Will we be entitled to any more benefits?

chris1973

I find this absolutely shocking!

Here we have a family with one of them working part time earning £468 a month and who used to claim benefits of another £1355 a month!!

Now complaining that their benefits are going down to £1088 a month.

Its alarming how many people mention that they are better off on benefits than working, its becoming an almost daily occurance.

Personally, if this is currently the case then i'd consider it a bonus on a 'good whilst it lasted' basis, rather than a guaranteed cast iron, cert for the rest of your life!. Benefits are evolving and changing, you only have read some of the threads here to see that the Gravy train is slowing, the country can simply no longer afford the coal to keep the boilers fired. After all, once people quit work en masse, because they find it much more lucrative on benefits, there will be nobody left working in order to provide the revenue requirement to keep the benefits bill afloat. Something big will happen, and I doubt it will be good.

I agree that it seems that many people in certain circumstances are probably are better off on benefits currently, but plan ahead, and think as to whether it will it be the same in 6 months or 12 months?. If the brown stuff does hit the fan, and you become worse off on benefits, then you are going to look pretty stupid if you have voluntarily put your families' longer term financial security in jeopardy by quitting employment, for what turned out only to be a short term benefit (pardon the pun) or a situation which was quickly closed.

The country is screwed and in massive debt to virtually everybody but God, We can't afford the Olympics AND a big benefits bill - one of them has to go.

Think if it this way, if you quit work to claim more benefits and then later on, the unthinkable should happen and your current benefit amount is suddenly reduced or removed, how long will it take you to find another Job?, especially if thousands of others suddenly found themselves in exactly the same situation and began chasing that Job - ANY job. Always consider the worst possible case and plan from there - common sense.

At the end of the day, quitting a job because today, you may be better off on benefits is your decision - your family - your choice, but be 'big' enough to admit it if you get it wrong!.

Choose wisely .

EvieSaver

mazy_m wrote: »

ALthough I was intrigued to see what we'd be entitled to if neither of us worked and not because of disability etc and I was shocked it was something like £23,500 approx....

just wanted to mention - I'm guessing that the £23,500 would have been the amount received - whereas to have a bring home pay of £23,500 you'd need a gross salary of about £31,000. Even more to think about.

falko89

I don't know but something really wrong with all this, I have worked all my life so I know no different, It does my head in being idle, but where is the incentive for people who have never worked to come of benefits and get a job when they will be worse of? It all just doesn't make sense.

fogartyblue.

falko89 wrote: »

its not that benefits are to high, its wages are to low.

Where have I heard that one before?

As the government can't force firms to pay more in wages, they have to reduce benefits.

Benefits must be too high if it puts people off working.

fogartyblue.

falko89 wrote: »

wages need to go up.

And how would you suggest that happens?

Increased wages = increased overheads to the company = company goes bust = no jobs!

falko89

fogartyblue. wrote: »

And how would you suggest that happens?

Increased wages = increased overheads to the company = company goes bust = no jobs!

I don't know, but benefits are already low with the cost of living, they've already hit housing benefit for single people, you can't hit JSA its £67, they've already hit working tax, it leaves child tax credit. It really is quite a mess with no clear answer, but there is something wrong when the government has to make up the difference in peoples wages just to give them enough for the basics in life.

fogartyblue.

falko89 wrote: »

fogartyblue. wrote: »

I don't know, but benefits are already low with the cost of living, they've already hit housing benefit for single people, you can't hit JSA its £67, they've already hit working tax, it leaves child tax credit. It really is quite a mess with no clear answer, but there is something wrong when the government has to make up the difference in peoples wages just to give them enough for the basics in life.

Thanks

I think the answer lies in what you have said.

The government would question just what is meant by the 'basics' of life.

To some it may include 3 weeks in the USA every year, others may see that going out twice a week clubbin is part of the 'norm'

The government would say that as long as you have some type of food every day and some clothes on your back that should be enough!

falko89

fogartyblue. wrote: »

falko89 wrote: »

Thanks

I think the answer lies in what you have said.

The government would question just what is meant by the 'basics' of life.

To some it may include 3 weeks in the USA every year, others may see that going out twice a week clubbin is part of the 'norm'

The government would say that as long as you have some type of food every day and some clothes on your back that should be enough!

Thats all we have, even when I was working we survived rather than lived, Holidays did not exist and a meal out was to McDonalds on a rare occasion:D You certainly can't live like Rockefeller on the minimum wage.

fogartyblue.

falko89 wrote: »

fogartyblue. wrote: »

Thats all we have, even when I was working we survived rather than lived, Holidays did not exist and a meal out was to McDonalds on a rare occasion:D You certainly can't live like Rockefeller on the minimum wage.

I absolutely agree with your point.

However all of this talk about trying to live on £67 a week is being silly.

When you factor in all of the benefits that can be claimed, the amount received is far far above what most people could possibly earn.

I had a situation a while ago in trying to work out what a couple pensioners would get.
You hear the statement that pensioners have to live on £132 a week - rubbish.
Being of that age and there is always the possibly of not being able to do things as they did when they were in their 20's.

Most pensioners claim Attendance Allowance (83% guarantee for it to be awarded!) Then they claim to spend at least 35 hours a week caring for each other and are awarded Carers Allowance.
With just that one benefit that couple (one has to be over 60) their minimum income will be £503.20 a week!!!! On top of that they will pay no rent or council tax.

Benefits are far too high and too generous. Two 60 year olds raking in between them say £630 a week is beyond belief! But that is what is actually happening.

Murgatroyd21

fogartyblue. wrote: »

falko89 wrote: »

Most pensioners claim Attendance Allowance (83% guarantee for it to be awarded!) Then they claim to spend at least 35 hours a week caring for each other and are awarded Carers Allowance.

Where are you getting your figures that confirm most pensioners claim AA etc?