Family life on benefits

[dizzyblonde]

Originally Posted by Owenski

If he stopped thinking he was so damn smart and actually tried to play the game he'd be a great asset to society, its a real shame because with those qualifications I'd imagine he's make a great lecuturer at a university.

Theres an awful lot of people suitably qualified that think they are so damn smart Owenski. Its almost as if, because they have a degree or other equivalent qualification that they have been awarded the right to have a 'greater than thou' attitude and that they have to be given a job, because they have a piece of paper proclaiming so.

If they ditched the attiitude, they'd likely gain a job quicker!

I know, im going to be intollerable once I've actually got my Degree.

[mister c]

I have worked all of my life & have very little to show for it. I work around 53 hours a week for about 22k gross a year. I'm single. I have a mortgage of £74k & live in a rough part of town, 2 motorbikes, for which 1 is paid for, the other is on tick. I sold my car because I never used it, plus it was an added expense. Used to have Sky TV, but got rid of it because I couldn't afford "Luxuries". I do have the internet, it's about the only posh thing I do have. I very rarely drink, I gave up smoking 4 years ago & didn't until recently have much of a social life. I am supporting my daughter through University, she is in her 2nd year.

Now, my ex sister in law hasn't worked in her life, she lives on her own in a 3 bedroom semi detached bungalow in a very nice area (not Council), has 2 young children, who both have top of the range laptops, games consoles, flat screen TVs. She drives around in a 53 Plate Hyundai Coupe with private reg number, £800 after market wheels & tyres. She has a 50" Plasma TV, full Sky package & broadband from Orange. She smokes real fags (not roll ups) goes out on the lash every Friday & Saturday & has to go for a nap in the afternoons because she's "been so busy!".

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm fairly happy with my life, but I do sit & think sometimes "Who's the mug here?"

As an additional to this. I did tell her to her face &, no, she didn't like it, but at the end of the day, she just knows how to work the system & they pay her out. I would really like to put these people in the real world to see how they would survive.

[Fallout]

Originally Posted by Owenski

I know, im going to be intollerable once I've actually got my Degree.

What degree are you doing?

[Bibio]

it's funny how times keep revolving.

1980's, high unemployment, rescission and at war = media blaming the unemployed for costing the state money.

1990's, getting back on our feet and at war = nothing much said about the unemployed

2000's, no recession, pretty much good times for all and at war = nothing much said about the unemployed

2010,s, high unemployment, rescission and at war = media blaming the unemployed for costing the state money.

so this means that rescission and at war = slagging off the unemployed and blaming them for everything.

for being a peaceful country we certainly have a lot of wars.

lets try in 2020's no rescission, low unemployed and no war. but i bet my little hairy arze that we will be at war with someone.

[gruntygiggles]

I have no problem with tax payers money going towards supporting those who are not currently working because of:-

Ill Health
Disability
Mental Illness that prevents ability to work (yes...there are some and depression is included in that)
Carer (it IS work IMHO and no time off so damned right they should be supported)
There are more but you get my drift.

For those people who do not work because they cannot find work (or choose not to) fine, get the benefits, but in a different form than cash to spend on what they wish. Had this discussion a couple of weeks back and don't judge me on this until you have read everything in this post.

I DO NOT believe that it is a good thing to give people cash to spend entirely on what they wish when they have done nothing to EARN that cash. If, for example, you lose your job through redundancy or contract ending...whatever, you get benefits as they are currently paid under the jobseekers allowance as you deserve the freedom to choose what you spend it on so long as you do actively look for work. You have been paying your taxes, you have earned the right to be supported in this way.

If you have been looking for work for a period of say 24 months (lets make it fair, this is a bad job market at the moment) and the records show that you have turned down more than three offers of employment, then your cash benefits are stopped and you go onto a basic support system. Much the same as SK has said, a basic support system would provide you with vouchers to be spent on value goods such as food, clothing, household goods etc. In short, the basics that we need in order to live. I believe that these should be given seperately to ensure that each claimant and their family had enough food vouchers to ensure a sufficient diet, enough clothing vouchers to ensure that the family is clothed, but not able to spend £80 on a pair of trainers...you get my drift.

Now..there is an argument that is common and is discussed in this thread where, it is very difficult when on benefits to find a job that allows you to take home the same net amount. The incentive to take a lower paying job over staying on benefits is that you take a lower paying job and under a certain bracket, you still qualify for certain help, such as subsidised housing. This should be housing that is modest and just what you need to house yourself and your dependants...NOT better that the average working family of the same size that work hard to pay for it. As well as the subsidised housing, you get to take home your own pay and spend it whatever you wish...a freedom you have when you earn your own money.

