Should unemployment benefits be cut?

[espadrille]

Good question. Poverty would be my answer

 

But what I was saying is that my parents were certainly not rich but we didn't live in poverty.

[discodown]

But what I was saying is that my parents were certainly not rich but we didn't live in poverty.

Poverty is maybe too strong a word. Hardship might be a better one.

[Grandad.Malky]

but what would actually happen if they were stopped and were not replaced by something else.

 

People would think twice about having kids, na that’s far too sensible.

 

 

Ps

 

Yes I know there are “accidents” and peoples circumstances change .

[espadrille]

People would think twice about having kids, na that’s far too sensible.

 

 

Ps

 

Yes I know there are “accidents” and peoples circumstances change .

 

It is true though isnt it. If you knew that if you had a baby that only you were responsible for raising( and your partner of course) then would you not think twice about having a baby in the first place?

I thought long and hard about having a child. I was 28 and had a full time well paid job but still worried about what I would do if I lost that job and couldn't afford to bring up the child.Luckily my husband was also working so although many sacrifices have been made it wasn't too much of a problem, although I cant even imagine what it costs to bring up a child over its lifetime

[Grandad.Malky]

It is true though isnt it. If you knew that if you had a baby that only you were responsible for raising( and your partner of course) then would you not think twice about having a baby in the first place?

 

We have two boys and I remember at the time my wife would have loved a girl which left us wit a dilemma :-

 

1 Keep popping them out until we had a girl.

 

2 Consider our finances, size of our home etc

 

We chose option one, unfortunately too many people seem to go for option two.

[slimsid2000]

It would save a lot more to have a big reduction in staff in the DWP which is grossely overmanned. Realistically how many people does it take to pay benefit into claimants bank accounts once a fortnight.

 

Even if the numbers on benefit rise they still don't need anything like the current staffing leavels to pay out the benefits.

[Grandad.Malky]

Even if the numbers on benefit rise they still don't need anything like the current staffing leavels to pay out the benefits.

 

Perhaps they might get more done in white collar positions if they removed access to the internet speaking of which its time to go to work.

[espadrille]

It would save a lot more to have a big reduction in staff in the DWP which is grossely overmanned. Realistically how many people does it take to pay benefit into claimants bank accounts once a fortnight.

 

Even if the numbers on benefit rise they still don't need anything like the current staffing leavels to pay out the benefits.

 

Problem is though they do as they have so many forms to fill in!

[Gothic_Angel]

Yes it is. People on benefits may be able to obtain credit, or negotiate contracts to enable them to have nice things. To make such a sweeping assumption that people who aren't working are inherently fraudsters is a pathetic sideswipe, and almost certainly in most circumstances inaccurate.

No, it isn't, because that is not what I said. I said anybody who can live the champagne lifestyle that some assume they have on benefits would have to be getting money elsewhere. Not that everybody who claims is committing fraud! The only people I've known who had the best of everything whilst on benefits was doing something else to be able to get them. The ones who were claiming legitimately struggled to make ends meet.

 

Don't be silly. They're set at ridiculous rates which ensures that the lowest of earners or even those who aren't working can obtain these things via this method. To think otherwise is utterly naive.

Such places are not affordable. I had a look out of curiosity a few years ago when I needed a new fridge. Even without factoring in the intererest, the items they had for sale were far more expensive to buy outright than they were elsewhere. If somebody gets JSA they'd still have bills to pay out for which would be around £50 per week (unless they're all sitting in the dark and avoiding the rent man when he calls) which would leave about £12(ish?) for food and clothing. So where's the £15+ for brighthouse payments going to come from?

 

And how much stuff in the High Street pawnbrokers is 'first hand'? How many things are sold here, there and everywhere for peanuts, legitimately?

I don't go to pawnbrokers so I have no idea. But nobody sells the latest top of the range gear for peanuts. They sell older stuff because they've upgraded. Not saying it's not working/in good condition, but it's not top of the range, which some people seem to think claimants are all dripping in.

