# 2013 a dismal year for those on low incomes.



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Ok so it seems there is more bad news on the way for those on low incomes in 2013.
*

Welfare reform :: Whitefriars housing

Important changes to benefits and tax credits. 
The Government is changing the way that many benefits and tax credits are paid 
and how much benefit people will be entitled to.

If you are claiming benefits or tax credits now or could be in the future its important that you understand the changes and how they could affect you.


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

Payments made a month in arrears, that's going to badly affect a lot of people who will have to survive on nothing for a month.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Lavenderb said:


> Payments made a month in arrears, that's going to badly affect a lot of people who will have to survive on nothing for a month.


*Did you see where they are going to pay the rent directly to those that get it? That for sure will mean many will spend it on food or other bills.*


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

That's how most people get their salary, can not see the difference tbh.
The last redundancey I got £78 JSA nothing paid for, no package and then had to work a month before I got paid. That is how it works in my experience.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

northnsouth said:


> That's how most people get their salary, can not see the difference tbh.


*Of course there is a big difference.If you have nothing to start with.*


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Did you see where they are going to pay the rent directly to those that get it? That for sure will mean many will spend it on food or other bills.*


Its just a way of putting more pressure on people. For a lot of people who are fighting to be found unfit for work and/or are having mental issues the extra complications in daily life will be unbearable.


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

northnsouth said:


> That's how most people get their salary, can not see the difference tbh.
> The last redundancey I got £78 JSA nothing paid for, no package and then had to work a month before I got paid. That is how it works in my experience.


You had no savings put by?


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

After three redundancies and no entitlement to any assistance, there is not half as much left I can promise you..
*I HAD plenty the first two times.^^^...*I do understand though. I have a friend who when she says she has no money she means *no money*.
Usually when I say I have no money it is because I have not been to the bank yet.... I am more than aware this could change, I can not find a full time job and the salary I am on now is the equal pro rata to what I was earning in 1999. My salary for the last four months is less than half what I was bringing home this time last month. I am not entitled to anything so belt tightening and reducing spending is my route.And my savings are leaking away. All my training and hard work for the last ten years is for what?? CONDEMED nation..
So posts like this Janice could well be vitally important in the future.
I have had my eyes opened in the last few months and my attitude has changed a great deal. 
Sorry hi jacking your post again


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Another cracking idea brought to us by this lame arse government


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

simplysardonic said:


> Another cracking idea brought to us by this lame arse government


*The tories and the working class have never mixed well.And Cameron had the nerve to say," we are all in the together". Talk about take the p*ss.*


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> You had no savings put by?


amazing int it......


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *The tories and the working class have never mixed well.And Cameron had the nerve to say," we are all in the together". Talk about take the p*ss.*


yip, its enough to make you want to rent a Labour MP's flat int it


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

northnsouth said:


> After three redundancies and no entitlement to any assistance, there is not half as much left I can promise you..
> *I HAD plenty the first two times.^^^...*I do understand though. I have a friend who when she says she has no money she means *no money*.
> Usually when I say I have no money it is because I have not been to the bank yet.... I am more than aware this could change, I can not find a full time job and the salary I am on now is the equal pro rata to what I was earning in 1999. My salary for the last four months is less than half what I was bringing home this time last month. I am not entitled to anything so belt tightening and reducing spending is my route.And my savings are leaking away. All my training and hard work for the last ten years is for what?? CONDEMED nation..
> So posts like this Janice could well be vitally important in the future.
> ...


*I'm one of the fortunate ones,at the moment at least.But it makes my blood boil,seeing all these changes and people suffering.*


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

Colliebarmy said:


> amazing int it......


----------



## Pheebs (Jun 8, 2011)

And in the meantime, MPs are clamouring for a pay rise. Poor things, they only earn about £60K plus expenses. And then there's all the little fiddles on top, like renting their (no doubt huge) houses to each other so they can claim rent from the taxpayer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/19/mps-expenses-london-homes?newsfeed=true

Cameron and Osbourne are vile and it is beyond me how any working class person could vote for them. The Tories despise us and want to grind us down, whether we're employed or unemployed.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Pheebs said:


> And in the meantime, MPs are clamouring for a pay rise. Poor things, they only earn about £60K plus expenses. And then there's all the little fiddles on top, like renting their (no doubt huge) houses to each other so they can claim rent from the taxpayer.
> 
> Cameron and Osbourne are vile and it is beyond me how any working class person could vote for them. The Tories despise us and want to grind us down, whether we're employed or unemployed.


US?

am i included?

I vote Tory because im old enough to remember Wilson, Callaghan, Prescott, etc, and the unions wrecking our car factories, steel works and all the rail strikes...


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Colliebarmy said:


> US?
> 
> am i included?
> 
> I vote Tory because im old enough to remember Wilson, Callaghan, Prescott, etc, and the unions wrecking our car factories, steel works and all the rail strikes...


*lol I too am old enough to remember them too.But in all my 62 years i have never seen such a evil government in this country.Maggie was bad enough,but Cameron,well i wouldn't p*ss on him if he was alight.*


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

Afraid that all people do is moan and do nowt about it,we need a General Strike (wont get one) because people will not stick together,withhold there council tax,protest like the few that are protesting today (but most wont).People are turning to Payday loans and Provident just to survive.Sorry to say none of these people got use into this mess it was those that are still doing very nicely thank you.Bankers have already said they expect there bonuses to be more than last year.I am old enough to remember the poll tax and refusing to pay mine and the bailiffs arriving but again most people just moaned and stood back while a few of us fought to get it scrapped.


----------



## SandyR (Oct 8, 2011)

I personally would prefer for all my benefits to be paid together in one go. They already pay benefit in arears. Housing benefit is paid every 2 weeks in areers and tax credits I get a week in arears. It just means ill get it all at the end of the month instead. I can understand it will effect people the really poor though. If it causes a problem for us the first month then we will have to ask family to help.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *The tories and the working class have never mixed well.And Cameron had the nerve to say," we are all in the together". Talk about take the p*ss.*


It's laughable how they try making out they actually understand how the other half lives, while they inwardly smirk from the safety of their ivory towers. How stupid do they think people are?


----------



## Mese (Jun 5, 2008)

Gawd help us all , they are determined to kick us while we're down arent they


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

Yep I'm old enough to remember the miners strike and the poll tax riots. I even got the benefit from right to buy ., but this goverment is undoing everything my age group have taken measures to ensure our future with.


----------



## Pheebs (Jun 8, 2011)

Colliebarmy said:


> US?
> 
> am i included?
> 
> I vote Tory because im old enough to remember Wilson, Callaghan, Prescott, etc, and the unions wrecking our car factories, steel works and all the rail strikes...


I don't know, depends whether you consider yourself working class?

The Tories have no idea what life is like for ordinary people who haven't gone to public school and Oxbridge. No. Idea.

And as for the Unions... was it them who shut down our mines and our steelworks, ripping the heart out of working class towns and villages? In my job I have a pension, holidays, paid sick leave, because Unions fought for those rights. Yes, the Unions made big mistakes, but they also won a lot of rights for working people, which are now being stripped away by this government.

If you think Cameron and his chums want to benefit anyone other than the bankers and big business and the wealthy, you are deluded.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

SandyR said:


> I personally would prefer for all my benefits to be paid together in one go. They already pay benefit in arears. Housing benefit is paid every 2 weeks in areers and tax credits I get a week in arears. It just means ill get it all at the end of the month instead. I can understand it will effect people the really poor though. If it causes a problem for us the first month then we will have to ask family to help.


The benefit covering your rent will be paid to you as part of your Universal Credit. For most working age customers you will then be responsible for paying your rent directly to us. You will have to manage your benefit to make sure that you pay the rent on time or you may lose your home.

*Brings me back to my other thread.Imo, they are going all out to get houses back.And i have a good theory as to why.But won't share as most will see it as too far fetched for any British government to do.*


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

suewhite said:


> Afraid that all people do is moan and do nowt about it,we need a General Strike (wont get one) because people will not stick together,withhold there council tax,protest like the few that are protesting today (but most wont).People are turning to Payday loans and Provident just to survive.Sorry to say none of these people got use into this mess it was those that are still doing very nicely thank you.Bankers have already said they expect there bonuses to be more than last year.I am old enough to remember the poll tax and refusing to pay mine and the bailiffs arriving but again most people just moaned and stood back while a few of us fought to get it scrapped.


A big problem Sue is that a lot of the people who will be affected and are complaining are people too sick/disabled to fight their cause.


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

Pheebs said:


> I don't know, depends whether you consider yourself working class? The Tories have no idea what life is like for ordinary people who haven't gone to public school and Oxbridge. No. Idea. And as for the Unions... was it them who shut down our mines and our steelworks, ripping the heart out of working class towns and villages? In my job I have a pemsion, holidays, paid sick leave, because Unions fought for those rights. Yes, the Unions made big mistakes, but they also won a lot of rights for working people, which are now being stripped away by this government. If you think Cameron and his chums want to benefit anyone other than the bankers and big business and the wealthy, you are deluded.


My ref., to the miners strike and poll tax riots was not one of fondness. And the right to buy I think has come to bite us on the bum, lack of housing for the next generation ,(my kids), and the fact that my home will not be an inheritance to my kids or an investment but a means to pay for any care I should need.


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> The benefit covering your rent will be paid to you as part of your Universal Credit. For most working age customers you will then be responsible for paying your rent directly to us. You will have to manage your benefit to make sure that you pay the rent on time or you may lose your home. *Brings me back to my other thread.Imo, they are going all out to get houses back.And i have a good theory as to why.But won't share as most will see it as too far fetched for any British government to do.*


Please share...  I can not see where it is all heading tbh


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

Lavenderb said:


> A big problem Sue is that a lot of the people who will be affected and are complaining are people too sick/disabled to fight their cause.


I understand that but it is up to those who are not to stand up for them as well as themselves,because by this time next year theres going to be alot more sick people around (stress,nervous breakdowns ect)caused by what is being inflicted on them.


----------



## Mese (Jun 5, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> The benefit covering your rent will be paid to you as part of your Universal Credit. For most working age customers you will then be responsible for paying your rent directly to us. You will have to manage your benefit to make sure that you pay the rent on time or you may lose your home.
> 
> *Brings me back to my other thread.Imo, they are going all out to get houses back.And i have a good theory as to why.But won't share as most will see it as too far fetched for any British government to do.*


Nothing they do 'for the good of us all' would surprise me anymore  so you may as well tell us your theory


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

northnsouth said:


> Please share...  I can not see where it is all heading tbh


*Far fetched it might sound but please bare with me.
We all know they want to reduce the numbers of council/social housing in London.Its been debated enough.
Now,those in council houses in London have been offered housing up north,but they don't wan't to go so far away.And rightly so.
But Kent isn't that far from London,so what excuse could they come up with?
So offer those in London,homes in Kent and the rich get to live with the rich.
Just an example,and before anyone thinks i've finaly lost the plot.Watch this space.*


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Far fetched it might sound but please bare with me.
> We all know they want to reduce the numbers of council/social housing in London.Its been debated enough.
> Now,those in council houses in London have been offered housing up north,but they don't wan't to go so far away.And rightly so.
> But Kent isn't that far from London,so what excuse could they come up with?
> ...


In that case can I come up north? It is far too crowded here as it is.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

northnsouth said:


> In that case can I come up north? It is far too crowded here as it is.


*lol I'm in the South.But i'm sure you will get a free ticket to move north.*


----------



## FREE SPIRIT (Jul 8, 2009)

*It's time everyone spoke out against this, regardless of your current situation.

As the saying goes:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Or in the case of todays situation and what the government is doing:

First they came for the disabled
and i didn't speak out-
because i wasn't disabled.

Then they made millions unemployed
and i didn't speak out-
because i had a job.

Then they came for the NHS
and i didn't speak out-
because i wasn't ill.

Then they came for me
and there was no-one left
to speak out for me. *


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *It's time everyone spoke out against this, regardless of your current situation.
> 
> As the saying goes:
> 
> ...


*Even though i have seen this before,reading it gives me goosebumps.
Where will this all stop? When they have rid our country of those that need our help the most?*


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Pheebs said:


> And as for the Unions... was it them who shut down our mines and our steelworks, ripping the heart out of working class towns and villages?


yes, by making production uneconomical, when pits, car factories, steelworks and shipyards were liable to strike without warning how were they able to produce goods?

