Chris_Sleeps Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 And food? and clothes? and TV License? Food doesn't need a great level of organisation. One eats when one is hungry. However I doubt these people are highly organised when it comes to stocking their cupboards. I don't know about how they buy clothes or TV licence - I can only assume. Maybe some cope, maybe some don't. I work in debt and some people just cannot manage their money - fundamentally. I'm not defending them, they reap what they sow, but there isn't an easy answer of just letting them suffer and throwing them out of their house. That just brings other problems. ---------- Post added 12-03-2013 at 16:27 ---------- It is relatively straight forward though for someone to set up a standing order to pay rent even if it means a visit to CAB. That's one solution. However it does suffer in that the money still has to be there to leave the account. Someone must set up the meter and sign for the credit agreement on metered services. I don't think there is credit on metered utilities. These meters are often used to pay back utility arrears, for people who couldn't cope paying their bill regularly - even with Direct Debits and Standing Orders involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted March 12, 2013 Author Share Posted March 12, 2013 So people in council houses aren’t as smart as people in private sector houses. Come one, that's pretty restrained for a Tory. He didn't call them low-lifes, or knuckle-draggers or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 I don't think giving people the money to manage themselves is a bad idea in itself. For a number of years people with learning difficulties and mental health problems are in reciept of what is called 'Self Directed Support'. You can read a little more about it here: http://www.sheffieldmentalhealth.org.uk/other-support/self-directed-support However I do know of a couple of instances where some people have chosen to use the money in a way I think is outside the spirit of the system. Somewhere in the wider Universal Credit system, there may have to be an element of 'paternalism', for people who quite frankly are feckless. These are not representative of people on benefits as a whole, but whose incompetance is used to lampoon people on benefits in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 The next step is to build huge complexes for those people incapable of managing their free money, a bit like army barracks in which everything is provided leaving them with no need for money. They're called 'workhouses'.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 They're called 'workhouses'.... No it isn't, it’s called free food and accommodation for those people that can’t manage on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Maybe some cope, maybe some don't. I work in debt and some people just cannot manage their money - fundamentally. I'm not defending them, they reap what they sow, but there isn't an easy answer of just letting them suffer and throwing them out of their house. That just brings other problems. However it does suffer in that the money still has to be there to leave the account. Some will not have a bank account. If they have, and the money isn't in it, they will then incur bank charges which will lead to more problems, (and knowing how often payments are delayed by the benefits department that will happen quite often.) They used to employ rent collectors to make sure people paid up on time, so this isn't a new problem, people who are short of money have always robbed Peter to pay Paul. ---------- Post added 12-03-2013 at 16:54 ---------- No it isn't, it’s called free food and accommodation for those people that can’t manage on their own. In that case they shouldn't have closed the assylums for 'care in the community' then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 In that case they shouldn't have closed the assylums for 'care in the community' then. What I’m suggesting is somewhere between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 The universal credit system was due to be tested in Sheffield tomorrow, I was one of the people who volunteered to do this. They rang me yesterday to say the test had been cancelled due to "technical problems" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Minister Steve Webb said: "We currently pay housing benefit directly to one million people in the private sector and that works pretty well. "We are trying to treat people in council houses the same way, but we want to get it right." So people in council houses aren’t as smart as people in private sector houses. It works pretty well? They don't have the evidence to say such a thing. What they mean is, 'it doesn't affect us so we don't care.' A perfect example happened to a friend of mine, a private Landlord. His tennant kept saying his benefits had been stopped due to a glitch and he was waiting for them to start again and he would get all his back money as a lump sum, when he would pay him the rent he owed. He told a good tale, was very respectable and convincing and my friend believed him. It was all b******s of course, and when he was discovered my friend threw him out, but never recovered his £300. The money had gone to some hard line moneylender apparently. He had no one to blame but himself so feels daft as well as broke. The point is this is not going to appear on any government statistics is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 It works pretty well? They don't have the evidence to say such a thing. What they mean is, 'it doesn't affect us so we don't care.' A perfect example happened to a friend of mine, a private Landlord. His tennant kept saying his benefits had been stopped due to a glitch and he was waiting for them to start again and he would get all his back money as a lump sum, when he would pay him the rent he owed. He told a good tale, was very respectable and convincing and my friend believed him. It was all b******s of course, and when he was discovered my friend threw him out, but never recovered his £300. The money had gone to some hard line moneylender apparently. He had no one to blame but himself so feels daft as well as broke. The point is this is not going to appear on any government statistics is it? So would you agree that it would be better not to give money to people on benefits and just pay the supplier directly for everything they need? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now