Basically, if YOU earn it, YOU get to spend it on whatever you want. If I earn it and have to give it up in taxes, I get to know that MY earnings are not being spent on Sky TV and luxuries that I deny myself in order to live within my means!

Now, as long as we are going to subsidise housing under a certain pay bracket, we have to offer the same subsidy to ALL workers whose pay falls under those same brackets where they have the same number of dependants etc.

As far as the argument goes for everyone being able to have pleasures in life, then fine. I agree with that, but I again think that you have to EARN those pleasures. So...whilst you turn down job offers, stay at home as a long term unemployed despite being perfectly capable of working, you do not automatically get to have pleasures in your life. So, Lets say we make 90% of the benefit for these people come in the form of vouchers and 10% come in the form of cash. I do think it is a basic human right to have something you can decide upon yourself. So, if you want to spend that 10% on booze, cigarettes, that is fine. It would never be enough to pay for Sky TV and any expensive subscription services like Sky should not be allowed under this scheme. But it would mean that, like I said, if you want to buy beer or fags, go for it...your choice. If you want to be able to go on holiday, great...save up like the rest of us do and go on holiday.

In addition, if you can't find work past the 24 month period, but you sign up to volunteer on community projects, then you can earn credits. These credits help to turn some of your vouchers into cash and provide you with up to date references in order to make finding employment more likely.

SO...this is a very basic overview of how I would like to see it dealt with.

No, I don't think one rule fits all, so there have to be brackets to suit individual circumstances.
No, I don't think we can completely remove someones right to have a little cash that they can choose how to spend.

BUT...

Like it or not, there are many many people currently able to work that choose not to in this country. Those people absolutely should be made to live modestly as to live with luxuries that workers cannot afford in inherently wrong IMHO.

So, those people lose the right to choose what ALL of their benefit money gets spent on.

FOR AS LONG AS YOU RELY ON THE STATE TO SUPPORT YOU WHEN YOU COULD OTHERWISE SUPPORT YOURSELF, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATE WILL DECIDE WHAT YOU CAN AND *CAN'T HAVE.

* With the exception of your 10% cash allowance.

If it has been under 24 months or you fall under one of the categories that realistically prevents you from working, then you get cash benefits as with the current system.

Originally Posted by Fallout

What degree are you doing?

My dear man Im doing a degree in being awesome.

That is clearly a lie...
Actual course is BSc Hons Civil Engineering, work have put me through it and Im in the final semester of my final year over the moon to have gotten this far when all teachers told me I'd fail at uni. I may have to track some of them down and pee on their car door handles...

[Bibio]

as i have said in a previous thread the unemployed don't cost you as much as you think they do.

3,000,000 U/P x £200Pw = £600,000,000pw - 50% back in tax/duty = £300,000,000 / 30,000,000 employed = £10 a week from every employed person to support an unemployed person.

[gruntygiggles]

But it's not the sums involved that is the problem. I do not have any issue with some of my taxes going toward these costs. What I do object to is people being able to take advantage of the system.

The money given in bonuses by banks is teeny in the grand scheme of things, but plenty get up in arms about that. It is the injustice and imbalance of it.

The truth is, you can't fix the economy by tackling any one area of spending. You have to look at the whole picture. But this thread is about family life on benefits and the current system does not give the incentive to go out and work.

I would prefer to see a system that did encourage that and therefore, more productivity, more spending and more of a boost to the economy.

To me, it is not about how much money is involved. It is about getting those that can work into work.

[Bibio]

incentives are ok when there are jobs.

the unemployemnt figures go up with every rescission due to the lack of jobs, these figures also go down when the times are good. it would be nice if there was a job for everyone but that is not the case so we will always have unemployed. there are very very few who decide to make a career of being unemployed and to be honest i would rather the gov pay these people the money than them making a life of crime and putting insurance prices up.

i'm going to upset a lot of people on this forum but here goes...

what is costing this country money is the military and the gov going to war with anyone they see fit without asking the public's approval. for every bullet fired out a gun it costs the tax payer 100% of the cost of the bullet. now add to that the cost of the weaponry to fire that bullet and the sums go skyward with no offset via tax/duty. and for what... to kill some poor person in another country going about THEIR business that our gov don't agree with. that's called bullying in my book.

if history serves me well we have been at war with someone since the end of the second world war. so much for 'we live in a time of peace'.