September CPI hits 5.2% - figures to set rises in benefits

SingleSue

ukcarper wrote: »

My point is it is harder to take that hit if you are on benefits.

We are only really talking about a few pounds a week (if that!) for each person on benefits, less for those on basic benefits without children, not really enough to make a huge difference to their budget if the increase is not given.

It is completely unfair if one part of society are given precedence over another part of society, when in reality, a lot of people from all parts are already struggling. This is especially the case for low income, childless workers, their money is not increasing (or if it is, not by much) and in real terms, they are ending up a lot worse off than those who are not working.

Talk about a kick in the teeth for that section of society and would be more of an incentive to just give it all up.

I do know how it is to be on benefits, I am not saying this as someone who is sitting pretty at the top of the pole with no idea of how the real world works but as someone whose sole income is from benefits....and I can see it is not right and it is not fair.

hallmark

hit enter by mistake duh

hallmark

ukcarper wrote: »

Some of the people applying were graduates.

I said skills that people will happily pay for. Being a graduate isn't necessarily the same thing.

I know quite a lot of graduates who earn fortunes. They studied hard, took difficult degrees that they knew would lead directly to the specific job they wanted (sometimes in conjunction with further effort beyond their degree).

I also know graduates who chose their university based on how good it's nightlife was, did a joke degree in an irrelevant subject, spent the entire first year getting drunk & ended up scraping a "Desmond" & laughing about what great fun Uni was. Quite a few of them are shocked to discover that the world isn't full of people gagging to offer them a stellar job & are now scraping about applying for anything or just living on benefits. Without exception they're all pretty angry about having to repay their student loan too.

ukcarper

hallmark wrote: »

I said skills that people will happily pay for. Being a graduate isn't necessarily the same thing.

I know quite a lot of graduates who earn fortunes. They studied hard, took difficult degrees that they knew would lead directly to the specific job they wanted (sometimes in conjunction with further effort beyond their degree).

I also know graduates who chose their university based on how good it's nightlife was, did a joke degree in an irrelevant subject, spent the entire first year getting drunk & ended up scraping a "Desmond" & laughing about what great fun Uni was. Quite a few of them are shocked to discover that the world isn't full of people gagging to offer them a stellar job & are now scraping about applying for anything or just living on benefits. Without exception they're all pretty angry about having to repay their student loan too.

I think you are right, but then again I think you have to accept that not everybody is capable of doing the more difficult degrees. There are 2.57m people unemployed but less than 500k vacancies so if they were all filled there would still be 2m people unemployed.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

I think you are right, but then again I think you have to accept that not everybody is capable of doing the more difficult degrees. There are 2.57m people unemployed but less than 500k vacancies so if they were all filled there would still be 2m people unemployed.

500k vacancies in agencies I believe.

ukcarper

SingleSue wrote: »

We are only really talking about a few pounds a week (if that!) for each person on benefits, less for those on basic benefits without children, not really enough to make a huge difference to their budget if the increase is not given.

It is completely unfair if one part of society are given precedence over another part of society, when in reality, a lot of people from all parts are already struggling. This is especially the case for low income, childless workers, their money is not increasing (or if it is, not by much) and in real terms, they are ending up a lot worse off than those who are not working.

Talk about a kick in the teeth for that section of society and would be more of an incentive to just give it all up.

I do know how it is to be on benefits, I am not saying this as someone who is sitting pretty at the top of the pole with no idea of how the real world works but as someone whose sole income is from benefits....and I can see it is not right and it is not fair.

Lets take a single male who qualifies for a 1 bed in my area they would have £67.50 after rent and council tax someone on minimum wage would get £113.00.

hallmark

ukcarper wrote: »

I think you are right, but then again I think you have to accept that not everybody is capable of doing the more difficult degrees. There are 2.57m people unemployed but less than 500k vacancies so if they were all filled there would still be 2m people unemployed.

But that assumes that the only two choices are be an employee or live off benefits.

There's nothing stopping anyone setting up a business, & it can be as modest or ambitious as they like.

And - whisper it quietly - that's the only way that ANY private sector jobs ever get created.

It constantly astounds me how many people on the TV/radio etc whine about the lack of jobs without ever having the slightest intention of even trying, even for one day, to actually create some.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

500k vacancies in agencies I believe.

Possibly but there is still no where near enough jobs for all the unemployed.

ukcarper

hallmark wrote: »

But that assumes that the only two choices are be an employee or live off benefits.

There's nothing stopping anyone setting up a business, & it can be as modest or ambitious as they like.

And - whisper it quietly - that's the only way that ANY private sector jobs ever get created.

It constantly astounds me how many people on the TV/radio etc whine about the lack of jobs without ever having the slightest intention of even trying, even for one day, to actually create some.

You seem to be falling into the trap that everybody who is unemployed wants to be.

I’ve work all my life and believe people should work but I’m not blinked enough not to realise how difficult it is for some people to get a job. What business do you suggest a 16 year old without enough qualifications to go to university sets up?

hallmark

ukcarper wrote: »

You seem to be falling into the trap that everybody who is unemployed wants to be.

I'm sure most unemployed people would love to get a job they want, like, enjoy and or are well paid for. Who wouldn't.

I'm equally sure that many of them would run a mile before they would do a crummy job that only pays as much or slightly more than they can get on benefits.

Actually forget saying I'm equally sure, because actually I'm certain, I know plenty of them personally & they're completely open about it. The general comment is "of course I could get a job at {insert naff job here} but what's the point, I wouldn't get any more than I do on benefits".

And that's the reason so many people hate the benefit culture.

I'm more than willing to acknowledge that there are plenty of genuine unfortunates out of work but I rarely see benefits-defenders who are so willing to admit to the hundreds of thousands of lazy scroungers who just leech off the system.