The unions want to run the country without being voted in and at the same time run the businesses that have been set up and employ them, without putting money up to setup the businesses

When someone employs staff they have a right to expect 5 days labour a week....not 3 one week and 4 the next, like BL used to have


----------



## FREE SPIRIT (Jul 8, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Even though i have seen this before,reading it gives me goosebumps.
> Where will this all stop? When they have rid our country of those that need our help the most?*


*It will stop when people get their backbone back and take to the streets and let them know we won't stand for it. But first, people need to quit bickering among themselves as that only goes to further the governments agenda.*


----------



## SandyR (Oct 8, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> The benefit covering your rent will be paid to you as part of your Universal Credit. For most working age customers you will then be responsible for paying your rent directly to us. You will have to manage your benefit to make sure that you pay the rent on time or you may lose your home.
> 
> *Brings me back to my other thread.Imo, they are going all out to get houses back.And i have a good theory as to why.But won't share as most will see it as too far fetched for any British government to do.*


I pay my rent myself already to my landlord and the rest that the benefit does not cover. I'm an adult and if I can't arrange for my rent to reach my landlord by myself then that would be a worry. People should manage their own benefit. If they can't do that then there's no hope. In the real world we all have to pay bills for ourselves.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

This will sound daft but it will make it more difficult for those with mental disabilities to keep track of what is which imo. at least when it is seperate they now exactly what's what


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *It will stop when people get their backbone back and take to the streets and let them know we won't stand for it. But first, people need to quit bickering among themselves as that only goes to further the governments agenda.*


*I agree with you 100%..Turn the people against each other first,especialy the rich and poor.Nothing new there though.
But the day will come when the rich will only have themselves to fight.*


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

SandyR said:


> I pay my rent myself already to my landlord and the rest that the benefit does not cover. I'm an adult and if I can't arrange for my rent to reach my landlord by myself then that would be a worry. People should manage their own benefit. If they can't do that then there's no hope. In the real world we all have to pay bills for ourselves.


*Years ago people on benefit had to pay their own rent,out of their benefits. But so many got into debt the rent was automatically taken from their benefits.
Given the choice what would you do? feed,and have heating and lighting for your family or pay the rent?
Like it or not,these are the choices people in "Great Britain" 2012 have to make.*


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *Years ago people on benefit had to pay their own rent,out of their benefits. But so many got into debt the rent was automatically taken from their benefits.
> Given the choice what would you do? feed,and have heating and lighting for your family or pay the rent?
> Like it or not,these are the choices people in "Great Britain" 2012 have to make.*


yea it is the choice sadly going by these threads, but having a roof over your head is more important then anything else, without that, you have no heating or lighting anyway  and its irresponsible to not pay rent as adults, ive no sympathy for people that juggle it as if its a right to keep the place when rent isnt paid.


----------



## SandyR (Oct 8, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *Years ago people on benefit had to pay their own rent,out of their benefits. But so many got into debt the rent was automatically taken from their benefits.
> Given the choice what would you do? feed,and have heating and lighting for your family or pay the rent?
> Like it or not,these are the choices people in "Great Britain" 2012 have to make.*


Well you can't heat and light a house you no longer have because you didn't pay the rent. Food yes but an adult of sound mind must realise that paying their rent is a first priority along with eating. 
Maybe I'm just fortunate that I've never had to make a choice. It seems to me that even those on benefits situations vary so much from one another.


----------



## bird (Apr 2, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Years ago people on benefit had to pay their own rent,out of their benefits. But so many got into debt the rent was automatically taken from their benefits.
> Given the choice what would you do? feed,and have heating and lighting for your family or pay the rent?
> Like it or not,these are the choices people in "Great Britain" 2012 have to make.*


Heck I remember them days, my sister was pig sick when they started paying the housing rents direct to the council, she used to get 4wks rent free (Easter, Xmas and a week in August) she lost all that money once she lost the right to pay direct.

As far as giving rent benefits direct to those that have to pay the rent, yes some will pay for other things instead, some will pee it up the wall and others will maybe just start to look after what little that they do have, we all managed it in the old days before the nanny state and to be honest a little bit of money management might actually do some people a bit of good.

Yes the countries in a crap hole, it was started in the last government, you could see the recession coming from a mile off St Tone knew when to jump ship. 

As for the unions.....yes they did a fab job in helping the working classes, but then they got way too big for their boots, they started to try and run government and the labour party in general. They held this country to ransom whilst allowing shoddy goods to be produced. In effect they held up progress in some places. And YES arthur scar gill was responsible for the mines getting shut (well to some extent) the strike he called in the 80s was illegal he was scared to call a ballot for fear of losing (which he wouldnt have done) so shafted the miners by making an illegal action falling right into maggots hands.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

So DLA is changing to PIP and talk of face to face interviews.....I expect ATOS have the contract for those......the sick and disabled (genuine ones) must feel like giving up!!! Not fair!


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

and for those saying no one is protesting, this was Glasgow today!

Tories out now! - YouTube

NO MORE CUTS! - YouTube


----------



## Pheebs (Jun 8, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *Far fetched it might sound but please bare with me.
> We all know they want to reduce the numbers of council/social housing in London.Its been debated enough.
> Now,those in council houses in London have been offered housing up north,but they don't wan't to go so far away.And rightly so.
> But Kent isn't that far from London,so what excuse could they come up with?
> ...


I don't think that's far fetched at all. I think that is exactly what they are up to.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

BeyondReach said:


> yea it is the choice sadly going by these threads, but having a roof over your head is more important then anything else, without that, you have no heating or lighting anyway  and its irresponsible to not pay rent as adults, ive no sympathy for people that juggle it as if its a right to keep the place when rent isnt paid.


*And let your kids starve? I think not.
Have you any idea how many kids in this country don't get enough food?*


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *And let your kids starve? I think not.
> Have you any idea how many kids in this country don't get enough food?*


If they can manage with the rent forced then they can manage with paying it like adults... You cant let your kids sleep under a bridge either can you? Food is easier to come by then a roof is.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

bird said:


> Heck I remember them days, my sister was pig sick when they started paying the housing rents direct to the council, she used to get 4wks rent free (Easter, Xmas and a week in August) she lost all that money once she lost the right to pay direct.
> 
> As far as giving rent benefits direct to those that have to pay the rent, yes some will pay for other things instead, some will pee it up the wall and others will maybe just start to look after what little that they do have, we all managed it in the old days before the nanny state and to be honest a little bit of money management might actually do some people a bit of good.
> 
> ...


*No it didn't start with the last government.It stated with the tories.*


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

BeyondReach said:


> If they can manage with the rent forced then they can manage with paying it like adults... You cant let your kids sleep under a bridge either can you? Food is easier to come by then a roof is.


*I would prefer to live in a tent and know my kids were feed.*


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *I would prefer to live in a tent and know my kids were feed.*


Seen many tents around before the rental changes? wont make a diff now either, will just show who is careless and who isnt.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

BeyondReach said:


> Seen many tents around before the rental changes? wont make a diff now either, will just show who is careless and who isnt.


*But you don't live in the UK.Take a read of this.*
The UK is the world's six largest economy, yet 1 in 5 of the UK population live below our official poverty line, meaning that they experience life as a daily struggle.

Oxfam has a vision of everyone in the UK having enough to live on, and of all men, women and children being treated with respect and dignity no matter how much money they have. We believe it is unacceptable that over 13 million people in the UK do not have enough to live on, and most do not have the power to speak out about what this feels like and why it is wrong.


----------



## SandyR (Oct 8, 2011)

Would seem very pointless not paying your rent just to heat your house if you then end up in a tent. 

I would rather have to put on an extra jumper in my house then sleep on the streets. 

As for feeding your family I'd also rather live on beans on toast then not have a home. Is there really people on benefit that can't afford cheep food and rent?


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

Previously mentioned friend has never asked to borrow money, but she has often been here to keep the kids warm at tea time


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

SandyR said:


> Would seem very pointless not paying your rent just to heat your house if you then end up in a tent.
> 
> I would rather have to put on an extra jumper in my house then sleep on the streets.
> 
> As for feeding your family I'd also rather live on beans on toast then not have a home. Is there really people on benefit that can't afford cheep food and rent?


*Ok so you have just £4 to live on per week.lol even beans on toast would cost you that.*


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

BeyondReach said:


> Seen many tents around before the rental changes? wont make a diff now either, will just show who is careless and who isnt.


*You forget Diane, you live in a warm climate.*


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *But you don't live in the UK.Take a read of this.*
> The UK is the world's six largest economy, yet 1 in 5 of the UK population live below our official poverty line, meaning that they experience life as a daily struggle.
> 
> Oxfam has a vision of everyone in the UK having enough to live on, and of all men, women and children being treated with respect and dignity no matter how much money they have. We believe it is unacceptable that over 13 million people in the UK do not have enough to live on, and most do not have the power to speak out about what this feels like and why it is wrong.


Jan Im not saying they can afford food, I am only saying that before the change they had rent paid, so paying it now should be no different. I can see it sucks there, its prolly not much better here, we follow suit not long after the UK.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

BeyondReach said:


> Jan Im not saying they can afford food, I am only saying that before the change they had rent paid, so paying it now should be no different. I can see it sucks there, its prolly not much better here, we follow suit not long after the UK.


*If they change the way housing benefits are paid they are asking for trouble.Why go backwards?*


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *If they change the way housing benefits are paid they are asking for trouble.Why go backwards?*


Because they are 'plebs'


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *If they change the way housing benefits are paid they are asking for trouble.Why go backwards?*


No idea, its wrong, I just know id make sure rent was a priority is all. Housing is hard to get, here anyway, whether its gov or private. And a bad rent payment record only hinders chances of another place.


----------



## loganberry (Jul 14, 2012)

I have worked in home care for a number of yrs and part of my job was collecting benefit payments from the PO and one of my clients was a lady with 3 children. She was on income support and with child benefit she was on better money than me and I worked 7 days a week! All her rent and rates were paid in full for her and if she wanted to go out she used to order a taxi. And she had the nerve to complain to me that she had to pay the water rates out of her benefit money! Even now I work 6 days a week, pay all my bills and my mortgage and run my van.If god forbid I could not work I would have to find my mortgage money from somewhere because I would not be entitled to any help. No one hands me money each week to sit at home doing nothing. And don't get me started on the ones who keep having babies and expecting the state to cough up extra money to keep them!.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

The trouble with this country is we treat people like animals, and animals like people...


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *It will stop when people get their backbone back and take to the streets and let them know we won't stand for it. But first, people need to quit bickering among themselves as that only goes to further the governments agenda.*


'Take to the streets'

Haven't you noticed over the last few years how the cops are starting to look like those in Japan or Korea? All kitted out to deal with the plebs that dare to challenge the system.
These neighbours of yours once in uniform will happily club you and yours and 'kettle' you into harmless groups if you have the temerity to protest on the streets.
They will follow their orders from the top which in turn are issued by the politicians, who are keen that you 'know your place' and do as you're told.

'A right to peaceful protest'...yes, as long as you don't threaten the system.When 'they' will make damned sure it doesn't stay peaceful for long.


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

At the moment it is 2012 soon to be 2013 and this is what has happened in this area

Schools open early with what they are calling Breakfast Clubs to make sure the kids have food before they start there day.
Food banks where people go with there vouchers to get 3 days food.
Salvation Army opened a Sunday lunch club.
WTF in 2012


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

poohdog said:


> 'Take to the streets'
> 
> Haven't you noticed over the last few years how the cops are starting to look like those in Japan or Korea? All kitted out to deal with the plebs that dare to challenge the system.
> These neighbours of yours once in uniform will happily club you and yours and 'kettle' you into harmless groups if you have the temerity to protest on the streets.
> ...


have to agree here, why do you think they are continually pushing for stricter and stricter gun laws so soon no prole will be able to own one?

An unarmed state is a police state! You fall in line little one or room 101 will soon await. . .


----------



## Pheebs (Jun 8, 2011)

suewhite said:


> At the moment it is 2012 soon to be 2013 and this is what has happened in this area
> 
> Schools open early with what they are calling Breakfast Clubs to make sure the kids have food before they start there day.
> Food banks where people go with there vouchers to get 3 days food.
> ...


It's a disgrace. We are still one of the wealthiest countries in the world, despite the "deficit" and the recession. There is no need for people to go short of food.

It makes me so angry that all the blame is being put on the poor.

All this talk of people getting too much housing benefit. Who does that money go to? Landlords, who get very nice tax breaks as well.

Bring in rent controls like the rest of Europe.


----------



## SandyR (Oct 8, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *Ok so you have just £4 to live on per week.lol even beans on toast would cost you that.*


Im probably very stupid and should wake up but where does the tax credit income support and child benefit go then. If the housing benefit hopefully covers most of the rent then what is the other benefit being spent on if there is only £4 a week left and no money for heating electric and food?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

BeyondReach said:


> No idea, its wrong, I just know id make sure rent was a priority is all. Housing is hard to get, here anyway, whether its gov or private. And a bad rent payment record only hinders chances of another place.


