this 'designer clothes, iPhones and plasma TVs' view of benefits claimants as a myth - or largely as misguided, particularly when there is no disability in the house.

Plasm TVs aren't that expensive. My TV cost me about £300. As for designer clothes - they're not that expensive either. Some people also buy things on credit too.

Sixer

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

If the definition of 'poverty' or 'breadline' is £200-ish a week (is that for a couple?) then we lived below it for nearly six years! It's only with the advent of my State Pension in February 2010 that we have gone above this. We had to be careful, but we were certainly not 'living in poverty'!

I think the figures should be re-defined.

To the OP, see if you are eligible for Tax Credits and apply for free prescriptions.

The official definition of poverty is currently 60% below the median household income (about £206 at the moment). Average household is about 2.2 people (according to ONS it was 2.3 in 2002, but it's falling). The official definition is relative, not absolute, so it takes into account how well off a family is in comparison to others living in the society.

As such, I would not see the UK government's (and most other organisations') definition of poverty as a breadline type of definition.

A view that the figures should be redefined is arguing for an absolute rather than a relative definition of poverty. Few governments, think tanks or NGOs hold this view, however.

Sixer

sh1305 wrote: »

Plasm TVs aren't that expensive. My TV cost me about £300. As for designer clothes - they're not that expensive either. Some people also buy things on credit too.

Sorry, again, illustrating the principle, not the detail.

How about: I see the view that vast swathes of people are "living the life of Riley" solely on benefit income as incorrect. Benefits don't provide for highly luxurious lifestyles. Those benefit claimants who are living highly luxurious lifestyles are probably also doing at least one of the following:

Working in the black economy
Otherwise submitting fraudulent claims
Purchasing items off the back of a lorry
Getting into debt

What I'm saying is that the benefits themselves aren't financing the anecdotal "life of Riley" lifestyles people report.

seven-day-weekend

Sixer wrote: »

Sorry, again, illustrating the principle, not the detail.

How about: I see the view that vast swathes of people are "living the life of Riley" solely on benefit income as incorrect. Benefits don't provide for highly luxurious lifestyles. Those benefit claimants who are living highly luxurious lifestyles are probably also doing at least one of the following:

Working in the black economy
Otherwise submitting fraudulent claims
Purchasing items off the back of a lorry
Getting into debt

What I'm saying is that the benefits themselves aren't financing the anecdotal "life of Riley" lifestyles people report.

Yes, on the whole I agree with that. I know at least one person on JSA who has undeclared income, another on Tax Credits who has an undeclared job upon which no tax/NI is paid; I also know of (although not personally) other people who buy their furniture and kid's designer clothes off the back of a lorry.

Unless you have hordes of children I do not think it is not possible to legally live 'the life of riley' on means-tested Benefits although it can be possible to legally live a comfortable lifestyle on non means-tested ones (in which case their income may not be solely from Benefits)..

NEH

There are some that seem to just have children to get more money or it at least appears that way...

I am quite suprised at the amount of people that suddenly at the eleventh hour before the baby is due turn round and say hwo on earth can we afford a child....

Accidents do happen but does no one plan children anymore?! Or face the harsh and very sad reality that sometimes you simply can't afford them....

Indie_Kid

NEH wrote: »

Accidents do happen

In which case, you'd do the sensible thing and put some money away each week to pay for the baby. Actually, babies aren't that expensive - at least not for the first several months or so.

lemonpopcorn

I work in my job with people who are mainly on benefits (usually single people) and the only thing I envy them is certainly not the amount of money they have to exist on, but the amount of free time they have.
I would love to have that amount of free time, even just to slow down a little and think about life, but to keep a roof over my head (and Dp and our 3 kiddiewinks) I have to work full time and do the 2hr commute each day, so roll on when I can start taking my holidays so I can have some of that much needed free time