 

Shifting the goalposts now, eh? Yes, your view is astonishingly blinkered, as you have confirmed that you believe that any one who obtains anything nice who may be in receipt of benefits must be fiddling.

 

You said they must be; you confirmed your blinkered view.

 

I didn't need to move them as you've already relocated them elsewhere for me. On a different planet from the looks of it!

 

I didn't say they couldn't get anything nice without committing fraud. I said they couldn't afford the best/top of the range gear, like some people seem to think they do.

 

I stand by what I said. It is not possible to live a lavish lifestyle on benefits. Anybody who is claiming legitmately will struggle and have to make sacrifices.

 

You are reading what I say a different way, but that's not my fault.

[happyhippy]

No, it isn't, because that is not what I said. I said anybody who can live the champagne lifestyle that some assume they have on benefits would have to be getting money elsewhere. Not that everybody who claims is committing fraud! The only people I've known who had the best of everything whilst on benefits was doing something else to be able to get them. The ones who were claiming legitimately struggled to make ends meet.

 

Not at all. I don't know a single person who lives a 'champagne lifestyle' whilst on benefits in any case, but the point is that you are making a correlation which simply doesn't add up.

 

I've worked in this area for some time, so I can say that I have some experience of this.

 

Such places are not affordable. I had a look out of curiosity a few years ago when I needed a new fridge. Even without factoring in the intererest, the items they had for sale were far more expensive to buy outright than they were elsewhere. If somebody gets JSA they'd still have bills to pay out for which would be around £50 per week (unless they're all sitting in the dark and avoiding the rent man when he calls) which would leave about £12(ish?) for food and clothing. So where's the £15+ for brighthouse payments going to come from?

 

You utterly misunderstand the point of these places. They will most definitely cost a hell of a lot more in the long term. You would have to be incredibly stupid to think other wise.

 

When you can pay for these things over vast amounts of time for a few quid a week, they become affordable. Not affordable as in an investment, but affordable in that people can have them at exhorbitant rates of interest. As you well know.

 

I don't go to pawnbrokers so I have no idea. But nobody sells the latest top of the range gear for peanuts. They sell older stuff because they've upgraded. Not saying it's not working/in good condition, but it's not top of the range, which some people seem to think claimants are all dripping in.

 

So your point is what? On one hand they have the life of Riley, but now they can't get the top of the range stuff?

 

I didn't need to move them as you've already relocated them elsewhere for me. On a different planet from the looks of it!

 

I didn't say they couldn't get anything nice without committing fraud. I said they couldn't afford the best/top of the range gear, like some people seem to think they do.

 

That's rubbish as well you know. You were clearly insinuating that people must be committing fraud.

 

as seen here

 

And second hand, yes heard of that too. But second hand stuff isn't the state of the art stuff that some people who condemn people who claim benefit are all buying. Nothing wrong with second hand, love a bargain myself. But anything really good second hand would still be unaffordable to somebody claiming benefit legitimately. I certainly couldn't have afforded to shell out for plasma TV's/consoles etc when I claimed.

 

Not to mention this post

 

Oh they do exist. I've known quite a few of them. But the thing a lot of people don't seem to realise is that they're also earning in other ways; stealing, fiddling claims, working on the side, selling drugs etc etc. Genuine claimants can't afford top of the range stuff (unless they had it already and are just between jobs).

 

You are clearly making a definitive statement.

 

I stand by what I said. It is not possible to live a lavish lifestyle on benefits. Anybody who is claiming legitmately will struggle and have to make sacrifices.

 

You are reading what I say a different way, but that's not my fault.

 

Are you honestly trying to tell me that people who are unemployed who may well have a good credit rating notwithstanding, couldn't get a favourable contract for many things, or even *shock horror* have done it whilst still working?

 

Again, I speak from a position of long standing experience.