*I know only too well how hard housing is to get, for "some",anyway.*


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

SandyR said:


> Im probably very stupid and should wake up but where does the tax credit income support and child benefit go then. If the housing benefit hopefully covers most of the rent then what is the other benefit being spent on if there is only £4 a week left and no money for heating electric and food?


I guess many will have to quit smoking.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

BeyondReach said:


> I guess many will have to quit smoking.


People can save £100-odd a year just by not having a TV too- no idea how much the license fee is nowadays. And make further savings by getting rid of their Sky package

We also went without a car for a few years when things were tough. Yep, public transport can be a pain, & it use to take 2hrs to travel 40mins to college, but you live within your means


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

suewhite said:


> At the moment it is 2012 soon to be 2013 and this is what has happened in this area
> 
> Schools open early with what they are calling Breakfast Clubs to make sure the kids have food before they start there day.
> Food banks where people go with there vouchers to get 3 days food.
> ...


*And if parents looked after their own kids we wouldn't need breakfast clubs,or after school clubs.Why have kids if your only going to see them when they get up and go to bed?*


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

suewhite said:


> At the moment it is 2012 soon to be 2013 and this is what has happened in this area
> 
> Schools open early with what they are calling Breakfast Clubs to make sure the kids have food before they start there day.
> Food banks where people go with there vouchers to get 3 days food.
> ...


Breakfast club costs money it's £2 for a working a day per child here it's 50p if your not working (why the f--- does someone who doesn't work need to put their child in breakfast club at 7:30 am every day is beyond me!

Many of the children I've worked with have been from poor homes, one family now I know who have dirty children in ill fitting and poorly looked after clothes spend their benefit money on drugs and alcohol. These children do go hungry and the youngest daughter is known for stealing food at lunch time 

Some times people are skint as they just do realise the cost of things, my oh has left us short this week by lending money to his mum, we are behind in our rent because of a mistake the council made and made us wait 5 weeks for any money, thankfully we can cut back and sort it out as we are now down £60 a month due to their mistake and us being stupid enough to think they actually did their job correctly. We dont get a lot of housing benefit but we both work and try an support out family and at the moment it feels like we are fighting a battle  thankfully our landlords are great even tho we are in private renting they are very good and understanding not everyone is like that


----------



## SandyR (Oct 8, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *And if parents looked after their own kids we wouldn't need breakfast clubs,or after school clubs.Why have kids if your only going to see them when they get up and go to bed?*


These clubs are there for the children whos parents have to work and support their families.

Im not sure what people want these days. if you work and provide for your family your doing wrong as you never see the kids and if you dont your a scrounger.

Anyone else confused?


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

LostGirl said:


> Breakfast club costs money it's £2 for a working a day per child here it's 50p if your not working (*why the f--- does someone who doesn't work need to put their child in breakfast club at 7:30 am every day is beyond me! *
> 
> Many of the children I've worked with have been from poor homes, one family now I know who have dirty children in ill fitting and poorly looked after clothes spend their benefit money on drugs and alcohol. These children do go hungry and the youngest daughter is known for stealing food at lunch time
> 
> Some times people are skint as they just do realise the cost of things, my oh has left us short this week by lending money to his mum, we are behind in our rent because of a mistake the council made and made us wait 5 weeks for any money, thankfully we can cut back and sort it out as we are now down £60 a month due to their mistake and us being stupid enough to think they actually did their job correctly. We dont get a lot of housing benefit but we both work and try an support out family and at the moment it feels like we are fighting a battle  thankfully our landlords are great even tho we are in private renting they are very good and understanding not everyone is like that


Probably gets them out of the house for longer so the parents don't have to make the effort of getting up & feeding them breakfast


----------



## SandyR (Oct 8, 2011)

To be fair some kids do want to go to these clubs to be with friends. My sons school don't do a breakfast club but he always wants to be part of any after school clubs just be be with his friends.


----------



## MissShelley (May 9, 2010)

> The benefit cap
> 
> The Government has put a cap on the overall amount of benefit an out of work household can receive.
> 
> ...


What the hell????

£500 a week cap for a family including Housing Benefit??? £350 cap for a single person!

Um, I'm asking myself why are me and my Husband working our fingers to the bone? We barely make £500 between us and we are both working 40 hours a week!

The word Mug comes to mind.

Dont know the problem with being paid in arrears either. I get paid a month in arrears, and when I broke my ankle and couldn't claim anything from the state, despite having paid my taxes for however many years! That was a long time to be without money, then when I was able to work I had to struggle for a month. And because I'm paid a month in arrears, my rent and council tax are also paid a month in arrears, which means I'm always owing them.

The welfare system should be helping people to help themselves.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

The kids school has a breakfast club, the teachers were insistant this club was not started for the sole purpose of giving the kids breakfast..butfor kids to come and say hello to their friends and 'catch up' before school starts and they have the option to have something to eat if they wish to.
From what the teachers were saying if the kids have this extra few minutes in a morning they are ready to sit and work when the school day starts..looking at it from that point of view i personally think its a good idea!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

SandyR said:


> These clubs are there for the children whos parents have to work and support their families.
> 
> Im not sure what people want these days. if you work and provide for your family your doing wrong as you never see the kids and if you dont your a scrounger.
> 
> Anyone else confused?


*lol As a tax payer and working man try telling that to my hubby.One of his biggest gripes is having to pay for other people to go to work.
See,there is more to this than just words.
Another thing, he would say is.Why should he go to work to pay for others to have childminders.*


----------



## SandyR (Oct 8, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *lol As a tax payer and working man try telling that to my hubby.One of his biggest gripes is having to pay for other people to go to work.
> See,there is more to this than just words.
> Another thing, he would say is.Why should he go to work to pay for others to have childminders.*


The parents using these clubs because they work are tax payers and like lost girls said they also pay for them.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Every year is a dismal year on a low income.....why the fuss?


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *lol As a tax payer and working man try telling that to my hubby.One of his biggest gripes is having to pay for other people to go to work.
> See,there is more to this than just words.
> Another thing, he would say is.Why should he go to work to pay for others to have childminders.*


again, how does he know his taxation pays for it?...he could be paying an MP's rent... :thumbup:


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *And if parents looked after their own kids we wouldn't need breakfast clubs,or after school clubs.Why have kids if your only going to see them when they get up and go to bed?*


I'm not aware of many full time jobs where you can start at about half nine and be home for about half two tbh...these little brats cost lots of money you know!!!


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Jan, you cant begrudge the families who make an effort to work using these clubs...this is probably one of the first things i majorly disagree with you on!

Anyone can send the kids to the breakfast clubs. The thing that p1sses me off about the school is the placements they give 2yo's which you can only get if you claim benefits..why would you want your kids looked after if you have fook all to do all day?


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *lol As a tax payer and working man try telling that to my hubby.One of his biggest gripes is having to pay for other people to go to work.
> See,there is more to this than just words.
> Another thing, he would say is.Why should he go to work to pay for others to have childminders.*


why should us working parents pay for your pensions or heating allowance?


----------



## MissShelley (May 9, 2010)

But why get rid of the breakfast and holiday clubs? If we did that, then that's more jobs lost and more people claiming benefits. 

There is a need for these groups to help working families with their childcare, and they are not funded, parents pay for the service.

I tell what I keep getting asked for and that's out of hours childcare, overnight, early morning and twilight hours to help support parents who shift work. The majority of children in my care come from half the Dyfed Powys Police force and most are desparate for 24 hours flexible wraparound care.


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

simplysardonic said:


> Probably gets them out of the house for longer so the parents don't have to make the effort of getting up & feeding them breakfast


Yep whats worse is its a limited place only 29 children (out of a school of 500+ children) so these are taken up by people who dont "need" it, ad the working families then have to pay more or try and rely on grandparents/friends to help them



JANICE199 said:


> *lol As a tax payer and working man try telling that to my hubby.One of his biggest gripes is having to pay for other people to go to work.
> See,there is more to this than just words.
> Another thing, he would say is.Why should he go to work to pay for others to have childminders.*


if someone needs a childminder then they are working? they are also paying the child minder once frm wages and then from the tax they pay so really your Husband hasnt got much of clue has he? does he really think that everything is free?? 
if you work you pay for everything your children need yes you get child tax and child benefit if your lucky these days, his is also paid from YOUR tax you pay from your wages. 
why should i pay for smokers to get treatment in hospital? why should i pay for old people to get a heating grant? etc 
none one can win doing anything your screwed everyway no matter what you do, you either suck it up and get on with it or you end up bitter and twisted.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Starlite said:


> why should us working parents pay for your pensions or heating allowance?


*:lol::lol::lol:Your not giving us a penny. Firstly i have paid my way thank you very much,and my hubby is still working and paying his way.*


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

LostGirl said:


> Yep whats worse is its a limited place only 29 children (out of a school of 500+ children) so these are taken up by people who dont "need" it, ad the working families then have to pay more or try and rely on grandparents/friends to help them
> 
> if someone needs a childminder then they are working? they are also paying the child minder once frm wages and then from the tax they pay so really your Husband hasnt got much of clue has he? does he really think that everything is free??
> if you work you pay for everything your children need yes you get child tax and child benefit if your lucky these days, his is also paid from YOUR tax you pay from your wages.
> ...


*As i was a child minder i know that people got what they paid me from benefits,along with their housing benefits and council tax benefit.And that still wasn't enough.
As for smokers,look up the FACTS.We pay more in tax on our **** than it costs to treat smoking relayed illnesses. Forget the properganda.(sp)*


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *:lol::lol::lol:Your not giving us a penny. Firstly i have paid my way thank you very much,and my hubby is still working and paying his way.*


But technically you havent..you have payed and are paying for the pensioners of today..just as the younger generation are paying in the pot to support your generation when you retire. It dont make a jot of difference what you have paid in the pot.

There are alot of things we all have to bite our tongue about ...like the smokers receiving FREE treatment when they eventually get cancer..imo why should they get it all free? They should be made to pay a little towards it. Alcoholics who drain the system, Vein people who swindle boob jobs etc on the nhs.

Lets stop attacking people who work and ridicule the people who dont do sod all and get everything :thumbup:


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Colliebarmy said:


> again, how does he know his taxation pays for it?...he could be paying an MP's rent... :thumbup:


*And your point, is?*


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *And your point, is?*


More relevant than yours maybe?


----------



## smiler84 (Feb 4, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *Years ago people on benefit had to pay their own rent,out of their benefits. But so many got into debt the rent was automatically taken from their benefits.
> Given the choice what would you do? feed,and have heating and lighting for your family or pay the rent?
> Like it or not,these are the choices people in "Great Britain" 2012 have to make.*


i'm sorry but i work full time, receive no benefits and still have to make those choices!

granted if someone doesn't have the mental capacity to organise their finances then help should be available, but i do think many people could take responsibility for ensuring that their own rent gets paid from the money they receive!


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *As i was a child minder i know that people got what they paid me from benefits,along with their housing benefits and council tax benefit.And that still wasn't enough.
> As for smokers,look up the FACTS.We pay more in tax on our **** than it costs to treat smoking relayed illnesses. Forget the properganda.(sp)*


That must be an area thing as far as i know benefits do not pay for child care unless its seen that they child has special needs that need they need the extra care. 
Ok so its fine to bash working parents left right and center?? Hit a sore spot with smoking did i?


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

LostGirl said:


> That must be an area thing as far as i know benefits do not pay for child care unless its seen that they child has special needs that need they need the extra care.
> Ok so its fine to bash working parents left right and center?? Hit a sore spot with smoking did i?


As far as im aware there are schemes available in some companies and you can buy childcare vouchers for less than what you would normally? Im not 100% sure but im sure before i left work i was offered something similar..i think you can get the info from the tax credits if needed. (not you personally, in general :lol


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

harley bear said:


> But technically you havent..you have payed and are paying for the pensioners of today..just as the younger generation are paying in the pot to support your generation when you retire. It dont make a jot of difference what you have paid in the pot.
> 
> There are alot of things we all have to bite our tongue about ...like the smokers receiving FREE treatment when they eventually get cancer..imo why should they get it all free? They should be made to pay a little towards it. Alcoholics who drain the system, Vein people who swindle boob jobs etc on the nhs.
> 
> Lets stop attacking people who work and ridicule the people who dont do sod all and get everything :thumbup:


*And what about those that don't smoke and get cancer?
This thread has proven one thing to me.When i did the other thread about housing, a lot of people tarred everyone with the same brush because they were recieving benefits.But because this is dealing with a lot more issues its a different kettle of fish.*


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

Colliebarmy said:


> The trouble with this country is we treat people like animals, and animals like people...


I mean seriously  Our system may make it a struggle to live a completely comfy life for a few but they can survive. How many millions of people on the planet would swap with them , not to watch their baby die  GET SOME PERSPECTIVE 


suewhite said:


> At the moment it is 2012 soon to be 2013 and this is what has happened in this area
> 
> Schools open early with what they are calling Breakfast Clubs to make sure the kids have food before they start there day.
> Food banks where people go with there vouchers to get 3 days food.
> ...


