No point working - why not just go on benefits?

ninky_2

quantic wrote: »

Random question, is it possible to get Credit Cards and loans while on benefits? I know someone who's parents are on benefits (have not worked a job in 20 years) and they have roughly 35k in CC/loans. I don't understand how they have managed this, surely they wont have to replay it either, if they have no means.

yes it is. access to credit is more to do with credit rating and money going in and out of your bank account than the source of that money. so if you have one credit card and have no recent defaults it is pretty easy to get another. being on benefits is not having "no means". the benefits are the means. seeing as the government is willing to hand out large amounts of debt to those with even fewer means (students) it's perhaps hardly surprising that those with an income from benefits are allowed credit.

diable

Benefits should be relative to the salary that you earn so the more you earn the more you get as how is poor old Giles from Sloane Square meant to run his Porsche and pay the cleaning lady.........

amcluesent

Put aside a couple of months of IB and buy a wrecked Transit. Viola! You're a 'traveller', able to join that oppressed minority outside of law of the land, so it does. Park up anywhere, fleece a few old dears redoing their ridge-tiles for a trifling £5000, sorted!

shamrock77

Ive been on benefits since mid Jan & im alot worse of - i was earning under 15k a year - but no way am i better off. I have debt, & many other everyday household bill to pay as everyone does, i cant wait to get back to work & have been applying daily for jobs. I do know people work the system how they do it i do not no, but im living on pennies at moment & everyday is robbing peter to pay paul..... depressing i think.

Derivative

Why does having a savings account with £16k in make you ineligible for basically all state benefit?

Why does pumping out bags of meat pay £20/£14 a week for the next 18 years?

Why do benefits pay more than a national minimum wage job?

Why does the NHS, the flagship of equality, offer refunds on dentistry and optometry to those below the aforementioned 16k cap?

Answer: because the British Government rewards failure. Populism at its finest.

I could go on all day about the rest, housing benefit propping up rents, student finance grants to low incomes, etc, etc.

As Blank says, the poor working man is punished while the benefit scrounger prospers.

Ilya_Ilyich

There is an important difference between 'rewarding failure' and failing to sufficiently incentivise 'success'.

julieq

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

There is an important difference between 'rewarding failure' and failing to sufficiently incentivise 'success'.

Can I just say that although I diametrically disagree with most of Ilya Ilyich's posts, I'm really enjoying reading them, most thought provoking.

Ilya_Ilyich

Thank you julieq. That's pretty much what I'm after - I don't necessarily expect people to agree with me but I think it's important for people to consider their viewpoints and why they hold them. Take this situation, for example. There are a number of statements in EdgEy's post:

1) Holding £16,000+ savings renders you ineligible for 'basically all state benefit'. How true is this? Who wants you to think this is true, and why? Is this a bad thing?

2) The £20/£14 a week for pumping out bags of meat comment - I honestly don't know what this refers to and whether I agree with it or not!

3) I can believe there are some situations where being on benefits is worth the same as/more than being on minimum wage -- for example if working people need to spend hours a day commuting to earn minimum wage X, or have no commute but work a tough/draining job to earn X, while people on benefits also earn X for 'nothing' then there's little incentive to actively seek employment. This is the issue I'm trying to address in my last post - putting in hours of work probably just doesn't reward people enough. However I feel that the appropriate solution would be to raise the minimum wage - ie improve the situation for workers - rather than decrease benefits and punish non-workers.

4) I presume the point is to classify dentistry and optometry as 'cosmetic' or otherwise unnecessary enhancements that the public shouldn't spend their money on. To be honest this is something I can have some agreement with especially in terms of optometry - I don't think people with glasses/contacts are significatantly discriminated against, although I may be wrong - but certainly for dentistry I could believe poor people have poorer dental conditions and are discriminated against on this basis for jobs 'above their station'. This is conjecture though.

I think my main opposition to the views of those such as EdgEy is that I believe the answer to "working doesnt give enough reward relative to not working" should be to increase the reward for working, rather than further punish those who can't or won't work.

Derivative

Ilya you raise some very good points.

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

1) Holding £16,000+ savings renders you ineligible for 'basically all state benefit'. How true is this? Who wants you to think this is true, and why? Is this a bad thing?

Income based JSA stops at 16k in 'capital', which includes savings, stocks and similar. NHS low income help for dentistry, etc is 8k last I had to fill in.

2) The £20/£14 a week for pumping out bags of meat comment - I honestly don't know what this refers to and whether I agree with it or not!

Child benefit - £20 for the first, ~£13-14 for subsequent. Stops at a fairly high income band but I still see no reason for it to exist.

3) I can believe there are some situations where being on benefits is worth the same as/more than being on minimum wage -- for example if working people need to spend hours a day commuting to earn minimum wage X, or have no commute but work a tough/draining job to earn X, while people on benefits also earn X for 'nothing' then there's little incentive to actively seek employment. This is the issue I'm trying to address in my last post - putting in hours of work probably just doesn't reward people enough. However I feel that the appropriate solution would be to raise the minimum wage - ie improve the situation for workers - rather than decrease benefits and punish non-workers.

There exist situations in which JSA is reduced by the exact amount that you earn. If you are a JSA claimant and take say a 10 hour cleaning job, you end up with the same income, but now have to pay for the commute!

On dentistry and optometry, I certainly do not believe these are unnecessary or cosmetic - though I may have a biased view, with wonky teeth and eyes myself. I simply don't believe that the poor should be subsidized here while those better off have to pay - the NHS should ensure the same standard of care for all.

Ilya_Ilyich

EdgEy wrote: »

Income based JSA stops at 16k in 'capital', which includes savings, stocks and similar. NHS low income help for dentistry, etc is 8k last I had to fill in.

Thank you for the information; this is something I don't know much about so it's always good/interesting to learn more. I can definitely see the reasoning behind it - i.e. people with savings can cope with unemployment better than those without..but there's obviously some scope for people who believe they will be unemployed soon not to save. I don't know how likely this is though - it sounds like you need to be in a fairly specific situation (currently employed, knowing you will be unemployed and eligible for benefits soon, current capital near/over £16k) in order to have less of an incentive to work. Is this fair or am I missing something?

Child benefit - £20 for the first, ~£13-14 for subsequent. Stops at a fairly high income band but I still see no reason for it to exist.

Sorry; thought you were talking about some bizarre subsidy for butchers!

If I'm perfectly honest I don't know the country's exact situation in terms of mean/median age and the related trend - however based on general figures I'd expect that we have an aging population and need to encourage reproduction in order to maintain a decent working-age population and support our elderly - is this fair or am I wrong? As I say not too educated on this subject so eager to learn more.

There exist situations in which JSA is reduced by the exact amount that you earn. If you are a JSA claimant and take say a 10 hour cleaning job, you end up with the same income, but now have to pay for the commute!

I agree this provides a pretty shoddy/non-existent incentive to work for a lot of people. This is why I support an increased minimum wage.

On dentistry and optometry, I certainly do not believe these are unnecessary or cosmetic - though I may have a biased view, with wonky teeth and eyes myself. I simply don't believe that the poor should be subsidized here while those better off have to pay - the NHS should ensure the same standard of care for all.

Apologies for misinterpreting you - again this is an area where I simply don't know a lot; your views sound admirable. Again though it sounds like a region where workers don't receive much relative to nonworkers and thus have little incentive to work - and again I feel the right course of action would be to improve the lot of the workers (ie provide dental/optometric subsidies for them as well as the poor) rather than to punish the nonworkers.