Living on £53 a week?

daska

FatVonD wrote: »

That is totally wrong too but doesn't mean the benefits culture shouldn't be tackled because the amounts are bigger. That's like saying that because the Faroe Islanders slaughter whales it's okay to ignore your neighbour beating their dog.

I don't think anybody is advocating reducing benefits to only 2 children for familes who have existing larger families but something clearly needs to be done to stop people in future from carrying on producing children when they already aren't supporting the ones they have.

Yes, fraud should be tackled but not by the tactic of labelling it a benefits culture on the basis of repeating claims that have been roundly debunked such as there being loads of families with several generations who have never worked or loads of families raking in £100K a year.

IF the aim was really to deal with the so-called benefit culture then the primary aim would be to identify what is stopping people getting in to work and earning sufficient that they don't need benefits. Unfortunately the glaringly obvious answers are that there isn't enough work to go round and the work that is available doesn't pay a living wage largely because housing costs are so high. So why do companies pay so little? Because they know that the taxpayer will stump up the difference. And why are rents still so high? Because the taxpayer subsidises private landlords. And what is being done about it - very little because those making money off the back of the taxpayer are the family and friends of those making policy.

And the areas of the benefits being targeted aren't actually the areas where most money is 'lost'. For instance the fraud rate on Pension Credit is more than 3 times higher than DLA (1.7% compared to 0.5%) but do we ever see a big article disparaging pensioners as bluntly as those attacking disabled people? I haven't seen one. But I frequently hear misleading claims that people are fraudulently claiming DLA while working - when the truth is that it's not a means tested benefit and is paid to anyone who has care needs (including working millionaires if they apply).

iwb100

Pollycat wrote: »

On the contrary, many teenagers who get pregnant have a lot to look forward to - social housing, benefits etc etc.



I'm not supporting anything.



I'm not angry with anybody, let alone the people 'at the bottom of society'.

How many times do I have to say that I don't think what is being implemented is the right way to go?
If I say this - I don't think what is being implemented is the right way to go - will you stop trying to put words into my mouth?



Please yourself whether you continue or not.

I didn't realise that it was necessary to attempt to 'convert' another poster to your own point of view on a thread and if you weren't successful, then you threw the towel in. :cool:

I do, however, think it's well overdue that the Government - any Government - starts addressing paying benefits to those people who aren't eligible for them.

Isn't tackling benefit fraud a bit different to what you're talking about?

I don't think anyone will argue that those people illegally claiming benefit should be adressed, although they are small, small numbers.

You seem to be talking about people with large families, those people as it stands are potentially eligible for benefits.

There is a distinction.

kafkathecat

Sorry Pollycat I only meant there is little point throwing ideas around if people aren't listening. I don't like it when discussions get heated so I tend to avoid that.
I don't have any answers so I am not trying to convert you to anything I am just trying to point out how policies to solve one problem can cause a whole host of other problems.
I would ask who do you think is ineligible for benefits? What happens to them instead? Do you expect them to beg or steal or starve or do you have other ideas?
Lastly the teen pregnancy rate in this country is the lowest since 1969 so not quite teh big issue that many believe it is.

iwb100

daska wrote: »

Yes, fraud should be tackled but not by the tactic of labelling it a benefits culture on the basis of repeating claims that have been roundly debunked such as there being loads of families with several generations who have never worked or loads of families raking in £100K a year.

IF the aim was really to deal with the so-called benefit culture then the primary aim would be to identify what is stopping people getting in to work and earning sufficient that they don't need benefits. Unfortunately the glaringly obvious answers are that there isn't enough work to go round and the work that is available doesn't pay a living wage largely because housing costs are so high. So why do companies pay so little? Because they know that the taxpayer will stump up the difference. And why are rents still so high? Because the taxpayer subsidises private landlords. And what is being done about it - very little because those making money off the back of the taxpayer are the family and friends of those making policy.

And the areas of the benefits being targeted aren't actually the areas where most money is 'lost'. For instance the fraud rate on Pension Credit is more than 3 times higher than DLA (1.7% compared to 0.5%) but do we ever see a big article disparaging pensioners as bluntly as those attacking disabled people? I haven't seen one. But I frequently hear misleading claims that people are fraudulently claiming DLA while working - when the truth is that it's not a means tested benefit and is paid to anyone who has care needs (including working millionaires if they apply).

Hallelujah, praise the lord.........:T:T:T

GW78

But have you, will you, could you live on £53 a week?!

seven-day-weekend

I could live on £53 a week for a while (just), but the minute my washing machine or fridge broke down, I'd be stuffed (assuming I had no savings,which I doubt the people we are talking about would have).

My husband and I relatively recently have lived on around £500 a month for several years. However we did have savings so were able to replace things that broke/wore out.

Pollycat

kafkathecat wrote: »

Sorry Pollycat I only meant there is little point throwing ideas around if people aren't listening. I don't like it when discussions get heated so I tend to avoid that.

I am listening, doesn't mean I agree with you.

kafkathecat wrote: »

I am just trying to point out how policies to solve one problem can cause a whole host of other problems.

I don't disagree with that.

kafkathecat wrote: »

I would ask who do you think is ineligible for benefits? What happens to them instead? Do you expect them to beg or steal or starve or do you have other ideas?

Re who is ineligible for benefits - I mean people who are fraudulantly claiming benefits e.g. people working cash-in-hand but claiming unemployment benefit, those people claiming DLA who clearly do not have the disabilities they say they have etc etc.

As for what happens to them, if they are ineligible for benefits they should work for their living - like a lot of other people have to.

kafkathecat wrote: »

Lastly the teen pregnancy rate in this country is the lowest since 1969 so not quite teh big issue that many believe it is.

It may be the lowest in this country since 1969 (do you have a link to this?) but, according to the Guardian article you gave the link to:

The country is placed 29th on further education – bottom of the list of developed nations in Unicef's report – 27th on teenage pregnancy, and on youth unemployment it is ranked 24th.

so not a lot to be proud of, is there?

daska

The other thing people generally don't appreciate is that being poor is bloody expensive! You can't buy in bulk so you pay top dollar for everything. You don't have the money to buy good quality things that will last so you have to replace more often or the running costs are greater. And don't get me on the subject of pound shops - there may be the very occasional bargain but actually a lot of the products in there are manufactured in smaller sizes deliberately for them meaning there is seldom a real saving to be made.

daska

Pollycat wrote: »

Re who is ineligible for benefits - I mean people who are fraudulantly claiming benefits e.g. people working cash-in-hand but claiming unemployment benefit, those people claiming DLA who clearly do not have the disabilities they say they have etc etc.

Look, you've done it as well! You've used DLA as an example when only the State Pension and Incapacity Benefit have lower rates of fraud and every other benefit has a fraud rate at least 3 times higher if not 6 times higher. That's going by the official figures from the DWP for 2011-12. Perhaps you should ask youself why you haven't identified Pension Credit as a target? Could it be that the government spin machine is working oh so very well...?

Pollycat

daska wrote: »

Look, you've done it as well! You've used DLA as an example when only the State Pension and Incapacity Benefit have lower rates of fraud and every other benefit has a fraud rate at least 3 times higher if not 6 times higher. That's going by the official figures from the DWP for 2011-12. Perhaps you should ask youself why you haven't identified Pension Credit as a target? Could it be that the government spin machine is working oh so very well...?

Exactly - I've used it as an example.

Did I say that DLA fraud is higher than for other benefits?

Nope, didn't think I did. :cool:

I used 2 examples, I didn't think I needed to list every benefit and rank them according to the number of fraudulent claims.

Could it be that you're a tad too touchy about DLA and fraudulent claims.....