They where introduced so parents could get to work in the mornings without the extreme cost of a child minder 

Do you not think this system will make it easier for some  One place to contact if circumstances change , one lot of form filling and they will be able to get a better overview as one benefit system wants you to prove what the other one is giving them ect


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

My Childs last school started a breakfast club......5 pound per day or free for those on benefits! Made my blood boil. How is that fair! 

Same when my eldest was at college. Out of a class of 20....3 didnt get EMA.....one of them being my child....the ones getting EMA got free bus passes too. I had to give my child her 20 child benefit for her fares and lunch and she had to work for pocket money. Most of those on EMA didnt work and used their EMA to pay for holidays abroad. Something isnt right....seems the more you work...pay tax...the less you get


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

LostGirl said:


> That must be an area thing as far as i know benefits do not pay for child care unless its seen that they child has special needs that need they need the extra care.
> Ok so its fine to bash working parents left right and center?? Hit a sore spot with smoking did i?


*Not at all.Water off a ducks back for me.*


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *And what about those that don't smoke and get cancer?
> This thread has proven one thing to me.When i did the other thread about housing, a lot of people tarred everyone with the same brush because they were recieving benefits.But because this is dealing with a lot more issues its a different kettle of fish.*


Jan, c'mon lets be realistic..it seems you are one of the first to moan about taxes and where they are spent etc etc. You cant dictate where your taxes are spent you are basically condemning the people who claim benefits and also the people who work and pay taxes...you dont make much sense


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *:lol::lol::lol:Your not giving us a penny. Firstly i have paid my way thank you very much,and my hubby is still working and paying his way.*


as someone has already said, you are paying/have payed for the pensioners before you, WE are paying for you actually. Childcare in the UK is the highest in Europe, the Government has to step in and sort this out.



harley bear said:


> Jan, c'mon lets be realistic..it seems you are one of the first to moan about taxes and where they are spent etc etc. You cant dictate where your taxes are spent you are basically condemning the people who claim benefits and also the people who work and pay taxes...you dont make much sense


agree! you cant demand free care for smoking illnesses then begrudge someone help with childcare to get to work everyday


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

harley bear said:


> Jan, c'mon lets be realistic..it seems you are one of the first to moan about taxes and where they are spent etc etc. You cant dictate where your taxes are spent you are basically condemning the people who claim benefits and also the people who work and pay taxes...you dont make much sense


*Ok to be fair,can you show me where i have moaned about taxes? 
I think people have totally misunderstood my posts.
I have tried to do nothing but defend those in need.(on both my threads)
*


----------



## CavalierOwner (Feb 5, 2012)

IMO people that work should be able to send there child to breakfast club for FREE not the people on benefits that don't work! Why would you need to send your child to breakfast club if your at home?  Totally confused.

Some people that work NEED things like breakfast club, my auntie used to have to take her son to breakfast club before work because she needed to start work at 8:30am, how could she have worked at that place without breakfast club? He also used to do after school activities because she obviously didn't get home from work until 5. 

She provided for her son, just like every parent should, she didn't stay at home and claim benefits.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

CavalierOwner said:


> IMO people that work should be able to send there child to breakfast club for FREE not the people on benefits that don't work! Why would you need to send your child to breakfast club if your at home?  Totally confused.
> 
> Some people that work NEED things like breakfast club, my auntie used to have to take her son to breakfast club before work because she needed to start work at 8:30am, how could she have worked at that place without breakfast club? He also used to do after school activities because she obviously didn't get home from work until 5.
> 
> She provided for her son, just like every parent should, she didn't stay at home and claim benefits.


*And what would these people do if there were no such clubs?*


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *And if parents looked after their own kids we wouldn't need breakfast clubs,or after school clubs.Why have kids if your only going to see them when they get up and go to bed?*





JANICE199 said:


> *lol As a tax payer and working man try telling that to my hubby.One of his biggest gripes is having to pay for other people to go to work.
> See,there is more to this than just words.
> Another thing, he would say is.Why should he go to work to pay for others to have childminders.*





JANICE199 said:


> *Ok to be fair,can you show me where i have moaned about taxes?
> I think people have totally misunderstood my posts.
> I have tried to do nothing but defend those in need.(on both my threads)
> *


I rest my case...i think you have ended up confusing yourself hun.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *And what would these people do if there were no such clubs?*


Claim benefits and have people moan about them


----------



## CavalierOwner (Feb 5, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *And what would these people do if there were no such clubs?*


Struggle to find jobs within school hours and probably end up claiming benefits.

Sorry HB, posts crossed


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

regarding the breakfast clubs...I would think a few of these kids, who's parents don't work because they don't want too.. would not get a breakfast if these clubs didn't exist


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

harley bear said:


> I rest my case...i think you have ended up confusing yourself hun.


*lol now only one of those posts mentioned tax,and that was what i quoted from my hubby.Not me.*


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *lol now only one of those posts mentioned tax,and that was what i quoted from my hubby.Not me.*


lol? Doesnt matter if it was quoted from your hubby or not imo...Seems regardless of if people work or not..in your household they are damned if they do and damned if they dont


----------



## CavalierOwner (Feb 5, 2012)

paddyjulie said:


> regarding the breakfast clubs...I would think a few of these kids, who's parents don't work because they don't want too.. would not get a breakfast if these clubs didn't exist


Sort of agree but thats the parents fault, a cheap loaf of bread to make a slice of toast doesn't cost much, these parents will more than likely be able to pay for **** and booze though, I thought breakfast clubs started in order to help people who worked and to me that makes more sense. People need to get to work on time and breakfast club makes that possible! If I was on benefits and had a few kids and couldn't afford to pay for a cheap loaf of bread it would motivate me to work to provide for them but sadly it's just not the case with most people, they just keep popping kids out even though they can't pay for them because someone else will be picking up the bill.


----------



## K337 (May 20, 2011)

Payment direct to people rather than a landlord is something I'd normally see as a good thing (skipping the months arrears issue). It allows everyone to be more responsible with money management and let's them make their own choices. It might be that you just set up a direct debit, or you might try not have to go for a quick loan depending on how the dates work out on payments vs costs. I certainly understand that there are a few vulnerable people that can't be expected to do this - but the link says the system won't change for them.

To me part of being an adult is being able to manage your money and make the hard choices. If the system went the other way, only paid rent direct, only allowed shopping at certain stores and only certain purchases (I.e. no alcohol, cigarettes, tv subscription, holidays, fastfood or other 'luxury' items) and every other service/product that benefits relate to being strictly controlled so that your choices boiled down to almost nothing, then surely people would hate that even more. Yes, it helps stop the few that wouldn't make the right choices, but do people really need that level of control?

The big issue must be the months delay, as those who struggle the most will suffer. It's a system most people are used to, but I hope there is some support, either staggering it week by week, a no interest loan that can be paid off very slowly or similar, for those that need it.


----------



## Wiz201 (Jun 13, 2012)

I get working tax credit as I've got a disability element and they also give me a portion based on how much I earn working. I'm working full time at the moment, and my wage is not going up very fast, so I don't foresee any major changes yet, the changes seems to be more for people who aren't working a lot of hours and need to work more hours in order to get it.


----------



## MissShelley (May 9, 2010)

K337 said:


> Payment direct to people rather than a landlord is something I'd normally see as a good thing (skipping the months arrears issue). It allows everyone to be more responsible with money management and let's them make their own choices. It might be that you just set up a direct debit, or you might try not have to go for a quick loan depending on how the dates work out on payments vs costs. I certainly understand that there are a few vulnerable people that can't be expected to do this - but the link says the system won't change for them.
> 
> To me part of being an adult is being able to manage your money and make the hard choices. If the system went the other way, only paid rent direct, only allowed shopping at certain stores and only certain purchases (I.e. no alcohol, cigarettes, tv subscription, holidays, fastfood or other 'luxury' items) and every other service/product that benefits relate to being strictly controlled so that your choices boiled down to almost nothing, then surely people would hate that even more. Yes, it helps stop the few that wouldn't make the right choices, but do people really need that level of control?
> 
> *The big issue must be the months delay, as those who struggle the most will suffer. It's a system most people are used to, but I hope there is some support, either staggering it week by week, a no interest loan that can be paid off very slowly or similar, for those that need it*.


But that's what you have to deal with in the working world, and without the hand out of a no interest loan. Why should it be different for people in a state funded household? They want to encourage people to do something about their situation, not make it comfy for them to stay where they are.


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

CavalierOwner said:


> Sort of agree but thats the parents fault, a cheap loaf of bread to make a slice of toast doesn't cost much, these parents will more than likely be able to pay for **** and booze though, I thought breakfast clubs started in order to help people who worked and to me that makes more sense. People need to get to work on time and breakfast club makes that possible! If I was on benefits and had a few kids and couldn't afford to pay for a cheap loaf of bread it would motivate me to work to provide for them but sadly it's just not the case with most people, they just keep popping kids out even though they can't pay for them because someone else will be picking up the bill.


I Agree totally that it is the parents fault.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

MissShelley said:


> But that's what you have to deal with in the working world, and without the hand out of a no interest loan. Why should it be different for people in a state funded household? They want to encourage people to do something about their situation, not make it comfy for them to stay where they are.


We get our tax credits weekly, OH gets a monthly wage..this will affect us when it comes in next year as we rely on the weekly payments for weekly shopping. Years ago if id have opted for the monthly payments i would have been grand. 
If anything i think they should pay the month in advance so people who work..like us for instance who work wont really feel the impact so much.


----------



## MissShelley (May 9, 2010)

harley bear said:


> We get our tax credits weekly, OH gets a monthly wage..this will affect us when it comes in next year as we rely on the weekly payments for weekly shopping. Years ago if id have opted for the monthly payments i would have been grand.
> If anything i think they should pay the month in advance so people who work..like us for instance who work wont really feel the impact so much.


I can see what your saying. But like I say, it's what we have to deal with

I went from a job where I was paid weekly, to a monthly paid job and in all fairness it was a struggle having to juggle a monthly income over a weekly one, especially when I had to work a month in advance. No body was there to give a hand out to me to help us through, especially after I'd broken my ankle. I had to go back to work before I was ready to because we needed the money. Couldn't claim sickness benefit because I'd just left one job, and was due to start another. No way would my new employer pay sickness benefit before I'd even started working there. We were just living off Jon's wage which wasn't enough to cover everything

We were lucky in the fact that the council were very understanding and sympathetic of our situation, when it came to paying the rent and council tax...God knows what we would of done had they not of been.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

MissShelley said:


> I can see what your saying. But like I say, it's what we have to deal with
> 
> I went from a job where I was paid weekly, to a monthly paid job and in all fairness it was a struggle having to juggle a monthly income over a weekly one, especially when I had to work a month in advance. No body was there to give a hand out to me to help us through, especially after I'd broken my ankle. I had to go back to work before I was ready to because we needed the money. Couldn't claim sickness benefit because I'd just left one job, and was due to start another. No way would my new employer pay sickness benefit before I'd even started working there. We were just living off Jon's wage which wasn't enough to cover everything
> 
> We were lucky in the fact that the council were very understanding and sympathetic of our situation, when it came to paying the rent and council tax...God knows what we would of done had they not of been.


I wouldnt want anyone to give us a 'hand out' all im saying is that they should either pay it a month in advance or only pay monthly payments and never have been given the option for a monthly payment. 
We are not eligible for any benefits nor would i want any..but for the people who are working families so they dont have to struggle for the month considering they are already out there working they should give a little and pay a month in advance..considering if you lose your job they pay a month of credits after the date of dismissal anyway so whats the difference?


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2012)

harley bear said:


> I wouldnt want anyone to give us a 'hand out' all im saying is that they should either pay it a month in advance or only pay monthly payments and never have been given the option for a monthly payment.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

jon bda said:


>


I meant weekly


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

MissShelley said:


> I can see what your saying. But like I say, it's what we have to deal with
> 
> I went from a job where I was paid weekly, to a monthly paid job and in all fairness it was a struggle having to juggle a monthly income over a weekly one, especially when I had to work a month in advance. No body was there to give a hand out to me to help us through, especially after I'd broken my ankle. I had to go back to work before I was ready to because we needed the money. Couldn't claim sickness benefit because I'd just left one job, and was due to start another. No way would my new employer pay sickness benefit before I'd even started working there. We were just living off Jon's wage which wasn't enough to cover everything
> 
> We were lucky in the fact that the council were very understanding and sympathetic of our situation, when it came to paying the rent and council tax...God knows what we would of done had they not of been.


