Living on £53 a week?

amcg100

RAS wrote: »

This is actually illegal; tenants are allowed to choose their own supplier and method of payment.

Correct, problem is that tenants don't want to upset their landlord if they are on a short tenancy.

mgdavid

naturaljazz wrote: »

........ shower gel ........

have you done a price comparison with a bar of soap?

monkeychops

chirpychick wrote: »

monkeychops wouldn't you be better off getting rid of your life insurance? My husband has just had to do this.

We will probably have no choice but to get rid of it but what happens if one of us dies? My insurance is only £10 a month and the payout would cover my funeral with maybe a small amount left. OH's cover costs more because he has a few health issues and he is covered for a larger amount. He has always said if he dies before me he wants me to have enough money to be able to buy a small flat so as not to have the hassle of renting. We could reduce this so it only covers funeral costs but he has had his insurance a while and I would think a new policy would cost a lot now anyway because of his health issues and his age.

seven-day-weekend

geoffky wrote: »

90% of new housing benefit claimants are working people..
86% of low paid working people also live on benefits such as tax credits..:cool:
And Working people get some of their council tax paid for if they claim.......People earning over 40k still claim benefits...:cool:

My son and his girlfriend live together in a mortgaged flat, both work the equivalent of minimum wage and claim no means-tested Benefits at all.

kafkathecat

Pollycat wrote: »

And I think (quite rightly) that is what the Govt is trying to address - people who work full time ending up worse off financially than someone who is on work-related benefits.

I'm not sure that some of the things they've come up with will work/have been well-thought through but at least they are doing something to address the unfair situation.

A better way to address it would be to create jobs, increase the minimum wage or cap rents - which is where most of the benefit bill goes. Reducing benefits just means that you can force people to work for less as anything is better than starving. The less money people have the less they can spend which further depresses the economy. What seems like common sense often isn't.

Pollycat

kafkathecat wrote: »

A better way to address it would be to create jobs, increase the minimum wage or cap rents - which is where most of the benefit bill goes. Reducing benefits just means that you can force people to work for less as anything is better than starving. The less money people have the less they can spend which further depresses the economy. What seems like common sense often isn't.

Actually, I think the Govt should address scumbags like recently convicted Philpott who thought that (and quite rightly, it appears) he could have 2 women as 'baby machines' to provide him with benefits - and God only knows what other benefits he was claiming.

He certainly never had to consider living on £53 per week, did he?

kafkathecat

Pollycat wrote: »

Actually, I think the Govt should address scumbags like recently convicted Philpott who thought that (and quite rightly, it appears) he could have 2 women as 'baby machines' to provide him with benefits - and God only knows what other benefits he was claiming.

He certainly never had to consider living on £53 per week, did he?

And how would you solve that problem? By punishing the children for being born? By punishing working parents? which the two mothers were. Philpott didn't even claim jobseekers allowance. And when he attempted to murder his previous girlfriend he was in the army. He was just a nasty selfish man and any measure passed just to show our disgust with him will hurt many other people, most of tehm children.

catkins

It's a shame that somehow a distinction cannot be made between people who want to work and are trying to find jobs and people who have no intention of working.

I know a few people who claim benefits, two of them don't want to work (mainly because they both do work cash in hand). I don't know how they have claimed benefits for so long. There is work where I live and one of them is a fit guy of 40 who manages to find lots of cash in hand work (painting, decorating, tiling, plastering etc) so there must be some work he could do.

The people who do want to work and are trying to manage on very low money apply for loads of jobs, not just what they want to do, but things like cleaning, bar work, cafe work etc. The ones without children struggle the most because they get so little money. At least with children they are getting child benefit and often family tax credit.

I also think people should stop being rewarded for having more and more children. Child benefit could stop after 2 children (if the second child was twins, triplets etc they would get allowance for all of them). The world and this country is overpopulated and if people want to have more than 2 children then they should pay for them.

It's ridiculous that some people sit back doing nothing but having children and manage a pretty good lifestyle while costing the taxpayer not only for their benefits but also schooling etc.

I find it sad to read Monkeychops' story. A couple who have worked and paid into this country for 40 years each and they are treated like dirt. People who have never worked and never intend to so have paid nothing into the system are entitled to the same or more. If they have loads of children they can end up far better off than the majority of working people and given a council or social housing house at very low rent.

It has been said that Philpot's benefits amounted to the equivalent of a wage of £100,000 a year. Even half of that would be disgusting

kafkathecat

Catkins, there are always people who cheat the system and always will be. The stricter you make things the more innocent people get caught by the rules meant for others. There are only a tiny number of families in this country with more than 10 children and the difficulty with hitting them financially is it will always be the children that you hurt. I once met a woman with 14 children but half of them were adopted so she was saving the state money in effect. Would you cut their benefits? I don't know what the answers are I just know that this government has moved from the disabled to the unemployed to the low paid (inc. the Philpotts). Who do you think will be next?

Rottensocks

My son and his girlfriend live together in a mortgaged flat, both work the equivalent of minimum wage and claim no means-tested Benefits at all.

Yeah, but that would be very much area dependent, I'd imagine.