Better off on benefits?

[TJC1]

20 quid barely covers transport so Im not sure how. Even if you never went out you would be using gas,electric, water etc.

The study shows 14k as being minimum, i believe that.

[F. Sidebottom]

20 quid barely covers transport so Im not sure how. Even if you never went out you would be using gas,electric, water etc.

The study shows 14k as being minimum, i believe that.

 

£14k is £270 a week. Whilst this will be a low limit to many, there are many more who would easily live on a hell of a lot less.

 

The £20 was a random figure to point out that if you really want something (or to do something) you really can.

 

The point I was making overall is that people's minimum requirement isn't a clearly defined standard. To me it's about having a roof over your head, some clothes on your back, food on your plate. To others, usually claiming they don't have enough to live on, a minimum will be about fags, booze and some petrol in their motor.

[Allen]

You could live on £20 a week IF you really wanted to.

You are in cloud cookoo land mate!

20 quid wouldn't provide food, never mind a roof over ya head and all the bills to go with it.

[Rupert_Baehr]

One of the good things this unelected mickey mouse dictatorship is doing is altering the tax system so that no one earning less than 10 thousand a year will pay any tax at all.

 

Long overdue. Tax allowances have lagged behind cost of living for years.

 

Comes back to the min wage argument, Id increase it, because the min wage doesnt cover minimum basic loving costs (it was worked out at around 14k- minimum)..the fact some people are better off on benefits is a joke.

 

I agree with the comment on benefits, but if you increase the minimum wage, then some employers will not offer jobs. - They won't be able to afford to.

 

...The study shows 14k as being minimum, i believe that.

 

If 14k is the minimum an individual needs to live on and the job only pays, say, 10k, why doesn't the government 'top up' the pay from the job to 14k and scrap the other benefits?

 

Here's an explanation of the tax system in Beer terms:

 

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

 

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay £1.

The sixth would pay £3.

The seventh would pay £7.

The eighth would pay £12.

The ninth would pay £18.

And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

 

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

 

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

 

They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

 

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

 

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).

The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).

The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).

The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).

The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).

And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).

 

Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.

 

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

 

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.

 

The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

 

Attributed to: David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics. (but he denies it, according to ‘Snopes’)

[ronthenekred]

I'm 55 and have only ever claimed for 6 weeks. It was the most humiliating experience of my life. Never will that happen again, I'd top myself first, it just isn't a life.

[Mecky]

I was brought up to believe that hard work would bring you all that you needed in life and if you wanted more then you get an extra job or work longer hours to achieve it. And to this end I've worked constantly for the past 25 years and indeed sometimes had 2 jobs if I was "saving up" for something. However I'm getting increasingly disillusioned with this ethic and find that whilst it works for a single, childless person, its not always the case when kids arrive. For a start, its often hard or impossible to work longer hours or take an extra job if you have kids to look after and, even if its not impossible, you then lose quality time with your kids.

 

I've recently found myself in an ever increasing catch 22 situation - after a divorce I could only work part-time and I was lucky enough to find a job with hours that suited. At first, I only worked 21 hours per week and therefore got my full rent and council tax paid by housing benefit. After a couple of months, I got the chance to increase my hours to 25 per week - "great" an extra few quid a week will come in handy - only until I informed housing benefit and found that I'd just crossed a threshold and my rent would only be partly paid! So my 4 hours extra a week brought me no real gain. Around the same time I was advised to claim family tax credit which took weeks to sort out but then a letter arrived - £107 per week! Wayhay it was like a lottery win ...... until I informed housing benefit and no longer got anything towards my rent! So again, no real loss or gain. Then I committed the cardinal sin of meeting a new partner and (the biggest sin of all) marrying him! He is on long term sick and immediately lost his £90 per week because of my part time wage and then the inland revenue removed my single-person premium cutting my family tax credit as well!

 

So I'd love to work harder and earn more but it really isnt that simple. If I was to work more hours now I would only cut into the small amount of family tax credit I get so I'd be working more for no gain. Ditto if I took on an extra job in the evenings and I'd see less of my family as well. So my long held work ethic is fast diminishing. I've taken advice from the DHSS (or whatever they're called these days) and the amount I could claim for myself, my husband and my 2 kids would come to EXACTLY the same as my current wage + family tax credit. It would be a big step for me not to work because I always have and its all I know but I cant say I'm not tempted.

 

uh uh, There's the saying, "Life is what you make it." It's a crock, there is always someone trying to rip you off, steal your ideas and pass them off as their own, exploit you, hold you back, sticking their oar in and trying to make money out of you etc. The truth is, "Life is what other people let you make if it." If it was left to the individual we would all have everything we want. Some people are sneaky enough, dishonest and unpleasant enough to make it to the top but they can only do that by trampling on people.

[Halibut]

uh uh, There's the saying, "Life is what you make it." It's a crock, there is always someone trying to rip you off, steal your ideas and pass them off as their own, exploit you, hold you back, sticking their oar in and trying to make money out of you etc. The truth is, "Life is what other people let you make if it." If it was left to the individual we would all have everything we want. Some people are sneaky enough, dishonest and unpleasant enough to make it to the top but they can only do that by trampling on people.

 

That explains your cynical and paranoid worldview then...

[Ms Macbeth]

uh uh, There's the saying, "Life is what you make it." It's a crock, there is always someone trying to rip you off, steal your ideas and pass them off as their own, exploit you, hold you back, sticking their oar in and trying to make money out of you etc. The truth is, "Life is what other people let you make if it." If it was left to the individual we would all have everything we want. Some people are sneaky enough, dishonest and unpleasant enough to make it to the top but they can only do that by trampling on people.

 

Crikey, that's a really cynical view of the rest of society! For most of us life is what we make it. Often decisions we make (unthinkingly sometimes) can have an effect on how things turn out for us. And 'having everything we want' would remove our basic instinct to try and achieve more. Surely taking some responsibility is better than blaming others for our failures. And most of us who've lived any sort of life have made mistakes, and have experienced failures.

[Mecky]

Crikey, that's a really cynical view of the rest of society! For most of us life is what we make it. Often decisions we make (unthinkingly sometimes) can have an effect on how things turn out for us. And 'having everything we want' would remove our basic instinct to try and achieve more. Surely taking some responsibility is better than blaming others for our failures. And most of us who've lived any sort of life have made mistakes, and have experienced failures.

 

It's not cynical at all. Say if we were both going for the same job, I would do anything possible to get slected ahead of you. I would expect you to do the same.

[ronthenekred]

uh uh, There's the saying, "Life is what you make it." It's a crock, there is always someone trying to rip you off, steal your ideas and pass them off as their own, exploit you, hold you back, sticking their oar in and trying to make money out of you etc. The truth is, "Life is what other people let you make if it." If it was left to the individual we would all have everything we want. Some people are sneaky enough, dishonest and unpleasant enough to make it to the top but they can only do that by trampling on people.

 

It's not cynical at all. Say if we were both going for the same job, I would do anything possible to get slected ahead of you. I would expect you to do the same.

 

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Would you step on anyone to get there first?

 

Your reality seems your life is governed by what you allow others to take. You don't have to allow others to do that.