But you had one wage coming in Shelley. When my ex was removed from the house, I was left dangling by nothing with regards to money. No savings, nothing. I had 2 children to feed, rent to pay, bills to pay. The job centre refused to pay me income support for 2 months because I could not prove that my husbands wages had been seized by his solicitors . It got to the point where our social worker went out off her own back and bought us a weeks shopping as she could see how desperate I was. Thats the sort of hoops that people on benefits have to jump through.


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> But you had one wage coming in Shelley. When my ex was removed from the house, I was left dangling by nothing with regards to money. No savings, nothing. I had 2 children to feed, rent to pay, bills to pay. The job centre refused to pay me income support for 2 months because I could not prove that my husbands wages had been seized by his solicitors . It got to the point where our social worker went out off her own back and bought us a weeks shopping as she could see how desperate I was. Thats the sort of hoops that people on benefits have to jump through.


I earn minimum wage, Shelley was out of work for a quarter of a year. We got help with nothing and i didn't earn enough to cover everything...


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> But you had one wage coming in Shelley. When my ex was removed from the house, I was left dangling by nothing with regards to money. No savings, nothing. I had 2 children to feed, rent to pay, bills to pay. The job centre refused to pay me income support for 2 months because I could not prove that my husbands wages had been seized by his solicitors . It got to the point where our social worker went out off her own back and bought us a weeks shopping as she could see how desperate I was. Thats the sort of hoops that people on benefits have to jump through.


The system stinks if a family facing genuine hardship is in that predicament! Thank goodness the Social Worker had a good heart. I cannot imagine worrying about not be able to feed your kids through no fault of your own...awful!


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

jon bda said:


> I earn minimum wage, Shelley was out of work for a quarter of a year. We got help with nothing and i didn't earn enough to cover everything...


so how did you get through it?


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Monthly pay ok when you get decent money, who on the NMW can live for 4 weeks before they get a months pay, unless they have a spare months pay in the bank to live on?


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> so how did you get through it?


Overdraft...credit card...still paying it off...


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> so how did you get through it?


by struggling, borrowing and owing - usually

all of which erodes the NEXT months pay


----------



## K337 (May 20, 2011)

MissShelley said:


> But that's what you have to deal with in the working world, and without the hand out of a no interest loan. Why should it be different for people in a state funded household? They want to encourage people to do something about their situation, not make it comfy for them to stay where they are.


I agree, and I really dislike how the system will sometimes benefit those on welfare over those who are struggling along but not receiving help. The one difference is that you have the hardest month when you start a job - not in the middle which is what will take some by surprise. In an ideal world larger businesses could offer the same support system for new employees, and for businesses who are struggling to offer this, the same no interest loan should be provided for the employees via the government. After all, it would only be for those who need it, and it shouldn't matter if you are eligible for benefits or not.


----------



## MissShelley (May 9, 2010)

Lavenderb said:


> so how did you get through it?


Jon sold literally everything he had that was worth anything, and speaking nicely to the council about deferring our rent and council tax.

The point I was making was, that working people struggle too sometimes.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

jon bda said:


> Overdraft...credit card...still paying it off...


You imagine doing that for years like we have! My OH is far too proud to sit on his @rse all day, we believe its part of being a parent to provide your children with a good work ethic, unfortunately due to our family circumstances im unable to work at the moment. 
We got into debt so oh could go to college, then set up a business, then keep numerous cars on the road so he could still go to work. 
3 months of a struggle is a drop in the ocean compared to some families.


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

jon bda said:


> Overdraft...credit card...still paying it off...


I couldnt get either with no income to back it up.


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

MissShelley said:


> Jon sold literally everything he had that was worth anything, and speaking nicely to the council about deferring our rent and council tax.
> 
> The point I was making was, that working people struggle too sometimes.


Me too Shelley...was not a nice feeling handing my kids bikes over to the second hand shop for £20


----------



## Cookieandme (Dec 29, 2011)

Lavenderb said:


> You had no savings put by?


When you are made redundant and only have JSA, you go through your savings pretty quickly when you still have all your monthly outgoings to pay for.


----------



## MissShelley (May 9, 2010)

Lavenderb said:


> Me too Shelley...was not a nice feeling handing my kids bikes over to the second hand shop for £20


Nope, not nice at all, but you do what you have too, to get by


----------



## Mese (Jun 5, 2008)

What is the most you are allowed to have in savings if you go on ESA ? if I ever get anything from them that is

I ask because the dogs bank account is in my name at the bank , obviously its not for me to touch , its only for vets bills , but I doubt the dole would see it that way

I think im going to have to transfer it all to one of Steve's accounts (we agreed that any expenses the dogs occur we will still share even though we arent together anymore) , as he works and claims nothing they cant touch him for it so the money will still be there for the dogs should they need it


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Mese said:


> What is the most you are allowed to have in savings if you go on ESA ? if I ever get anything from them that is
> 
> I ask because the dogs bank account is in my name at the bank , obviously its not for me to touch , its only for vets bills , but I doubt the dole would see it that way
> 
> I think im going to have to transfer it all to one of Steve's accounts (we agreed that any expenses the dogs occur we will still share even though we arent together anymore) , as he works and claims nothing they cant touch him for it so the money will still be there for the dogs should they need it


*I'm not sure how much you can have in savings now.Me i'd take the money out of the bank and hide it.*


----------



## Mese (Jun 5, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *I'm not sure how much you can have in savings now.Me i'd take the money out of the bank and hide it.*


Yeah , I'll transfer it to Steve , best safe than sorry


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Mese said:


> Yeah , I'll transfer it to Steve , best safe than sorry


I think it may be 3k..dont quote me though. Ring them and check.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Mese said:


> What is the most you are allowed to have in savings if you go on ESA ? if I ever get anything from them that is
> 
> I ask because the dogs bank account is in my name at the bank , obviously its not for me to touch , its only for vets bills , but I doubt the dole would see it that way
> 
> I think im going to have to transfer it all to one of Steve's accounts (we agreed that any expenses the dogs occur we will still share even though we arent together anymore) , as he works and claims nothing they cant touch him for it so the money will still be there for the dogs should they need it


£6000 for ESA

after £16000 you are entitled to no benefits


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

That Universal Credit is going to baffle alot of people....imaging ringing up about housing benefit but you have got to say universal credit lol.How daft does that sound on the phone.


----------



## smiler84 (Feb 4, 2012)

Starlite said:


> £6000 for ESA
> 
> after £16000 you are entitled to no benefits


blimey  i can only dream of having savings that high!! in fact if i ruled the country people with that much saved up would be getting diddly squat in benefits, but that's a different argument


----------



## Mese (Jun 5, 2008)

smiler84 said:


> blimey  i can only dream of having savings that high!! in fact if i ruled the country people with that much saved up would be getting diddly squat in benefits, but that's a different argument


tbh someone with savings that high shouldnt be allowed to claim , that def is taking the p*** out of the system

The dogs account only has just over a 1000 in it , but id still rather move it than try to explain its not my money , as I said , I doubt they would either understand or listen if I tried to tell them its there instead of me paying out for insurance for the dogs


----------



## CharleyRogan (Feb 20, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Of course there is a big difference.If you have nothing to start with.*


It was like that when I went back to work, had nothing for first month, but when I leave there will be money for the next month after.

I personally think rent should be paid directly to landlord, otherwise landlords will just stop renting to DSS if its not paid because the govt gives rent money to the recipients.

And they should get a certain amount in vouchers for the supermarket,or petrol. Comparing myself to my mum - Incapacity... nowt wrong with her (she says depression, I also have depression but I'm forced to work or I'm on the street) Child benefit - gets spent on booze, she has new clothes, a 2005 car, shops in waitrose, £750 rent paid for, no council tax to pay,cigarettes

Wheras me on the other hand - shop in Asda for the cheap 10p/50p stuff at night, have a crap 1997 car, half the rent (£200), live in a flat and share because I cannot afford anything else, pay for college (only one in class as others are on benefits), council tax although there is a 25% off as I am a student. Never go out, never buy booze, never buy new clothes. I have to budget, and if I can't afford something I don't have it, mum will buy on hp.

There just needs to be a change so its not easier to stay on the dole than get a job.


----------



## MissShelley (May 9, 2010)

We always struggle, after the bills are paid we are left with nothing, but I do count us as lucky, because we have food on the table and a roof over our heads, more than some working folk I know...... On top of my 40 hours a week working, I am also studying for my degree, hoping that it will help enhance my career prospects, meaning more pennies for my family...

My initial point was that I just cannot understand why people are getting their knickers in a twist over the way the benefit system is being changed. About time it had an overhaul.... And the site said the vulnerable won't be affected! Great! That's fine by me, as long as they get the ones that can work, working. Like I said before and to sum it up. Working people struggle too.


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

closed to check for moderating......


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

Can we all please discuss this without getting personal and rude...Thank you...I would love to participate but our system here seems somewhat different than yours in the UK.


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

Re opened Please discuss nicely....


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2012)

Apologies for daring to be skint here...


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

canuckjill said:


> Re opened Please discuss nicely....


*Thank you jill.*


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

jon bda said:


> Apologies for daring to be skint here...


Just needed to get it back to a discussion Jon, nothing personal to you or any other posters....Jill


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2012)

canuckjill said:


> Just needed to get it back to a discussion Jon, nothing personal to you or any other posters....Jill


Didn't think anything of it hon...hope you didn't think that was aimed at you...


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

jon bda said:


> Apologies for daring to be skint here...


Go away and come only back when your minted


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2012)

Colliebarmy said:


> Go away and come only back when your minted


How the other half live hey?


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

jon bda said:


> How the other half live hey?


im looking for my savings before i get banned

wheres that shoebox gone, are white fivers still legal tender?


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

Starlite said:


> why should us working parents pay for your *pensions* or heating allowance?


I thought that was a life times *NI contribution.* 
I am with Honour Blackman, and the Prime Suspect actress what's her name?? on this one!


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

northnsouth said:


> I thought that was a life times *NI contribution.*
> The heating allowance?? I am with Honour Blackman, and the Prime Suspect actress what's her name?? on this one!


What did they say?


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

That they would hand theirs over to charities like help the aged, and called on other wealthy people to do the same.


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

CharleyRogan said:


> It was like that when I went back to work, had nothing for first month, but when I leave there will be money for the next month after.
> 
> I personally think rent should be paid directly to landlord, otherwise landlords will just stop renting to DSS if its not paid because the govt gives rent money to the recipients.
> 
> ...


Totally agree with the last sentence. I know a woman who has never ever worked, 5 kids under 16 and gets over 400 a week plus all her rent and council tax paid. She has takeaways at least 4 nights a week, buys her kids all the new ps3 games when they come out (3 ps3s in the house) shopping for new clothes all the time. Simply not fair.

More support should be offered to families on low incomes, they deserve it most because they are out there earning it. This system is totally backward as it is now. Large families solely relying on benefits are getting far too much in cash. 
I really think a card that's credited for shopping, clothes etc is a good idea. That way there's no spending all the money on ****, booze, takeaways and all the rest of the "luxuries" that people who work bloody hard sometimes can't afford.

People that have spent a lifetime on benefits, who have made a career out of it have no concept of value because they have never earned their money, everything has been handed to them on a plate. Thats why they can just blow it on cr*p. BTW, I'm talking about people who have NEVER worked when they are able to and have just enlarged their family to get more cash.

If a woman out of work, who is getting over 400 a week in benefits isn't expected to pay her rent, isn't it wrong that a working family on less than that have to pay the ALL their rent and council tax? They should be the ones getting extra help.


----------



## CharleyRogan (Feb 20, 2009)

Goldstar said:


> Totally agree with the last sentence. I know a woman who has never ever worked, 5 kids under 16 and gets over 400 a week plus all her rent and council tax paid. She has takeaways at least 4 nights a week, buys her kids all the new ps3 games when they come out (3 ps3s in the house) shopping for new clothes all the time. Simply not fair.
> 
> More support should be offered to families on low incomes, they deserve it most because they are out there earning it. This system is totally backward as it is now. Large families solely relying on benefits are getting far too much in cash.
> I really think a card that's credited for shopping, clothes etc is a good idea. That way there's no spending all the money on ****, booze, takeaways and all the rest of the "luxuries" that people who work bloody hard sometimes can't afford.
> ...


Totally agree, it doesn't cost £400 a week for 5 kids.

I get just over £750 a month, I would love to get £400 a week tax free, its basically disposable income and you can spend it on what you want, and almost encourages people to have kids to get more money and a better house. The responsibility and value of money to a habitual dole scabber is lost, because they don't have to work and save and realise you can't have everything when you want it. Brighthouse and the likes play on it making out these low payments get you a 50" tele... when really its just an inflated price for people who want things now.

