MSE News: Autumn Statement: Benefits to rise by just 1%

unclepotter

What about Pension Credit,no mention of how much that will increase,is it 1% like the rest or is it the same increase as state pension?

callum9999

laptop80 wrote: »

All well and good, but isn't the idea of benefits that they're the minimum required to live on? I wasn't aware that Jobseekers Allowance etc had a luxury / disposable income element built in that enables recipients to soak up a rise that's substantially less than the rate of inflation. I'm sure received wisdom will tell me I'm wrong and that claimants do indeed have lots of spare cash out of their £56/£71 a week for mobile phones and plasma TVs.

If I don't get a pay rise it squeezes me and I have to cut out some things, but it's more likely to be non-essentials. If you're on benefits and spending it on food, clothing and heating as it is, aren't you forced to choose which of these essentials you'll do without when the price rises far more than your benefit?

No. It may be a stated aim, but it's certainly not true in reality.

Not that I'm one of those who foams at the mouth at the idea of benefit recipients being able to afford more than gruel and water (substantial parts of my life have been completely reliant on the benefits system - and my mother is currently 100% reliant on it), but there is definitely "slack" in the amount the majority receive to cover a small real-terms drop.

KxMx

How come MSE feels fit to describe benefits as "handouts" in OP yet have a board dedicated to helping people with their "entitlement". Surely the use of the word "handouts" breaks their own guidelines for this board?

Life is tough for alot of folks and last years rise was a large one compared with the majority of the workforce. So speaking as someone on benefits I am grateful for even a 1% rise.

schrodie

LunaLady wrote: »

Its more than many people will be getting!

a 71p rise may well be!!

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

KxMx wrote: »

How come MSE feels fit to describe benefits as "handouts" in OP yet have a board dedicated to helping people with their "entitlement". Surely the use of the word "handouts" breaks their own guidelines for this board?

Life is tough for alot of folks and last years rise was a large one compared with the majority of the workforce. So speaking as someone on benefits I am grateful for even a 1% rise.

It does.

But I think it probably reflects the true attitudes more than anything else.

KxMx

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

It does.

But I think it probably reflects the true attitudes more than anything else.

I have enough of posters here judging me, don't expect it from the staff as well

Perhaps I should review my use of affiliate links through here.

laptop80

callum9999 wrote: »

No. It may be a stated aim, but it's certainly not true in reality.

Not that I'm one of those who foams at the mouth at the idea of benefit recipients being able to afford more than gruel and water (substantial parts of my life have been completely reliant on the benefits system - and my mother is currently 100% reliant on it), but there is definitely "slack" in the amount the majority receive to cover a small real-terms drop.

There may indeed be some slack for some or even a majority, but with so many people in such different situations it doesn't and can't possibly hold true for everyone. A fair number of people on benefits are clearly unable to make ends meet at the moment, as the increasing reliance on food banks would suggest. I would be concerned that these people are being pushed into greater hardship or reliance on private charity.

How much spare cash did you have when you were completely reliant on benefits? Would much of it have been swallowed up by the huge rises in energy prices we've seen since then? I spent a while on JSA about 10 years, but I was fortunate to be in a better situation than many others, being able to live with my parents. I don't think I'd fare quite so well today having to heat a house etc out of it, after the double digit gas & electric price rises we've endured for the past few years.

JS477

schrodie wrote: »

a 71p rise may well be!!

If the rise in JSA is to be capped at 1% for the next three years it'll be £73.13 by the end so in effect it's a cut in their benefit in real terms if inflation remains above 1%.

Fair enough people who work may moan that they haven't had a pay rise in X number of years but they aren't having to try to live off £71 a week rising to £73.13 after three years!

Russe11

JS477 wrote: »

If the rise in JSA is to be capped at 1% for the next three years it'll be £73.13 by the end so in effect it's a cut in their benefit in real terms if inflation remains above 1%.

Fair enough people who work may moan that they haven't had a pay rise in X number of years but they aren't having to try to live off £71 a week rising to £73.13 after three years!

The people who are moaning about not getting payrises make me laugh, thats between them and their employers, not benefits like JSA.

What they should be moaning at is state support for working people, thats what surpresses their wages, get rid of working tax credits, get rid of child tax credits, get rid of any benefits that can be claimed by working people... have them all wrapped up in the tax code and get employers having to pay market rates for labour.

somethingcorporate

Russe11 wrote: »

The people who are moaning about not getting payrises make me laugh, thats between them and their employers, not benefits like JSA.

What they should be moaning at is state support for working people, thats what surpresses their wages, get rid of working tax credits, get rid of child tax credits, get rid of any benefits that can be claimed by working people... have them all wrapped up in the tax code and get employers having to pay market rates for labour.

And then they shift that labour to countries that have a wage rate 10% of that in the UK and rather than being topped up by the government benefits they are totally reliant upon them as they are now unemployed.

It's not as simple as a single solution.