Changing benefits to monthly payments - why is it a problem?

AppleMatt

Hi all

I've read a few articles now talking about how monthly payments instead of fortnightly payments will have an "adverse effect" on claimants and risk them falling in to debt.

None of the articles showed any reasons why this may happen - can anyone suggest anything please?

As most payments for bills etc. come monthly, I would have thought most people would be budgeting monthly anyway - or if they aren't, is it difficult to just adapt the figures to 1/12 of the year instead?

Just intrigued, thanks in advance :cool:

[Deleted User]

most people on basic benefits live week to week,even day to day,it will be impossible for them to get say £73 jsa one week then have to live for another 3 before they get paid again,not that long ago a number of benefits were changed to fortnightly and that caused problems 4 weekly is a step to far and will drive many into the caring(not)arms of the wonga grannies(who should have been drowned at birth)

DomRavioli

The majority of those on benefits for long term don't have monthly bills as credit facilities for this are unlikely to be obtained without regular wages. A large proportion are on pay and go gas and electricity meters, which could mean the most vulnerable are left without heat or light for a considerable period of time.

Also, food shopping is usually done more frequently (weekly etc instead of monthly) and from my experience of people on benefits who are living hand to mouth it is a case of going shopping at silly oclock in the morning so they can eat.

I take it you have never had to live like some people do OP.

BigAunty

Firstly, there are the initial problems when the timing switches from weekly or fortnightly to monthly - how to minimise hardship when making someone wait an extra two to four weeks for their money when the new payment cycle is bought in.

Secondly, some of those on very low incomes have a very hand to mouth subsistence living and can go into debt very easily. It can be hard for some benefit claimants to manage to pay their basic living expenses and if they incurr an emergency, perhaps a travel expense to visit a sick relative, a plumbers bill to fix a leaking pipe or broken cooker, then it is really much more tricky for them.

Lastly - mindset. Those who receive weekly or fortnightly benefits, especially long term claimants, simply don't have the planning or budgeting skills or knowledge to make their money last over a longer period.

They've never had to before so haven't any experience of making money last so they get into a cycle of feast or famine. My teenage nephew could earn £200 one week and be found sitting in the dark the next week because he didn't have any money to feed the meter. Logic says 'make your money last and be sensible with it' but human behaviour isn't logical.

I am a supporter of benefits being paid on a monthly basis as this mirrors most employment and direct debit/standing order options but it's not without its problems.

I recall similar horror stories of what would happen when Local Housing Allowance claimants started receive it directly instead of it going to the landlord and that's never been as big an issue as it was made out to be.

This should be in discussion time.

AppleMatt

DomRavioli wrote: »

I take it you have never had to live like some people do OP.

I'm afraid I have, for 6 months. £41 a week with a £700 a month mortgage to pay. I know very well how hard it is. I'm sorry you took my post to be ignorant or attacking - it certainly wasn't meant as such. I thought I was clear that I was interested in the logic as many articles had taken it as read to be a problem!

It just seems to me that £177 a month instead of £41 a week wouldn't have meant having to change what was spent or how it was spent, it's the same amount just spread out.

Valid points made by all, food for thought, thank you.

AppleMatt

BigAunty wrote: »

This should be in discussion time.

You may be right, just took a guess :rotfl:

tomtom256

I've always struggled getting paid monthly, oh right yeah I budget and plan my outgoings to make the money last.

only_mee

Benefits are paid in arrears, a month with no money would be madness

BigAunty

only_mee wrote: »

Benefits are paid in arrears, a month with no money would be madness

Most wages are paid monthly in arrears...

sniggings

AppleMatt wrote: »

I'm afraid I have, for 6 months. £41 a week with a £700 a month mortgage to pay. I know very well how hard it is. I'm sorry you took my post to be ignorant or attacking - it certainly wasn't meant as such. I thought I was clear that I was interested in the logic as many articles had taken it as read to be a problem!

It just seems to me that £177 a month instead of £41 a week wouldn't have meant having to change what was spent or how it was spent, it's the same amount just spread out.

Valid points made by all, food for thought, thank you.

to make the point a bit clearer, if benefits were paid yearly do you think that would still be no different to weekly or fortnightly payments!

sniggings

BigAunty wrote: »

Most wages are paid monthly in arrears...

your other post was very good and made the argument for not having monthly payments, so I was surprised to see at the end of the post, you supported the change.

Not sure why a comparison between working payments and benefits seems to be a valid one for you, having over a £1000 a month as opposed to £200-£280 for a single person.

Benefits are designed to be the bare minimum to live, so it can't be surprising to hear that many people find it hard to made the money last until the next payment, if money does run out then waiting till next payment is not too long away atm but running out on UC will times that waiting time by 2 or 4 times, it will leave people without money for days/week/s at a time.