My mother hasn't worked for 21 years, since she was pregnant with the twins in 1991. She has no concept of time and will sleep all day, and go the pub and do what she wants, ring you up at 3am. I can't do stuff like that because I work days and nights, and my outings have to be arranged before hand. It makes me sad because her life revolves round alcohol, sleeping, holidays, and her nice new £6000 car... I know I sound bitter, and I am, because I have to work for my money, why is she better off on the dole than if she had my job?

I'm very happy with myself, because I have managed to put away my tips over the last three weeks, a whopping £90 for a rainy day. I was living on my tips but realising it was just spent on crap, I decided to save it.


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

CharleyRogan said:


> Totally agree, it doesn't cost £400 a week for 5 kids.
> 
> I get just over £750 a month, I would love to get £400 a week tax free, its basically disposable income and you can spend it on what you want, and almost encourages people to have kids to get more money and a better house. The responsibility and value of money to a habitual dole scabber is lost, because they don't have to work and save and realise you can't have everything when you want it. Brighthouse and the likes play on it making out these low payments get you a 50" tele... when really its just an inflated price for people who want things now.
> 
> ...


This woman is my dads fiancee's daughter, she is the laziest person I have ever known. She gets free childcare too mind even though she isn't at work. That's crazy IMO.

She gets grants from all over the place, really knows how to milk it. She literally has so much money she just wastes it on junk. Maybe people like this should be required to do volunteer work for a few hours a day, she's getting a lot out of the economy maybe she should put a little back in for once. I mean, she here free childcare so no excuse there.

I've been at my dads and have heard him say "oh L is going to bed now for a few hours (middle of the afternoon) she has been up all night watching tv, poor thing". She's 32 for gods sake, she should take some responsibility.

I'm starting a nursing degree in March so will be working my a** off until then so I can have a bit of back up in the bank. When I needed help I was screwed around so much because of an error on their part I ended up on 42 a week hardship payment. Even then I was called in for reviews 3 times in a matter of months.


----------



## Mese (Jun 5, 2008)

Goldstar said:


> I really think a card that's credited for shopping, clothes etc is a good idea. That way there's no spending all the money on ****, booze, takeaways and all the rest of the "luxuries" that people who work bloody hard sometimes can't afford.


I hear a lot about this voucher idea , and while I dont totally disagree I do have qualms about it

What about those of us who already have pets and have fell on hard times ? 
My dogs are fed on a complete I buy online , will that be taken into account ?
What about insurance , or putting money away for vets bills ?

I understand a pet is a luxury , but my dogs are my family , its not their fault im now having to beg for cash 
so would this voucher system take peoples pets into consideration or would we be penalised for yet another thing and made to give up our animals (in my case that would literally kill me as my dogs are the only thing keeping me on this planet)


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Mese said:


> tbh someone with savings that high shouldnt be allowed to claim , that def is taking the p*** out of the system
> 
> The dogs account only has just over a 1000 in it , but id still rather move it than try to explain its not my money , as I said , I doubt they would either understand or listen if I tried to tell them its there instead of me paying out for insurance for the dogs


oh i totally agree, i have just under £3000 in my savings account that has taken me 3yrs to get for our puppy next year. I will be sorry to see it go as I love pretending I have money 

Financially atm it is better for me not to work, OH supports the
3 of us as nursery fees would kill us. when LO goes to school I will be applying to do nursing so we can afford to get a mortgage. 
Mothers in Finland are payed by the Government to stay home for the 1st 5yrs of their childs life as it is cheaper, and no not like income support they actually want the mums at home!


----------



## Cookieandme (Dec 29, 2011)

smiler84 said:


> blimey  i can only dream of having savings that high!! in fact if i ruled the country people with that much saved up would be getting diddly squat in benefits, but that's a different argument


A pay out of that level is not a huge amount if you are made redundant - how long do you think it would last without being able to claim your entitlement, in my case a whopping £70 odd on JSA.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

northnsouth said:


> That they would hand theirs over to charities like help the aged, and called on other wealthy people to do the same.


Theres no mechanism for returning the winter fuel payments to HMG, Michael Winner found that out, handing the cash to a charity is fine except it still comes from the tax purse


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

Colliebarmy said:


> Theres no mechanism for returning the winter fuel payments to HMG, Michael Winner found that out, handing the cash to a charity is fine except it still comes from the tax purse


:confused5::confused5:

I did not mention returning it to HMG, did I ?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *It's time everyone spoke out against this, regardless of your current situation.
> 
> As the saying goes:
> 
> ...


Not read the whole thread yet but just had to remark upon this post.

How true it is.

If people would only stand together we could move mountains. Look what ordinary people did in Romania - they overthrew Ceausescu. Look what ordinary people did in Germany - they demolished the berlin wall.

But the sad fact is that too many people in this country think only of themselves, and not of others. They are alright, so they can't be arsed to fight for those who are not. But, as the above shows, what will happen when there is no-one left to fight for them?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> The cap is £350 per week for a single person and £500 per week for a family.


For a single person that is equivalent to a salary of 24,000, for a family an annual salary of £34,000 - all for doing nothing!  No wonder people who earn less than this get frustrated and fed up.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Starlite said:


> why should us working parents pay for your pensions or heating allowance?


But once you start on this slippery slope of saying, "why should my money pay for this because if I don't personally need it I don't see why I should pay for it", where does it end? I would think that everyone can think of something they don't have or don't do that they are paying into the system for other to have/do - for example, I've never had kids but my taxes have gone towards paying you and every other parent (including very very very rich parents!) child allowance or whatver it is called these days. The idea is that everyone pays into the system to benefit those who need help -and those who need help could include me and you at some stage.

Marx had it right when he said "from each according to his ability; to each according to his needs". It's a pity self-centredness is taking over from that kind of sentiment.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

I dont think anyone begrudges the genuinely needy.....I certainly dont......but Im sick of taxes going to people who deliberately have children to up benefits and those that play the system to get as much from the tax payer without ever intending to put into the pot. As for the elderly and their payments to keep their homes warm....too bloody right....the frail and old should be cared for.

The benefits system needs sorting but NOT starting with the sick and disabled. I thought better of this Country than that......very disappointing.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

chichi said:


> I dont think anyone begrudges the genuinely needy.....I certainly dont......but Im sick of taxes going to people who deliberately have children to up benefits and those that play the system to get as much from the tax payer without ever intending to put into the pot. As for the elderly and their payments to keep their homes warm....too bloody right....the frail and old should be cared for.
> 
> The benefits system needs sorting but NOT starting with the sick and disabled. I thought better of this Country than that......very disappointing.


*But this thread was to show how anyone who get benefits will be affected.
And anyone that needs help should get it,not just us oldies.*


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> But once you start on this slippery slope of saying, "why should my money pay for this because if I don't personally need it I don't see why I should pay for it", where does it end? I would think that everyone can think of something they don't have or don't do that they are paying into the system for other to have/do - for example, I've never had kids but my taxes have gone towards paying you and every other parent (including very very very rich parents!) child allowance or whatver it is called these days. The idea is that everyone pays into the system to benefit those who need help -and those who need help could include me and you at some stage.
> 
> Marx had it right when he said "from each according to his ability; to each according to his needs". It's a pity self-centredness is taking over from that kind of sentiment.



*If only our government would keep this in mind,how different things would be.*


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Lavenderb said:


> Its just a way of putting more pressure on people. For a lot of people who are fighting to be found unfit for work and/or are having mental issues the extra complications in daily life will be unbearable.


They could save money by actually looking at their own records too. My sister got so sick of people coming out to assess her daughter to see what level of work she could do, the last time she just said ok fine pop through and ask her youself. Two very red faced officials (one actually was in tears) scuttled away pretty pronto - my niece is severely disabled both physically and mentally. She has been like this since birth, 28 now, but they still keep coming to check maybe the authorities know something we don't and she is miraculously going to change one day 

My niece has to have 24 hour care which is provided solely by my sister, can't have respite care anymore because all funding for transport was stopped. Social Services only suggestion is a taxi - she would have to be chaperoned meaning sis would have to make 4 journeys with her at £20 a throw. Top this with the fact my sister has to pop along for a benefit assessment every few months despite knowing she is a full time carer - means she has to get someone to look after my niece and pay £5 bus costs.

I honestly do not know how my sister keeps going I would go insane with all this hassle. If she just gave up it would cost the authorities literally hundreds of thousands each year to care for my niece, but she won't and never moans and is happy & cheery. Maybe thats why she gets no help just hassle



chichi said:


> So DLA is changing to PIP and talk of face to face interviews.....I expect ATOS have the contract for those......the sick and disabled (genuine ones) must feel like giving up!!! Not fair!


As above, being doing this face to face interviews for at least 4 years in my sisters case



JANICE199 said:


> *If they change the way housing benefits are paid they are asking for trouble.Why go backwards?*


suppose it must cost quite a lot having to deal with all the rental payments


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

DoodlesRule said:


> suppose it must cost quite a lot having to deal with all the rental payments


*Surely its going to cost a small fortune to make all these changes.*


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*I've just found this.*
"A new report warns that working families are increasingly depend on state benefits to avoid eviction from their homes due to an unaffordable housing market.
A failure to build enough new homes in recent years has pushed rents and house prices up, and led to an 86 per cent increase in housing benefit claims since 2009 by those in employment, according to a National Housing Federation (NHF) report.
The study said that 10,000 more working families now need housing benefit every month to help pay their rent, with 417,830 more workers claiming them over the last three years.

Number of working families on housing benefits doubles in three years - Telegraph


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> They could save money by actually looking at their own records too. My sister got so sick of people coming out to assess her daughter to see what level of work she could do, the last time she just said ok fine pop through and ask her youself. Two very red faced officials (one actually was in tears) scuttled away pretty pronto - my niece is severely disabled both physically and mentally. She has been like this since birth, 28 now, but they still keep coming to check maybe the authorities know something we don't and she is miraculously going to change one day
> 
> My niece has to have 24 hour care which is provided solely by my sister, can't have respite care anymore because all funding for transport was stopped. Social Services only suggestion is a taxi - she would have to be chaperoned meaning sis would have to make 4 journeys with her at £20 a throw. Top this with the fact my sister has to pop along for a benefit assessment every few months despite knowing she is a full time carer - means she has to get someone to look after my niece and pay £5 bus costs.
> 
> I honestly do not know how my sister keeps going I would go insane with all this hassle. If she just gave up it would cost the authorities literally hundreds of thousands each year to care for my niece, but she won't and never moans and is happy & cheery. Maybe thats why she gets no help just hassle


You see, it's when I read cases like this that I get so angry with cuts across the board. Yes, I understand there are benefit cheats and scroungers who work the system to their advantage, but the people who always seem to suffer are the very people the system is designed to support - people such as your sister and her daughter. Every time there are cuts, it's the genuinely needy, the honest, vulnerable people, who always seem to be worse off. Whatever the system, whatever the changes, those who cheat find a way around it and bleed the money away from the genuine cases, and people like your sister end up being the victims.

I don't know what the answer is - I wish I did - but surely there must be some way for governments to crack down on the cheats, the fraudsters, the ones who are just working the system, and divert the money back to the truly needy?


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *I've just found this.*
> "A new report warns that working families are increasingly depend on state benefits to avoid eviction from their homes due to an unaffordable housing market.
> A failure to build enough new homes in recent years has pushed rents and house prices up, and led to an 86 per cent increase in housing benefit claims since 2009 by those in employment, according to a National Housing Federation (NHF) report.
> The study said that 10,000 more working families now need housing benefit every month to help pay their rent, with 417,830 more workers claiming them over the last three years.
> ...


This always annoys the h#ll out me, no one who is working should have to claim benefits they should be paid a living wage after all the whole point of working to be self sufficient


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *I've just found this.*
> "A new report warns that working families are increasingly depend on state benefits to avoid eviction from their homes due to an unaffordable housing market.
> A failure to build enough new homes in recent years has pushed rents and house prices up, and led to an 86 per cent increase in housing benefit claims since 2009 by those in employment, according to a National Housing Federation (NHF) report.
> The study said that 10,000 more working families now need housing benefit every month to help pay their rent, with 417,830 more workers claiming them over the last three years.
> ...


This is the problem. The last two decades of no having affordable housing, the increase in buy to lets, the removal of secured tenancies and fair rents. We have a minimum wage that is no where near enough to support basic housing. The banks fuelled house prices by offering unrealistic mortgages and the cost of housing went through the roof which reflected in the private rental market.

I have two children, in their twenties, who live at home with me because they cannot afford even a rented property in London/SE. Both are university educated, one with a masters degree. The only way the young can get a house now is if they leave school, get pregnant and go to the top of the waiting list. If they stay in education and work hard trying to make a life for themselves they don't have a chance. Something is very wrong with the system and needs to be redressed.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *But this thread was to show how anyone who get benefits will be affected.
> And anyone that needs help should get it,not just us oldies.*


Yes I know but some posts sounded like they were not happy about the winter fuel payments.....which makes me sad. Our elderly should be cared for.....

I have no problem with people paying extra for bedrooms they dont need and any incentives given to stop kids having kids....ie....capping their benefit.....can only be a good thing imho.

I feel very strongly that the sick and disabled are now getting a raw deal.....I really hope that the Government review ATOS and the policies that are currently being adopted to determine whether a person is fit for work. This current system is enough to make the sick and disabled want to give up.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

New attempt to track down owners of Greater Manchester's empty homes | UK news | guardian.co.uk

*Perhaps all homes like these should be given to those that are need of a roof over their head.I'm sure their must be thousand more just standing empty.*


----------



## FREE SPIRIT (Jul 8, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> New attempt to track down owners of Greater Manchester's empty homes | UK news | guardian.co.uk
> 
> *Perhaps all homes like these should be given to those that are need of a roof over their head.I'm sure their must be thousand more just standing empty.*


*Another one.

» Statistics*


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *Another one.
> 
> » Statistics*


*Taken from your link.
*
"The latest (November 2011) empty homes statistics show that of these, 279,000 are long- term empty (meaning they have been empty for more than six months). These are the headline figures, and a detailed regional breakdown is now available by clicking below."
"We estimate that there are 930,000 empty homes across the UK, 350,000 of which are long term empty. However Empty Homes statistics are collected at different times and are not officially published in Wales and Northern Ireland (although we have obtained the information ourselves) . Our estimate is simply a sum of the most recent official statistics from each part of the UK.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *No it didn't start with the last government.It stated with the tories.*


Comments like this make me want to laugh.

Ok.. I get you like to hammer your point of view but lets face it, as I've said before in one of your other threads, basic household rules... Manage your finances, don't get into debt if you can help it even if means tightening your belt.

Guess what.. Labor didn't, they spent and spent despite the economic downturn. Then along come a new government who have to try to balance the books and you blame them for wanting to.

The UK is the 5th most expensive for the rich to live due to taxes in the world and they are the ones who can invest in the countries future. I've heard people complain it's simply an excuse.. would you move if most of your income went to the taxman? Remember we are not just talking about millionaires here, many simply ordinary people working hard to leave something for their dependents and children.. only they can't.. that will be taxed to at a high rate even when they die if they've saved well.

Fact is all politicians are in it for themselves doesn't matter what party. Accept that and you make some progress in changing the status quo. Do you really think Blair had the people at heart or did he simply have good spin doctors?

If you are going to campaign, campaign for the rights of the needy accepting that many who are on benefit actually are far better of than many who are working. Try to figure out ways to improve that and the need to get benefit to those who actually NEED it rather than simple rhetoric. It's as bad as a politician..


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> New attempt to track down owners of Greater Manchester's empty homes | UK news | guardian.co.uk
> 
> *Perhaps all homes like these should be given to those that are need of a roof over their head.I'm sure their must be thousand more just standing empty.*


There was a documentary last year about this 
The Great British Property Scandal - Features - How Many Empties - Channel 4
And a charity that have been actively involved since the early 90s
http://www.emptyhomes.com/

Part of the problem is that councils cannot afford the repairs, part of the problem is that they are often in places of high unemployment.

Still scandalous though.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Originally Posted by JANICE199
> No it didn't start with the last government.It stated with the tories.


True, but Labour had 13 years to do something about it. They did nothing because it was in their interest to keep the bubble going so giving the illusion of prosperity.

Oh, I forgot - Prescott did spend over £2billion on his disasterous Pathfinder Project which made many homeless in an effort to keep house prices up and the housing market buoyant!

http://www.moneyweek.com/investments/property/how-john-prescott-wasted-22bn


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Comments like this make me want to laugh.
> 
> Ok.. I get you like to hammer your point of view but lets face it, as I've said before in one of your other threads, basic household rules... Manage your finances, don't get into debt if you can help it even if means tightening your belt.
> 
> ...


Good post,I heard yesterday how Mr Brown sold off our Gold reserves at a give away price which would now be worth 200billion.People on benefit are rather like the TV programmes you see of the worst teenagers never showing those that are good,polite and honest,not all people on benefit are like those portrayed in the media, *** in one hand and can in the other which is what they want us to think,none of the low paid workers or those on benefit caused this but they are sure taking the brunt of it.


----------



## lily74 (Jan 13, 2012)

Don't get me started on politics

This government makes my blood boil, so far all they have done is hit the less fortunate and this is just another example. They have to make cuts I understand that, but at what price?

Yes the country is in debt and something needs to be done but this is not the way as it will push people further into poverty so crime will rise and there will be the need for more police officers but wait a minute are they not cutting back on these too?.

My husband and I are in a fortunate position to both have jobs and dont have to rely on benefits but I have been there when I needed it and dont judge people who need to claim.

Maybe if they stop wasting money on other things and start doing something about the rich tax dodgers instead of just blaming the poor all the time then it would be much fairer. We managed to find millions funnily enough for the olympics where did that come from????

I have never known a government to be so vendictive towards people in society that are less fortunate than others.

Dont get me wrong I dont like benefit cheats and people who can get job who just dont want to because of laziness and would spend it on drugs/alcohol etc but these are a minority most people claiming benefits do so because they need to.

If we dont like this government vote them out of the next election!


----------



## WeimyLady (Jan 3, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> This is the problem. The last two decades of no having affordable housing, the increase in buy to lets, the removal of secured tenancies and fair rents. We have a minimum wage that is no where near enough to support basic housing. The banks fuelled house prices by offering unrealistic mortgages and the cost of housing went through the roof which reflected in the private rental market.
> 
> I have two children, in their twenties, who live at home with me because they cannot afford even a rented property in London/SE. Both are university educated, one with a masters degree. The only way the young can get a house now is if they leave school, get pregnant and go to the top of the waiting list. If they stay in education and work hard trying to make a life for themselves they don't have a chance. Something is very wrong with the system and needs to be redressed.


Same story here. My eldest daughter is University educated with a good degree and has been working in some context since she was 15. Entry level jobs, which are spread thinly on the ground anyway, usually pay minimum wage. Many of these jobs are in London. Travelling from here to London on a daily basis would cost around £40 a day. By my reckoning someone earning minimum wage would be taking home roughly £50 a day? meaning my daughters take home pay would work out at £50 a week. Therefore she would be earning more claiming Job Seekers Allowance than she would be working full time on minimum wage. Something is very flawed in the system.

Renting as a single person on minimum wage would be impossible down here. You would be very lucky to rent a studio flat for £750 a month. That is out of reach for so many youngsters who are earning an absolute pittance. Thus we are stuck with a generation of young adult 20 somethings who are stuck at home. Friends of mine have their kids at home who are 25/26/27 years old.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Comments like this make me want to laugh.
> 
> Ok.. I get you like to hammer your point of view but lets face it, as I've said before in one of your other threads, basic household rules... Manage your finances, don't get into debt if you can help it even if means tightening your belt.
> 
> ...


*
Firstly, laugh away i don't mind one bit.Secondly,just because i like to have a half decent debate i don't see that as me hammering my point of view.
As for a campaign,where did you get that idea from?
Oh and if you go back to the Thatcher years? what good did the tories do then?
And before anyone says,she gave people like me the right to buy,she also robbed others of social housing by not using the money to replace the ones sold.
Are all politians in it for themselves,too right they are.But some just don't give a sh*t about the lower class.*


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

My Dad is 82 now but he worked from 14 years old until he was 65. Always in low paid manual work so definitely working class. Obviously over all those years he saw governments come and go but he says that without fail he was always worse off under a labour government, taxed more. Funny old world :wink:


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> Secondly,just because i like to have a half decent debate i don't see that as me hammering my point of view. As for a campaign,where did you get that idea from?


Multiple threads started saying the same thing... what else would you call it?



> Oh and if you go back to the Thatcher years? what good did the tories do then?


I know she instilled into some of that generation the idea that money doesn't grow on trees no matter how hard you wish it to. That where necessary you have to conserve money not simply spend and the fact that sometimes you do have to make hard choices. Will not even go into how she affected way in which the rest of the world viewed the UK. Now we are generally looked at simply as America's lapdogs.

What did labour do at the time... well supported Arthur Scargill for a start.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Multiple threads started saying the same thing... what else would you call it?
> 
> I know she instilled into some of that generation the idea that money doesn't grow on trees no matter how hard you wish it to. That where necessary you have to conserve money not simply spend and the fact that sometimes you do have to make hard choices. Will not even go into how she affected way in which the rest of the world viewed the UK. Now we are generally looked at simply as America's lapdogs.
> 
> What did labour do at the time... well supported Arthur Scargill for a start.


*2 threads,you could have said a couple.
As for Scargill.yep i lived through those years too.
Yes we had hadships,i'll not deny that.
BUT! and yes imo it is a big but! The working class stood together.
If nothing else,imho, both of my threads have shown that now the total opposite is the case.
I honestly don't give a hoot,who is in power.All i want to see,is the "people" standing together and saying no to a government that is robbing those with the least.

*


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

DoodlesRule said:


> My Dad is 82 now but he worked from 14 years old until he was 65. Always in low paid manual work so definitely working class. Obviously over all those years he saw governments come and go but he says that without fail he was always worse off under a labour government, taxed more. Funny old world :wink:


*Your dad then is just 20 years older than me.And its my opinion tories have been the worst.The country will never agree,but then imo. a lot depends on where you live in this country.*


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> 2 threads,you could have said a couple.


Let's deal with facts shall we...


uk-economy-growth-not-good
david-cameron-latest-cuts
bedroom-tax-where-will-robbing-poor-stop
2013-dismal-year-those-low-incomes.html

Not going to look at individual posts.



> The working class stood together.


Which would be great if done for the right reasons *taking note of the practicalities*. Somewhere along the line practical gets thrown out the window if it's not what people want to hear.

Grass is always greener on the other side. I don't know many people who vote a government in, normally it's a case of voting a government out. 

Truth is though that the labour government ran the books into the red. If you want people to rise up it needs a movement to get people to take pride in their community and in society. Too often it's a me, me, me society. That isn't something you can simply blame on one party as it's been growing through multiple party types in government. Two contributing factors are: people assume that they have the right to be looked after without contributing themselves, then there's the factor of money as an almost religion. Of course not everyone can "contribute" but most can and we are not necessarily talking about money.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

Cant agree the tories are the worst.....look at the god awful mess this Country is in.....labour let it go to pieces and now this bunch of noddies are robbing the sick to try to get a grip......wrong....wrong.....wrong. This Country has always been PC to the hilt....yet suddenly they are telling seriously sick people to get back to work....ignoring medical evidence.....thats a depth never sunk to before in UK social benefits.....to my knowledge.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Let's deal with facts shall we...
> 
> 
> uk-economy-growth-not-good
> ...


Am I missing the point here? If Janice wants to start a hundred threads on the same subject, surely that's her prerogative? I must have missed the part where you were appointed forum policeman in charge of thread subjects.



Goblin said:


> Truth is though that the labour government ran the books into the red.


That's not really the truth though, is it? The books have been in the red - if they ever were in the black to begin with - since Macmillan (a Tory for those of you who weren't born then/haven't studied hiostory at school) was in power in the late fifties/early sixties, Unfortunately, some of us are old enough to remember his slogan of "you've never had it so good" - yeah, we'd never had it so good because he borrowed money and spent it like water. Some of us will also be able to remember the resulting balance of payments deficit and the wage freezes in 1962 in order to try to redress the balance. It didn't work then, and successive goverments have merely made it worse.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

poohdog said:


> 'Take to the streets'
> 
> Haven't you noticed over the last few years how the cops are starting to look like those in Japan or Korea? All kitted out to deal with the plebs that dare to challenge the system.
> These neighbours of yours once in uniform will happily club you and yours and 'kettle' you into harmless groups if you have the temerity to protest on the streets.
> ...


Actually, if i was one of 500 cops facing 5000 rioters id stun, club, waterjet and tazer till not one was left able to kill me

just a personal view

or would you rather pull the cops out and let the country burn?


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

> Spellweaver said:-
> 
> That's not really the truth though, is it? The books have been in the red - if they ever were in the black to begin with - since Macmillan (a Tory for those of you who weren't born then/haven't studied hiostory at school) was in power in the late fifties/early sixties, Unfortunately, some of us are old enough to remember his slogan of "you've never had it so good" - yeah, we'd never had it *so good because he borrowed money and spent it like water*.


and when did Wilson devalue the £?

same thing really


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> Firstly, laugh away i don't mind one bit.Secondly,just because i like to have a half decent debate i don't see that as me hammering my point of view.
> As for a campaign,where did you get that idea from?
> *Oh and if you go back to the Thatcher years? what good did the tories do then?
> And before anyone says,she gave people like me the right to buy*,she also robbed others of social housing by not using the money to replace the ones sold.
> Are all politians in it for themselves,too right they are.But some just don't give a sh*t about the lower class.


Some might even say that the introduction of right to buy was just a backhanded way to cripple union power - if you cant pay council tax you recieve government aid - if you cant pay your mortgage you lose your home! So what right minded person would risk serious strike action at the cost of their home?!

I'm too young to remember such times, but this was a very feasible opinion I heard from my old union shop steward (Biased as a union man, but it makes sense does it not?)


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Colliebarmy said:


> and when did Wilson devalue the £?
> 
> same thing really


Erm - you seem to have missed the bit in the same post where I wrote "successive governments have merely made it worse since then". Wilson devaluing the pound would come under that


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

grumpy goby said:


> Some might even say that the introduction of right to buy was just a backhanded way to cripple union power - if you cant pay council tax you recieve government aid - if you cant pay your mortgage you lose your home! So what right minded person would risk serious strike action at the cost of their home?!
> 
> I'm too young to remember such times, but this was a very feasible opinion I heard from my old union shop steward (Biased as a union man, but it makes sense does it not?)


*I think the unions were already crippled by the time the " right to buy" came in.
I might be wrong though.*


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *I think the unions were already crippled by the time the " right to buy" came in.
> I might be wrong though.*


Possibly! It was just an opinion someone bestowed upon me once - Im ashamed enough to say I didnt research it further


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Am I missing the point here? If Janice wants to start a hundred threads on the same subject, surely that's her prerogative?


Yes it is her perogative, never said it wasn't. However by the same right you have no right to say I'm policing when I am state my opinion that I view multiple those multiple threads as a "campaign". Of course you need to read the conversation in context to realize that.



> That's not really the truth though, is it?
> ...
> It didn't work then, and successive goverments have merely made it worse.


You are probably right (no I didn't study that side of history) but the labour government had the policy of simply spending making things far worse than they may have otherwise been. People cannot blame the current administration for inheriting books which are so far in the red and wanting to actually reign it in. Something needs to be done so the future generations aren't saddled with an even larger problem let alone leave the UK vulnerable to creditors. What would happen if the UK couldn't get future credit or repayments get really out of hand?

I know you have the opinion that building social housing is one way out. I disagree as do some economists who don't believe you can spend your way out of this situation in a global marketplace. Some may agree with you.

However even if it would work, methods of reducing costs need to be found without hitting those who need it. I think we can all agree with that. Many of those who will cry loudest at cuts however are better off than those on low incomes while working to begin with. Sobering thought when the desire to work and the work ethic needs to be strengthened. A lot of people do want to work but cannot financially afford it. I always viewed it as one parent goes to work, the other is there, available for the kids. When I was growing up "latchdoor kids" were an exception. I get the impression it is not now. Nowadays, for probably the majority, both need to work. Often this is simply to get enough money to live at a level many of those on benefits are. Where is the justice in that and what does that do to family values for future generations? Get the benefits to those who need it but at the same time make the level of benefits for the average person lower than they can get for working not higher.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

I for one am glad to see a reform in the welfare system. 

This generation are being brought up to believe that the welfare state is the way to earn money. Getting a job is no longer a priority. 

I think people sit in their nice houses in their nice little villages and see this and think "poor people on benefits. No jobs, no prospects". But many do not want a job!

Walk round hackney or tower hamlets or Newham or any of the London boroughs. Go and walk round a housing estate. Look at the amount of single parents. The amount of mums with 3 + kids. Can't afford them but keep producing them anyway. 

I can't imagine it's much different in Manchester/Liverpool/Glasgow/ 

The reality is we have a HUGE problem and why the heck should I keep paying for them?

Personally I think the reforms need to be even harsher !


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

goodvic2 said:


> I for one am glad to see a reform in the welfare system.
> 
> This generation are being brought up to believe that the welfare state is the way to earn money. Getting a job is no longer a priority.
> 
> ...


*I think we all agree that there needs to be changes in the benefit system.But the point is,why is it that those that need the help the most are being tarred with benefit cheats?*


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *I think we all agree that there needs to be changes in the benefit system.But the point is,why is it that those that need the help the most are being tarred with benefit cheats?*


I've seen examples on here showing the resentment which can happen when working people are poorer than those on benefit. Wouldn't you be resentful in that situation? If someone can work and see people not "in need" being better off, than that is the person they associate with benefits. It's seems to be very common.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Goblin said:


> I've seen examples on here showing the resentment which can happen when working people are poorer than those on benefit. Wouldn't you be resentful in that situation? If someone can work and see people not "in need" being better off, than that is the person they associate with benefits. It's seems to be very common.


*With respect you are missing the main issue here.It has nothing to do with who has more than the next person,but has to do with those that have the least having even more taken from them.
*


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> With respect you are missing the main issue here.


No I'm answering your question that being


JANICE199 said:


> But the point is,why is it that those that need the help the most are being tarred with benefit cheats?


If you only see those who don't seem to need benefits or choose to be on benefit as a way of life wouldn't you be less likely to recognize the "occasional" people who do need help through no fault of their own. I know I would be more dismissive and it's not simply media hype although that certainly doesn't help.

Let me put in another way. What could be done to ensure money only goes to those who are actually in need and haven't deliberately placed themselves in that situation? How could a juggernaut of bureaucracy actually implement it in a cost effective manner? Hitting those questions is the key to any long term solution.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

DoodlesRule said:


> My Dad is 82 now but he worked from 14 years old until he was 65. Always in low paid manual work so definitely working class. Obviously over all those years he saw governments come and go but he says that without fail he was always worse off under a labour government, taxed more. Funny old world :wink:


Some seem unable to recognise the spend / rescue cycle this country continues to fall in and out of.

When Maggie Thatcher came to power, she had no choice but to sell "the family silver" to get this country out of the mire - surprisingly, labour continued this policy when they finally got into power, but were spending far more than they had.

Once again, we are a country "on the verge" and no family silver left to sell - and the pieces have to be picked up somewhere along the line.

People would do well to look back through history and ask why until Blair's reign, there has never been two consecutive labour victories.

I'm not saying for one minute I agree with some of the actions now being taken - and yes - our family have been hit like many others with the decisions being made and it is clear that some of them simply haven't been thought through for fairness.

However, when a new government comes into power - they also inherit rules and policies made by the former incumbants - many of which they have no option to maintain and implement - therefore, in reality - what happens in the first couple of years of a government change is predominantly fallout from the actions of the previous government.

All my family emanate from working class backgrounds and mining communities - but not a single one of them supports the concept of another labour government coming to power.

As for devolution - get me started on that - another layer of beauracracy and cost which could be spent far more effectively if funds were allocated where needed - another legacy from the previous government


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> You are probably right (no I didn't study that side of history) but the labour government had the policy of simply spending making things far worse than they may have otherwise been. People cannot blame the current administration for inheriting books which are so far in the red and wanting to actually reign it in. Something needs to be done so the future generations aren't saddled with an even larger problem let alone leave the UK vulnerable to creditors. What would happen if the UK couldn't get future credit or repayments get really out of hand?
> 
> I know you have the opinion that building social housing is one way out. I disagree as do some economists who don't believe you can spend your way out of this situation in a global marketplace. Some may agree with you.
> 
> However even if it would work, methods of reducing costs need to be found without hitting those who need it. I think we can all agree with that.


I don't think people are complaining because the current government needs to "reign it in". Rather, it's where they are reigning it in from. The vulnerable - the poor, the disabled, the low paid - surely these are not the members of society that should be footing the bill for the whole country? Surely their low incomes should not be cut even further when every day (almost) we hear on the news about this corporate tax fiddle, or that corporate tax fiddle. There are billions to be saved there - if you are of the school that thinks building social housing is not the way forward (despite the fact that it has worked in the past) - some of the billions saved could be used to put towards paying off the defecit; and some could be spent in policing the benefits system properly so that,instead of cutting benefits, the money actually goes to those who need it. I think that blindly saying that cuts have to be made across the board - which is what the politicians are saying and doing -is blatantly unfair. The benefit cheats and the people working the system continue to prosper whilst the needy are penalised.



Goblin said:


> Many of those who will cry loudest at cuts however are better off than those on low incomes while working to begin with. Sobering thought when the desire to work and the work ethic needs to be strengthened. A lot of people do want to work but cannot financially afford it.


I think the work ethic is a sign of the times. When I was growing up, and even when I first entered the employment market, there were jobs aplenty. The only people who did not work were the ones who did not want to work, and they were looked down upon; they were viewed as lesser members of society. But over the years, that ethic changed in relation to the rise in unemployment. Gradually, sadly, unemployment became normal; the stigma attached to it disappeared, until we have the state were are in today - ie no stigma attached to it at all.



Goblin said:


> I always viewed it as one parent goes to work, the other is there, available for the kids. When I was growing up "latchdoor kids" were an exception. I get the impression it is not now. Nowadays, for probably the majority, both need to work. Often this is simply to get enough money to live at a level many of those on benefits are. Where is the justice in that and what does that do to family values for future generations?


When I was growing up, in a mining village in South Yorkshire, it was the norm that both parents needed to work in order to put food on the table. My dad was a miner in the days before miners were earning decent wages. He regularly used to do "double shifts" - we sometimes didn't see him from one weekend to the next because we were in bed when he went to work and in bed when he came home. Even so, Mum had to go out to work - and not for luxuries such as holidays, but for the basics such as food and clothing. If you have kids, it's what you had to do - just as people are having to do it now. The difference now is that jobs are not so easy to come by.



Goblin said:


> Get the benefits to those who need it but at the same time make the level of benefits for the average person lower than they can get for working not higher.


Or make average earnings higher, instead of - in the case of government employees (but strangely enough, not MPs) - not giving a pay rise in order to keep in line with inflation (which is, in real terms, a pay cut.) Of course, higher wages stem from higher production, and how do we kick start the economy in order to increase prodcuction? Well, we start by spending some of the billions saved from tax evasion by building social housing .......... but I've already outlined that argument so I won't go into it again.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Sod it, im for joining the happy hippy gang

wish i still had my old campervan now


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> When I was growing up, in a mining village in South Yorkshire, it was the norm that both parents needed to work in order to put food on the table. My dad was a miner in the days before miners were earning decent wages. He regularly used to do "double shifts" - we sometimes didn't see him from one weekend to the next because we were in bed when he went to work and in bed when he came home. Even so, Mum had to go out to work - and not for luxuries such as holidays, but for the basics such as food and clothing. If you have kids, it's what you had to do - just as people are having to do it now. The difference now is that jobs are not so easy to come by.


tell me about it - my dad was a policeman, my mother a nurse - both during my childhood earning absolutely pitiful wages - things did get a little better in my teens, but when my sister was a baby - even something as simple as buying her an icecream wasn't an option - neither of my parents smoked or drank alcohol and I can probably count on one hand the number of times they ever went out socially.

The bulk of my childhood was spent with my parents sharing an early morning or late afternoon cup of tea as one came home from work and the other going out to work.

My beloved father is no longer with us - but I spent more christmases with both parents after I left home - because one or the other always worked.

I became a single mum when my daughter was three weeks old after leaving her partner - by 6 weeks, I had moved 200 miles away, secured a job and returned to work - I also worked up until 38 weeks pregnant because I had no option - there was absolutely no "gap fillers" such as family credit then - you either didn't work and got everything, or you worked and got nothing.

I'm proud to say, my daughter and her partner (who followed in their family footsteps by going nursing) - frequently go days without seeing each other apart from sharing a quick snack in the morning or evening - they don't have any children yet - but it fills me with great pride to see both of them have a fautless work ethic all too frequently not witnessed in today's young men and women

I don't dispute there will also be many young men and women who do have such a work ethic - but there are also many more stuck in family cycles of relying on state handouts and social housing where young girls are learning little or nothing in school and having babies far too young - continuing the cycle of relying on the state to support them and all too often children from one or more fathers 

Until someone is able to take up the gauntlet to break these cycles, sadly, very little is going to change.

There is also very clear evidence that those most in need of public support because of health issues are suffering greatly under the current regime, and that too is wrong - there are genuine people out there who cannot work - I myself have suffered some very nasty health problems - I still work at present - but it frightens the hell out of me that, unless someone comes up with a plan for surgical intervention, I too could end up the heap of those unable to work - I've paid into an income protection plan for over 20 years never believing I might need to call on it -

but despite this - the prospect of being unable to work frightens the hell out of me, possibly even more than the monetary hardship it could bring - I've worked since I was 13 and always anticipated I would be working into my 60s and beyond, as I just LOATHE not having a work focus in my life.


----------

